[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER
SERVICES TO THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
JULY 16, 2009
----------
Serial No. 111-43
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER
SERVICES TO THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50747 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chair
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio VACANCY
KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director
JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member
TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member
MOLLY O'ROURKE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 16, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee
on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives....... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Mr. David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 28
Dr. John L. ``Jack'' Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather
Services; Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 34
Mr. Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Biography.................................................... 39
Discussion
Involvement of Air Traffic Controllers in Reform............... 40
The Effects of Reducing the Number of Meteorologists........... 41
Safety and Potential Degradation of Service.................... 41
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. John L. ``Jack'' Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather
Services; Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 54
Mr. Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration.......... 56
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
#1: Interagency Agreement DTFAWA-08-X-80000 between the Federal
Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service for the
Provision of Meteorological Support to the Air Route Traffic
Control Centers (December 19, 2007)............................ 58
#2: FAA Order 7210.38A, Center Weather Service Units (April 6,
1984).......................................................... 70
#3: National Weather Service Instruction 10-803, Support to Air
Traffic Control Facilities (September 3, 2008)................. 104
#4: National Weather Service Instruction 10-814, Center Weather
Service Unit Site Review Program (November 10, 2008)........... 138
#5: Federal Aviation Administration Center Weather Service Unit
Requirements Document (December 2007).......................... 154
#6:Federal Aviation Administration Center Weather Service Unit
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (December 2007)............ 180
#7: Letter from Nancy Kalinowski (Vice President, System
Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, FAA) to Dr. John
Hayes (Assistant Administrator of Weather Services, NOAA)
(September 24, 2008)........................................... 202
#8: Letter from Dr. Hayes to Eugene Juba (Senior Vice President
for Financial Services, FAA) (June 3, 2009).................... 203
#9: Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) Technical/Price Response
for New CWSU Services (June 3, 2009)........................... 204
#10: CWSU cost proposal (June 3, 2009)........................... 239
#11: NOAA/NEWS Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) Quality
Assurance Surveillance Plan (June 3, 2009)..................... 264
#12: AVIATION WEATHER: FAA is Re-evaluating Services at Key
Centers; Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to
Better Ensure Product Quality, Government Accountability Office
(January 2008)................................................. 290
#13: Center Weather Service Units (CWSUs) Restructure Efforts,
FAA presentation slides (July 7, 2009)......................... 321
#14: Higgins, Will. ``Some Worried About Plan to Cut Airport
Meteorologists,'' Printout from FederalTimes.com (February 20,
2009).......................................................... 337
#15: KTVU-TV, ``FAA Plan Panned by Bay Area Air Traffic
Controllers,'' Printout from Foxreno.com (February 20, 2009)... 338
#16: Letter from Mark Rosenker, Chairman (Acting), National
Transportation Safety Board, to Chairman Miller (July 16, 2009) 339
#17: Site Reviews for the CWSUs at Indianapolis, Los Angeles,
Atlanta, Oakland, New York (Ronkonkoma), Salt Lake City,
Seattle, and Memphis........................................... 341
PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad
Miller [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Providing Aviation Weather
Services to the
Federal Aviation Administration
thursday, july 16, 2009
11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Witnesses
Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office
Dr. John L. (Jack) Hayes, Assistant Administrator for
National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Mr. Richard Day, Senior Vice President for
Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration
Introduction: Aviation Weather Service Consolidation
The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight meets on July 16,
2009 to examine the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s efforts to
reorganize the aviation weather services provided by the National
Weather Service (NWS). The Federal Aviation Administration has been
pushing the National Weather Service to reorganize its aviation weather
services by consolidating from the twenty-one regional centers, called
Central Service Weather Units (CWSUs), down to one national center. The
ostensible reasons for this request were a desire to reduce the costs
to FAA, which reimbursed NWS for their aviation services, and to
improve and make more consistent the weather products provided by NWS
forecasters. However, no proposal from NWS to consolidate services has
shown significant savings and the lack of metrics on the performance of
the CWSUs or the quality of services from CWSUs as perceived by FAA
makes it impossible to demonstrate reliably whether the proposed
alternative organization would provide better forecast services or
enhance air traffic management. Finally, any reorganization carries
real risks to air traffic flow and public safety. In light of these
risks, the lack of clear baseline metrics of the current systems'
performance and assurance that the proposed reorganization will offer
benefits in terms of safety, traffic management or costs, the decisions
to reorganize the current system and to consider only one option for
that reorganization are not well justified or supported.
The Current System for Providing Aviation Weather Services
The FAA and NWS have operated an aviation weather system in which
NWS forecasters are co-located with air traffic controllers at the
twenty-one Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) around the
country. Weather conditions have a significant impact on air transport.
Many flight delays and disruptions to air traffic flow are attributable
to unfavorable weather conditions and weather has been a factor in a
number of accidents. The current system evolved out of recommendations
from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that such regional
distribution of forecasters would enable them to work directly with air
traffic controllers to deal with severe or rapidly changing weather
conditions and emergencies. This distributed approach to services was
endorsed in a 1995 National Academy of Science report as well.
The ARTCCs handle planes as they traverse the country. Planes are
managed by airport traffic control towers for take-offs and landings
and then are passed to the Terminal Radar Approach Towers for the
Departure and Approach phases of a flight. Aircraft en route between
airports are managed by the ARTCCs. Each ARTCC has an NWS Center
Weather Service Unit (CWSU) housed in the same building with four
forecasters assigned to each of the 21 ARTCCs. The forecasters
typically provide services 16 hours a day, seven days a week--which is
the peak time for commercial and general aviation.
Aviation weather forecasts out of the CWSUs are not the sole source
of weather information for the national air space. Weather Forecasting
Offices (WFO) around the country provide continuous weather updates
twenty-four hours a day and support local airports. However, aviation
forecasting is a specialized application because of the specific needs
of aviation. Winds and weather at different altitudes can make an
enormous difference in aviation, but may be purely academic from the
perspective of forecasting whether the local community will get showers
or just clouds. Weather patterns vary enormously from region-to-region
and from season-to-season. Aviation weather forecasters develop very
specific local knowledge to help support the work of the air traffic
controllers and the aviation community. The large airlines typically
have their own weather service that they get under contract with
private providers. These private providers use NWS data, but run the
data through their own models designed to meet the specific needs of
the commercial carrier.
The Subcommittee has reviewed more than a dozen documented cases of
air traffic controllers seeking emergency help from weather service
forecasters to get a plane safely back on the ground. Frequently, those
stories do not involve severe weather, but simple common occurrences
such as a private aircraft losing instrumentation and finding itself
stranded above endless cloud cover. Forecasters who can find the break
in the clouds, work with the air traffic controller to get the heading
right and work to bring the plane to the ground before it runs out of
fuel make the difference between a safe return and potential tragedy.
The annual costs for running this distributed system are in the
range of $12 million. This covers both the technology acquired for the
CWSUs as well as the 84 weather forecasting positions assigned across
the network.
FAA Pushes to Change this System and the NWS Responds
In 2005, FAA asked NWS to propose a consolidation of weather
services down to one center with the goal of saving $2 million a year
in aviation weather forecasting costs. NWS provided a proposal that
would move the aviation weather forecasters back to local Weather
Forecast Offices and would meet the $2 million savings goal. FAA
rejected that proposal as well as a subsequent proposal that would have
brought some consolidation, but not down to one center. As of July
2009, NWS has now submitted their third proposal to the FAA. FAA
intends to respond to that proposal by early August.
The new NWS proposal would consolidate the CWSUs down to two
centers (this is similar to their last, rejected proposal)--one in
Kansas City to handle the Southern Tier of the U.S. and one in Silver
Spring, Maryland to handle the Northern Tier. Staffing would be reduced
from 84 forecasters to just 50 forecasters and managers split between
the two centers as well as the one remaining ARTCC in Anchorage,
Alaska. Coverage would be 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
FAA argues that consolidating to one center will provide a ``single
authoritative source'' for aviation weather forecasts and eliminate
variation in the quality of service and products that have been found
across the current, distributed system. In the mid-2000s, FAA argued
that some CWSUs were not as good as others and that the variation in
products from one center to the next led to confusion. NWS took these
criticisms to heart and has been working to improve and standardize the
services provided by CWSUs across the country. However, according to
the National Air Traffic Controllers Organization, air traffic
controllers at the ARTCCs--the men and women who rely on the CWSUs--are
very strong advocates for keeping the forecasters on site and available
to them to deal with emergencies. Their view is that consolidation
would negatively impact their ability to do their jobs of keeping the
national airspace safe.
FAA also argues that such a consolidation should produce savings.
However, the NWS proposal suggests that it will take a decade or more
to realize any savings. The annual costs reimbursed to the NWS by FAA
run on the order of $12 million. Under the new proposal, the annual
costs of a consolidated system will be in the $11 million range.
Transition costs for setting up two new centers, acquiring new
technologies, running a demonstration test, and relocating staff will
run $12 million. It would take a decade to earn back the costs of the
transition.
The NWS proposes to set up a center to run a side-by-side test of
the performance of a consolidated center for comparison with the
performance of the 21 regional centers. They would ask the National
Academy of Sciences to monitor and evaluate the outcome of the test.
However, there are problems with the proposed test and challenges in
designing any reliable test, especially within the time period
currently allotted. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) highlights
these challenges in their testimony.
Degraded Service and Safety Questions
One lost asset that would come from consolidation is the
specialized local knowledge that currently informs aviation weather
forecaster's work. The experts who currently work in the 21 regions
have developed very precise knowledge of how weather patterns tend to
emerge in each area. FAA hopes (as does NWS) that these experienced
forecasters will be willing to relocate to the new centers. However,
NWS admits that because of the turmoil and uncertainty surrounding the
future of the existing 21 centers, the centers have been having trouble
retaining staff in the last few years. Between projected retirements of
more than 20 percent of the workforce and the uncertain fate of the
CWSUs that has led many forecasters to seek other opportunities, the
amount of local knowledge in the centers has been declining. These
factors are making it more unlikely that the Kansas City and Silver
Spring centers will be able to attract experienced aviation weather
forecasters with a diverse mix of specialized, local information. One
might argue that the national airspace has been made less safe simply
because of the protracted efforts by FAA to force a consolidation of
the CWSUs on the NWS.
GAO finds that neither FAA nor the NWS have established meaningful
metrics for performance for the current 21 CWSUs. Further, GAO finds
that FAA requirements for the weather service are in flux and not fully
articulated. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to run any
meaningful test. If performance cannot be measured, one cannot
accurately judge whether a new organizational approach is better or
worse. Further, to staff up the center, NWS is proposing to take some
of the most senior people out of the 21 CWSUs. This would leave CWSUs
weaker and concentrate expertise in the consolidated center, leaving
doubts about the fairness of the test results, especially if many of
these senior staff are the same experienced people that the NWS
projects to retire if they down-size from 84 forecasters to 50 staff.
Finally, there is a valid question about whether 50 staff would be
sufficient to provide safe services. Each of the two centers will have
five senior forecasters and 13 forecasters. Each center will operate 24
hours a day seven days a week for a total of 21 shifts. Projecting a
morning and evening shift of six forecasters each and one forecaster on
the midnight shift, the two centers together would have 12 forecasters
for the entire lower-48 states on the morning shift as the national
airspace swings into full flight. That compares to at least 20
forecasters on duty on any given morning shift right now. It is hard to
see how the Nation's aviation system will be safer or how air traffic
will be improved by cutting the people in weather forecasting by 40
percent. On a day where you have brush fires over L.A., fog in San
Francisco, ash plumes over the Northwest, and thunder storms and
tornadoes developing from the east face of the Rockies to the Great
Lakes and the Gulf, that reduction in staffing could become a matter of
life and death.
To his credit, the head of the National Weather Service is adamant
that no change to the organization of the CWSUs will occur unless it
can be clearly demonstrated that safety is not degraded. Given the lack
of meaningful performance metrics, and the obvious decline in staffing
that comes with the consolidation proposal, it appears on its face that
this approach to aviation weather services will be impossible to
convincingly demonstrate as being as safe or responsive to the needs of
the Air Traffic Controllers and the aviation community. In light of the
inevitable risks of moving from a proven system to an unproven system,
the continued pressure from FAA for consolidation of NWS services is
difficult to fathom.
Chairman Miller. The hearing will now come to order. Good
morning. Welcome to today's hearing, Providing Aviation Weather
Services to the Federal Aviation Administration. This
subcommittee has frequently struggled with the peculiar
nonchalance of some government agencies in the face of the
obvious dysfunction of critical programs.
Today we struggle with the equally-peculiar determination
by the FAA to solve a problem that appears not to exist. To fix
what ain't broke or appears not to be broke. The current system
of delivering aviation weather products for air traffic
controllers appears to work pretty well.
For 30 years the National Weather Service, the NWS, has
provided support to the Federal Aviation Administration through
aviation weather forecast units that are located at each of the
21 regional air centers. There are 84 weather forecasters
spread among those 21 centers, offering 16 hours of service
each day at an annual cost of $12 million. The system appears
to be lean and well-suited to air traffic controllers' needs.
In 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a survey of air
traffic controllers at seven of the regional air traffic
centers under a contract with the FAA. Their conclusion was
apparently not what FAA wanted to hear. Booz Allen found that
air traffic controllers have a strong desire to have on-site
weather forecasters and considered the services of the
meteorologists highly valuable, and the air traffic controllers
expressed ``sensitivity''--that is the phrase of Booz Allen--to
any actions that might terminate or severely alter the delivery
method of those services.
This weather forecasting supports, by the FAA's own
calculations, a $1 trillion aviation industry. Currently the
FAA is spending approximately $1 billion a year on NextGen
development, so the $12 million for aviation weather
forecasting that FAA pays the NWS for seems like a bargain.
Now, still, FAA has pushed the National Weather Service to
consolidate their aviation weather service to a single center
since 2005. The FAA's determination to force the NWS to
reorganize does not appear supported by any particular evidence
of a significant problem with the current system that cannot be
addressed within the system, or any evidence that there is
substantial waste in the current system.
FAA's determination appears not supported by any evidence
that a consolidated system would provide better service or even
service as good as what the NWS now provides.
Again, air traffic controllers like the NWS system just
fine and don't want to change it. GAO concludes that the FAA
settled for a solution for reorganizing aviation weather
services before they could clearly articulate their own
requirements for those services and before they had given any
thought to how to measure existing performance. In other words,
FAA decided on a solution before they figured out if they had a
problem.
Only since the last GAO report of 2008 has the FAA and the
National Weather Service begun to develop performance metrics
for the aviation weather units. Now, for the first time, an
exercise is underway by FAA and NWS to baseline the performance
of existing units through these baselines--though these
baselines are built on impressionistic interviews rather than a
steady aggregation of hard performance numbers.
We all support performance-based decisions and a commitment
to continuing improvement, two slogans the FAA and other
government agencies frequently use, but the reality is that
performance-based decisions-making--performance-based decision-
making requires meaningful, rigorous performance metrics. The
FAA does not have those but has determined that a new
organizational structure is needed.
The FAA says that this consolidation will provide a solid
platform to transition to the NextGen Air Transportation
System, but we have--but they have not included NextGen's
weather planning office in the discussion, about the
requirements of the NWS, or in their evaluation of any of the
proposed reorganizations.
The Federal Aviation Administration has claimed that the
consolidation will save at least $2 million, but those savings
can only come through reducing the number of weather
forecasters who are dedicated to supporting the needs of
aviation.
Ultimately, the FAA has pushed for a plan to consolidate
aviation weather services that does not respond to a clearly-
articulated need or problem and would change a system that has
air traffic controllers' full support. A shift in how services
are delivered will cost money to test, and if adopted, will
create new risks that don't exist in the current system.
Perhaps that will result in a greater mass, critical mass of
expertise in one place, but the down-sizing of the staff will
leave each forecaster responsible for more air space and
deprive air traffic controllers of a forecaster to stand over
their shoulder in a weather crisis, a critical mass of
expertise that air traffic controllers care about a lot.
In preparing for this hearing the Subcommittee gathered
information from the FAA, the NWS, the National Transportation
Safety Board, the air traffic controllers' union,\1\ the
weather service employees' union,\2\ and the Government
Accountability Office. We also received the witnesses'
testimony in recent days. The point of the exercise of this new
structure is still hard to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Air Traffic Controllers Association
\2\ The National Weather Service Employees Organization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And with that I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Broun
from Georgia, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brad Miller
Good morning.
This subcommittee has frequently struggled with the peculiar
nonchalance of some government agencies in the face of that obvious
dysfunction of critical programs. Today we struggle with the equally
peculiar determination by the FAA to solve a problem that appears not
to exist, to fix what ain't broke.
The current system for delivering aviation weather products for air
traffic control appears to work pretty well. For thirty years, the
National Weather Service (NWS) has provided support to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) through aviation weather forecast units
that are located at each of the twenty-one regional air traffic
centers. There are 84 forecasters spread among those 21 centers
offering 16 hours of service each day at an annual cost of $12 million;
the system appears to be lean and well suited to air traffic
controllers' needs.
In 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a survey of air traffic
controllers at seven of the regional air traffic centers under a
contract with the FAA. Their conclusion was apparently not what FAA
probably wanted to hear. Booz Allen found the air traffic controllers
``have a strong desire to have on-site'' weather forecasters and that
they ``considered the services of the . . . meteorologists highly
valuable and expressed sensitivity to any actions that might terminate
or severely alter the delivery method of these services.''
This weather forecasting supports--by the FAA's own calculations--a
one trillion dollar aviation industry. Currently, the FAA is spending
approximately $1 billion a year on NextGen development, so the $12
million for aviation weather forecasting that the FAA pays the NWS
seems like a bargain.
Still, FAA has been pushing the NWS to consolidate their aviation
weather service to a single center since 2005. The FAA's determination
to force the NWS to reorganize does not appear supported by any
evidence of a significant problems with the current system that cannot
be addressed within that system, or any evidence that there is
substantial waste in the current system. FAA's determination appears
not supported by any evidence that a consolidated system would provide
better service, or even service as good as what the NWS now provides.
Again, air traffic controllers like the NWS' service just fine and
don't want to change it.
GAO concludes that the FAA settled on a solution for reorganizing
aviation weather services before they could clearly articulate their
own requirements for these services, and before they had given any
thought to how to measure existing performance--in other words, FAA
decided on a solution before they figured out if they had a problem.
Only since the last GAO report of 2008 has the FAA and the National
Weather Service begun to develop performance metrics for the aviation
weather units. Now, for the first time, an exercise is finally underway
by FAA and NWS to baseline the performance of the existing units-though
these ``baselines'' are built on impressionistic interviews rather than
a steady aggregation of hard performance numbers.
We all support performance-based decision-making and a commitment
to continuous improvement--two slogans that the FAA likes to intone--
but the reality is that performance-based decision-making requires
meaningful, rigorous performance metrics. The FAA doesn't have those,
but has already determined that a new organization structure is needed.
The FAA likes to claim that this consolidation will provide a solid
platform to transition to the NextGen air management system. However,
they have not included NextGen's weather planning office in the
discussion about requirements for the NWS or in the evaluation of any
of the proposed reorganizations.
The Federal Aviation Administration has claimed that consolidation
will save at least $2 million, but those savings can only come through
reducing the number of weather forecasters who are dedicated to
supporting the needs of aviation.
Ultimately, the FAA has pushed for a plan to consolidate aviation
weather services, that does not respond to a clearly articulated need
or problem, and would change a system that has air traffic controllers'
full support. A shift in how services are delivered will cost money to
test and, if adopted, will create new risks that don't exist in the
current system. Perhaps that will result in a greater ``mass'' of
expertise in one place, but the down-sizing of the staff will leave
each forecaster responsible for more air space, and deprives air
traffic controllers of a forecaster to stand over their shoulder in a
weather crisis.
In preparing for this hearing, the Subcommittee gathered
information from the FAA, the NWS, the National Transportation Safety
Board, the air traffic controllers union, the weather service employees
union and the Government Accountability Office. We also received the
witnesses' testimony in recent days. The point of the FAA's exercise is
hard to understand.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the
witnesses here today and thank them for participating in this
important hearing on the National Weather Service's aviation
weather forecasting proposal to the FAA.
As an instrument-rated pilot myself, I understand that
aviation weather forecasting is critically important. Aside
from the obvious and primary concern of safety, the FAA
estimates that weather-related delays have cost $41 billion in
the socioeconomic impact on the U.S. economy. In order to
ensure safety and mitigate these impacts, the Weather Service
provides aviation weather information on a reimbursable basis
to the FAA.
Since these organizations are tasked with providing
aviation weather information and ensuring air traffic safety,
coordination is imperative. Unfortunately, several reviews in
recent years have found opportunities where coordination could
be strengthened and services improved.
In an attempt to address these issues and decrease
operating costs, the FAA requested the Weather Service to
restructure its center, weather service units by consolidating
offices, provide remote services, reduce personnel costs, and
provide services 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
On June 3 the Weather Service issued its current plan after
having two previous proposals rejected by the FAA. The proposal
put forward in June by the Weather Service is far from perfect.
I think they will even admit this. They clearly have to work--
have work to do to establish performance baselines to ensure
that service will not be degraded. They have challenges
relating to infrastructure and technology. Questions remain
about how this will fit within the FAA's NextGen initiative, if
at all, and interagency collaboration remains a concern.
While it may seem that recent GAO reviews are critical of
the Weather Service's proposals, one has to realize that the
Weather Service is simply responding to the FAA's direction.
This coordination process between the two entities is unique
and perplexing. The FAA is acting as a customer for weather
service products and has provided the Weather Service with its
requirements. Because the FAA no longer considers private
vendors an option for fulfilling these requirements, the
Weather Service is in essence a sole source contractor for FAA;
a situation vendors usually relish as it puts them in an
advantageous negotiating position.
Instead, the Weather Service has put forth several
proposals only to have them rejected, most recently because of
cost. I hope the FAA realizes that new requirements are usually
accompanied by new costs.
Sure, technological advancements improve processes, can
achieve cost savings, but when a customer demands more from its
vendor, it should be willing to pay for it. Similarly, if a
customer wants to pay less for a product, they shouldn't be
surprised when they get less in return.
This may seem like trivial bureaucratic bickering, but it
has real world implications to both commerce and airline
passenger safety. I am happy to hear the coordination between
the two entities is strengthening and hope that the partnership
can find a solution that is amenable to both parties because
ultimately the customers are our constituents and the vendor is
the government.
As a pilot myself, I will do everything I can to make sure
this transaction goes smoothly and that the pilots and
passengers in the air have the information that they
desperately need to perform safe operations in their aviation
endeavors.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Paul C. Broun
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the witnesses here
today, and thank them for participating in this important hearing on
the National Weather Service's (NWS) aviation weather forecasting
proposal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
As an instrument rated pilot myself, I understand that aviation
weather forecasting is critically important. Aside from the obvious and
primary concern of safety, the FAA estimates that weather related
delays have a $41 billion socioeconomic impact on the U.S. economy. In
order to ensure safety and mitigate these impacts, the NWS provides
aviation weather information on a reimbursable basis to the FAA. Since
these organizations are tasked with providing aviation weather
information and ensuring air traffic safety, coordination is
imperative.
Unfortunately, several reviews in recent years have found
opportunities where coordination could be strengthened and services
improved. In an attempt to address these issues and decrease operating
costs, the FAA requested that the NWS restructure its center weather
service units by consolidating offices, provide remote services, reduce
personnel costs, and provide services 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. On June 3, the NWS issued its current plan after having two
previous proposal rejected by the FAA.
The proposal put forward in June by the NWS is far from perfect--I
think even they will admit this. They clearly have work to do to
establish performance baselines to ensure that service will not be
degraded; they have challenges relating to infrastructure and
technology; questions remain about how this will fit in with the FAA's
NextGen initiative--if at all; and interagency collaboration remains a
concern.
While it may seem that recent GAO reviews are critical of the NWS
proposals, one has to realize that the Weather Service is simply
responding to the FAA's direction. This coordination process between
the two entities is unique and perplexing. The FAA is acting as a
customer for NWS products and has provided NWS with its requirements.
Because the FAA no longer considers private vendors an option for
fulfilling these requirements, the NWS is in essence a sole-source
contractor for FAA--a situation vendors usually relish as it puts them
in an advantageous negotiating position. Instead, the NWS has put forth
several proposals, only to have them rejected--most recently because of
cost. I hope that the FAA realizes that new requirements are usually
accompanied by new costs. Sure, technological advancements and improved
processes can achieve cost savings, but when a customer demands more
from its vendor, it should be willing to pay for it. Similarly, if a
customer wants to pay less for a product, they shouldn't be surprised
when they get less in return.
This may seem like trivial bureaucratic bickering, but it has real
world implications to both commerce and airline passenger safety. I am
happy to hear that coordination between the two entities is
strengthening, and hope that the partnership can find a solution that
is amenable to both parties, because ultimately the customers are our
constituents, and the vendor is the government. As a pilot myself, I'll
do everything I can to make sure this transaction goes smoothly.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. Broun. I am not a pilot,
but I am a frequent passenger as are all Members of Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening
statements submitted by Members be included in the record, and
without objection is so ordered.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our first panel of
witnesses. First is Mr. David Powner, a fairly frequent witness
here for the Subcommittee. He is the Director of Information
Technology Management Issues at the Government Accountability
Office, the GAO. Dr. Jack Hayes is the Assistant Administrator
for National Weather Service at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. And Mr. Richard Day is the
Senior Vice President for Operations of the Air Traffic
Organization at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, the
FAA.
Each of our witnesses should know you will have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When you have
completed your spoken testimony, you will be given--you will
begin--we will begin with questions, and each Member will have
five minutes to question the panel.
It is the practice of the Subcommittee to receive testimony
under oath. Do any of you have any objection to taking an oath?
The record will reflect that none of the witnesses expressed an
objection.
You also have the right to be represented by counsel. Do
any of you have counsel here? The record will reflect that all
the witnesses indicated that they did not have counsel.
And will you now please stand and raise your right hand? Do
you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? The
record will reflect that all of the witnesses took the oath.
We will now begin with Mr. Powner of GAO. Mr. Powner,
please begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Powner. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, we
appreciate the opportunity to testify on our aviation weather
work.
The National Weather Service supports the Federal Aviation
Administration by providing aviation-related forecasts and
warnings at air traffic control and route centers across the
country. These forecasts and warnings include information on
thunderstorms, air turbulence, and icing. These services are
provided through an interagency agreement, and FAA reimburses
NWS approximately $12 million annually for them.
Last year I testified on the many issues with this
arrangement, which included NWS providing inconsistent weather
products across the 21 en route centers, FAA's inability to
clearly define requirements or what it needs, both agencies'
lack of performance measures to ensure quality of weather
observations, and multiple proposals to restructure that were
each rejected.
A brief history of these proposals is worth revisiting. In
2005, FAA requested that NWS restructure to a smaller number of
sites to reduce costs. In 2006, a proposal was submitted which
FAA rejected in 2007, because it did not reduce the number of
sites or costs. In December, 2007, FAA provided NWS with a new
set of requirements and requested a proposal for three
operational concepts. NWS provided this proposal in May, 2008,
but FAA rejected it because the costs were too high.
In September, 2008, NWS--FAA requested that NWS provide
another restructuring proposal by December, 2008, to go to two
sites. NWS submitted this proposal last month, six months later
than when it was due. The proposal reduces the weather units
from 20 to two locations, reduces NWS staff from 84 to 50, is
planned to take three years, will cost almost $13 million, and
is expected to reduce the annual cost by roughly $2 million per
year. FAA plans to respond to this proposal by August 3.
So four years into this we are now on our third major
restructuring proposal with no clear business case driving the
potential change. In addition, there are many challenges FAA
and NWS must address if they decide to move forward with the
latest proposal.
Before getting into these challenges I would like to
acknowledge that there has been some progress by NWS in
improving the consistency of their weather products and
defining and baselining certain performance measures, but much
work still remains here on both fronts.
Turning to the challenges. My written testimony lays out
several major challenges if the current weather aviation
structure is modified. I would like to highlight five of these.
First, interagency collaboration. These agencies have not
worked well together to resolve issues and to accomplish
meaningful change. Since 2005, FAA has rejected all proposals,
and we have had four years of very little action.
Second, solidifying requirements. FAA provided a
comprehensive set of requirements in January, 2008, and these
have not been updated despite the fact that modifications have
been discussed by the two agencies. It is extremely important
to formally update requirements given the historical working
relationship.
Third, aligning restructuring with the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. Neither agency has ensured that the
restructuring aligns with the NextGen national vision for
restructuring air traffic facilities.
Fourth, ensuring no degradation of service. In its proposal
NWS plans to demonstrate the new two-site operational concept
in a nine-month demonstration project. In addition, NWS has
proposed that an independent evaluation team of both government
and industry officials review this demonstration. While these
are logical steps, the performance measures to demonstrate no
degradation of service have not been defined, and as we have
stated prior, baseline metrics are limited. Ensuring no
degradation of service will be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, without having a clear set of performance metrics.
Fifth, technology transition. To restructure aviation
weather services, both agencies need to modify weather systems.
Moving forward NWS and FAA need to improve performance measures
and continue to baseline performance, improve interagency
collaboration by agreeing to a future concept of operations,
finalize and clearly document requirements for aviation weather
services, ensure that any restructuring is aligned with the
NextGen initiative, undertake a comprehensive demonstration
that measures success against baseline performance measures to
ensure that any restructuring does not result in degraded
service and does not jeopardize safety.
And finally, NWS and FAA need to effectively transition the
technologies to a new operational concept, if, in fact, this is
pursued.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Powner
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
the proposed changes to the aviation weather services provided at the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) en route centers. The National
Weather Service (NWS) plays a significant role in providing weather
services to the aviation community. NWS's weather products and data are
vital components of FAA's air traffic control system, providing weather
information to local, regional, and national air traffic management,
navigation, and surveillance systems. NWS aviation weather products
include forecasts and warnings of meteorological conditions that could
affect air traffic, including thunderstorms, air turbulence, and icing.
In addition to providing aviation weather products that are developed
at its own facilities, NWS also provides staff on-site at each of FAA's
en route centers--the facilities that control high-altitude flight
outside the airport tower and terminal areas. This group of NWS
meteorologists--called a center weather service unit--provides air
traffic staff with forecasts, advisories, and periodic weather
briefings on regional conditions.
Over the last few years, FAA and NWS have been exploring options
for enhancing the efficiency of the aviation weather services provided
at en route centers. In September 2005, FAA asked NWS to restructure
its services to be more efficient. Since then, NWS has developed and
submitted two proposals to FAA, both of which were rejected. NWS
subsequently submitted another proposal. As requested, this statement
summarizes our draft report that (1) determines the status and plans of
efforts to restructure the center weather service units, (2) evaluates
efforts to establish a baseline of the current performance provided by
the center weather service units so that FAA and NWS can ensure that
any operational changes do not degrade aviation weather services, and
(3) evaluates challenges to restructuring the center weather service
units.
In preparing our draft report and this testimony, we reviewed NWS's
proposals and transition plans for restructuring the service units and
FAA's response to NWS's proposals. We identified both agencies' efforts
to establish a baseline of current performance and compared these
efforts to government guidance and best practices of leading
organizations in performance management. To identify challenges, we
compared the agencies' plans with best practices of leading
organizations in system development, interagency collaboration, and
architecture planning. We also interviewed relevant agency officials.
All of our work for this report was performed in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. A more detailed description of the scope
and methodology of our draft report is provided in Attachment 1.
Background
FAA is responsible for ensuring safe, orderly, and efficient air
travel in the national airspace system. NWS supports FAA by providing
aviation-related forecasts and warnings at air traffic facilities
across the country. Among other support and services, NWS provides four
meteorologists at each of FAA's 21 en route centers to provide on-site
aviation weather services. This arrangement is defined and funded under
an interagency agreement.
FAA's Mission and Organizational Structure
FAA's primary mission is to ensure safe, orderly, and efficient air
travel in the national airspace system. FAA reported that, in 2007, air
traffic in the national airspace system exceeded 46 million flights and
776 million passengers. In addition, at any one time, as many as 7,000
aircraft--both civilian and military--could be aloft over the United
States. In 2004, FAA's Air Traffic Organization was formed to, among
other responsibilities, improve the provision of air traffic services.
More than 33,000 employees within FAA's Air Traffic Organization
support the operations that help move aircraft through the national
airspace system. The agency's ability to fulfill its mission depends on
the adequacy and reliability of its air traffic control systems, as
well as weather forecasts made available by NWS and automated systems.
These resources reside at, or axe associated with, several types of
facilities: air traffic control towers, terminal radar approach control
facilities, air route traffic control centers (en route centers), and
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center. The number and functions
of these facilities are as follows:
517 air traffic control towers manage and control the
airspace within about five miles of an airport. They control
departures and landings, as well as ground operations on
airport taxiways and runways.
170 terminal radar approach control facilities
provide air traffic control services for airspace within
approximately 40 miles of an airport and generally up to 10,000
feet above the airport, where en route centers' control begins.
Terminal controllers establish and maintain the sequence and
separation of aircraft.
21 en route centers control planes over the United
States--in transit and during approaches to some airports. Each
center handles a different region of airspace. En route centers
operate the computer suite that processes radar surveillance
and flight planning data, reformats it for presentation
purposes, and sends it to display equipment that is used by
controllers to track aircraft. The centers control the
switching of voice communications between aircraft and the
center, as well as between the center and other air traffic
control facilities. Three of these en route centers also
control air traffic over the oceans.
The Air Traffic Control System Command Center manages
the flow of air traffic within the United States. This facility
regulates air traffic when weather, equipment, runway closures,
or other conditions place stress on the national airspace
system. In these instances, traffic management specialists at
the command center take action to modify traffic demands in
order to keep traffic within system capacity.
See Figure 1 for a visual summary of the facilities that control
and manage air traffic over the United States.
NWS's Mission and Organizational Structure
The mission of NWS--an agency within the Department of Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)--is to provide
weather, water, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United
States, its territories, and its adjacent waters and oceans to protect
life and property and to enhance the national economy. In addition, NWS
is the official source of aviation- and marine-related weather
forecasts and warnings, as well as warnings about life-threatening
weather situations.
The coordinated activities of weather facilities throughout the
United States allow NWS to deliver a broad spectrum of climate,
weather, water, and space weather services in support of its mission.
These facilities include 122 weather forecast offices located across
the country that provide a wide variety of weather, water, and climate
services for their local county warning areas, including advisories,
warnings, and forecasts; nine national prediction centers\1\ that
provide nationwide computer modeling to all NWS field offices; and 21
center weather service units that are located at FAA en route centers
across the Nation and provide meteorological support to air traffic
controllers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These centers include the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction Central Operations, Aviation Weather Center, Environmental
Modeling Center, Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, Ocean
Prediction Center, Storm Prediction Center, Tropical Prediction Center/
National Hurricane Center, Climate Prediction Center, and Space
Environment Center.
NWS Provides Aviation Weather Services to FAA
As an official source of aviation weather forecasts and warnings,
several NWS facilities provide aviation weather products and services
to FAA and the aviation sector. These facilities include the Aviation
Weather Center, weather forecast offices located across the country,
and 21 center weather service units located at FAA en route centers
across the country.
Aviation Weather Center
The Aviation Weather Center located in Kansas City, Missouri,
issues warnings, forecasts, and analyses of hazardous weather for
aviation. Staffed by 65 personnel, the center develops warnings of
hazardous weather for aircraft in flight and forecasts of weather
conditions for the next two days that could affect both domestic and
international aviation. The center also produces a Collaborative
Convective Forecast Product, a graphical representation of convective
occurrence at two-, four- and six-hours. This is used by FAA to manage
aviation traffic flow across the country. The Aviation Weather Center's
key products are described in Table 1.
Weather Forecast Offices
NWS's 122 weather forecast offices issue terminal area forecasts
for approximately 625 locations every six hours or when conditions
change, consisting of the expected weather conditions significant to a
given airport or terminal area and are primarily used by commercial and
general aviation pilots.
Center Weather Service Units
NWS's center weather service units are located at each of FAA's 21
en route centers and operate 16 hours a day, seven days a week (see
Fig. 2). Each center weather service unit usually consists of three
meteorologists and a meteorologist-in-charge who provide strategic
advice and aviation weather forecasts to FAA traffic management
personnel. Governed by an interagency agreement, FAA currently
reimburses NWS approximately $12 million annually for this support.
Center Weather Service Units: An Overview of Systems and Operations
The meteorologists at the center weather service units use a
variety of systems to gather and analyze information compiled from NWS
and FAA weather sensors. Key systems used to compile weather
information include FAA's Weather and Radar Processor, FAA's Integrated
Terminal Weather System, FAA's Corridor Integrated Weather System, and
a remote display of NWS's Advanced Weather Interactive Processing
System. Meteorologists at several center weather service units also use
NWS's National Center Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System.
Table 2 provides a description of selected systems.
NWS meteorologists at the en route centers provide several products
and services to the FAA staff, including meteorological impact
statements, center weather advisories, periodic briefings, and on-
demand consultations. These products and services are described in
Table 3. In addition, center weather service unit meteorologists
receive and disseminate pilot reports, provide input every two hours to
the Aviation Weather Center's creation of the Collaborative Convective
Forecast Product, train FAA personnel on how to interpret weather
information, and provide weather briefings to nearby terminal radar
approach control facilities and air traffic control towers.
FAA Seeks to Improve Aviation Weather Services Provided at En Route
Centers
In recent years, FAA has undertaken multiple initiatives to assess
and improve the performance of the center weather service units.\2\
Studies conducted in 2003 and 2006 highlighted concerns with the lack
of standardization of products and services at NWS's center weather
service units. To address these concerns, the agency sponsored studies
that determined that weather data could be provided remotely using
current technologies, and that private sector vendors could provide
these services. In 2005, the agency requested that NWS restructure its
aviation weather services by consolidating its center weather service
units to a smaller number of sites, reducing personnel costs, and
providing products and services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. NWS
subsequently submitted a proposal for restructuring its services, but
FAA declined the proposal citing the need to refine its requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FAA is also involved in a longer-term initiative to increase
the efficiency of the national airspace system and to improve its
overall safety. This initiative, called the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, is a joint effort of the Department of
Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the
Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and Commerce. FAA
anticipates that this initiative may lead to major changes in the
aviation weather program that would supersede its current efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2007, FAA issued revised requirements and asked NWS to
respond with proposals defining the technical and cost implications of
three operational concepts. The three concepts involved (1) on-site
services provided within the existing configuration of offices located
at the 21 en route centers, (2) remote services provided by a reduced
number of regional facilities, and (3) remote services provided by a
single centralized facility. NWS responded with three proposals, but
FAA rejected these proposals in September 2008, noting that while
elements of each proposal had merit, the proposed costs were too high.
FAA requested that NWS revise its proposal to bring costs down while
stating a preference to move towards a single center weather service
unit with a back-up site.
As a separate initiative, NWS initiated an improvement program for
the center weather service units in April 2008. The goal of the program
was to improve the consistency of the units' products and services.
This program involved standardizing the technology, collaboration, and
training for all 21 center weather service units and conducting site
visits to evaluate each unit. NWS reported that it has completed its
efforts to standardize the service units and plans to complete its site
visits by September 2009. Table 4 provides a chronology of the
agencies' assessment and improvement efforts.
Prior GAO Report Identified Concerns With Center Weather Service Units;
Recommended Steps to Improve Quality Assurance
In January 2008, we reported on concerns about inconsistencies in
products and quality among Center Weather Service Units.\3\ We noted
that while both NWS and FAA have responsibilities for assuring and
controlling the quality of aviation weather observations, neither
agency monitored the accuracy and quality of the aviation weather
products provided at center weather service units. We recommended that
NWS and FAA develop performance measures and metrics for the products
and services to be provided by center weather service units, perform
annual evaluations of aviation weather services provided at en route
centers, and provide feedback to the center weather service units. The
Department of Commerce agreed with our recommendations, and the
Department of Transportation stated that FAA planned to revise its
requirements and that these would establish performance measure and
evaluation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Aviation Weather: FAA Is Reevaluating Services at Key
Centers; Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to Better
Ensure Product Quality, GAO-08-258 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2008).
Proposal to Consolidate Center Weather Service Units Is Under
Consideration
NWS and FAA are considering plans to restructure the way aviation
weather services are provided at en route centers. After a six-month
delay, NWS sent FAA its latest proposal for restructuring the center
weather service units in June 2009.\4\ NWS's proposal involves
consolidating 20 of the 21 existing center weather service units into
two locations, with one at the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City,
Missouri and the other at a new National Centers for Environmental
Prediction office planned for the DC metropolitan area of Maryland.\5\
The Missouri center is expected to handle the southern half of the
United States while the Maryland center is expected to handle the
northern half of the United States. NWS plans for the two new units to
be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and to function as backup
sites for each other. These new units would continue to use existing
forecasting systems and tools to develop products and services. See
Figure 3 for a visual summary of the proposed consolidated center
weather service unit facilities that control and manage air traffic
over the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NWS sought two extensions to the December 2008 deadline in
order to allow NWS and FAA a chance to address public misperceptions
and to brief the incoming administration and to arrange discussions
between the appropriate NWS and FAA executives.
\5\ NWS proposed that the center weather service unit located in
Anchorage, Alaska remain unchanged.
While these new units would continue to use existing forecasting
systems and tools to develop products and services, NWS has also
proposed new products, services, and tools. Two new products are the
collaborative weather impact product and the terminal radar approach
control forecast. The former is expected to expand the Aviation Weather
Center's existing Collaborative Convective Forecast Product to include
convection, turbulence, icing, wind, ceiling/visibility, and
precipitation type/intensity. The latter is expected to extract data
from the Collaborative Weather Impact Product and include
precipitation, winds, and convection for the terminal area; the display
will allow the forecaster to layer this information on air traffic
management information such as jet routes. In addition, NWS plans to
create a web portal to allow FAA and other users to access its
advisories, forecasts, products as well as national, regional, and
local weather briefings. To support on-demand briefings at the new
center weather service units, NWS plans to use collaboration tools,
such as instant messaging and online collaboration software.
Given the reduced number of locations in the revised organizational
structure, NWS also proposed reducing the number of personnel needed to
support its operations from 84 to 50 full time staff--a reduction of 34
positions. Specifically, the agency determined that it will require 20
staff members for each of the new center weather service units; four
staff members at the Alaska unit; five additional forecasters at the
Aviation Weather Center to help prepare the Collaborative Weather
Impact Product; and a quality assurance manager at NWS headquarters.
NWS anticipates the staff reductions will be achieved through scheduled
retirements, resignations, and reassignments. However, the agency has
identified the transition of its existing workforce to the new centers
as a high-impact risk because staff may decline to move to the new
locations.
NWS also proposed tentative time frames for transitioning to the
new organizational structure over a three-year period. During the first
year after FAA accepts the proposal, NWS plans to develop a transition
plan and conduct a nine-month demonstration of the concept in order to
ensure that the new structure will not degrade its services. Agency
officials estimated that initial operating capability would be achieved
by the end of the second year after FAA approval and full operating
capability by the end of the third year.
NWS estimated the transition costs for this proposal at
approximately $12.8 million, which includes approximately $3.3 million
for the demonstration. In addition, NWS estimated that the annual
recurring costs will be about 21 percent lower than current annual
costs. For example, using 2009 prices, NWS estimated that the new
structure would cost $9.7 million--about $2.6 million less than the
current $12.3 million cost. See Table 5 for the estimated costs for
transitioning the centers.
However, it is not clear when and if the agencies will move forward
with the proposal. While FAA plans to respond in early August 2009, the
agency could decide to reject the proposal or to modify its
requirements, thereby triggering another NWS proposal. One
consideration that may affect the proposal involves the current
interagency agreement. The most recent agreement between the two
agencies, signed in December 2007, is to expire at the end of September
2009. Before it expires, the two agencies could choose to exercise an
option to continue this agreement for another year, terminate the
agreement, or sign a new agreement. An FAA official reported that the
agency wanted to create a new agreement that includes key dates from
the proposal, such as those related to the concept demonstration. This
official added that such agreements typically take time to develop and
coordinate between the agencies.
NWS and FAA Are Working to Establish a Baseline of Current Performance,
But Are Not Assessing Key Measures
According to best practices in leading organizations, performance
should be measured in order to evaluate the success or failure of
programs.\6\ Performance measurement involves identifying performance
goals and measures, establishing performance baselines, identifying
targets for improving performance, and measuring progress against those
targets. Having a clear understanding of an organization's current
performance--a baseline--is essential to determining whether new
initiatives (like the proposed restructuring) result in improved or
degraded products and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Guide for Developing and Using Information Technology (IT)
Performance Measurements (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2001); General
Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy, Performance
Based Management Eight Steps To Develop and Use Information Technology
Performance Measures Effectively, (Washington, D.C.: 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, we reported that NWS and FAA lacked performance
measures and a baseline of current performance for the center weather
service units and recommended that they develop performance
measures.\7\ In response to this recommendation, FAA established five
performance standards for the center weather service units. FAA also
recommended that NWS identify additional performance measures in its
proposal for restructuring the center weather service units. While NWS
subsequently identified eight additional performance measures in its
proposal, FAA has not yet approved these measures. However, FAA has not
yet approved these measures. All 13 performance measures are listed in
Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO-08-258.
NWS officials reported that they have historical data for one of
the 13 performance measures--participation in the Collaborative
Connective Forecast Product--and are working to obtain a baseline for
three other performance measures.\8\ Specifically, in January 2009, NWS
and FAA began evaluating how the center weather service units are
performing and, as part of this initiative, are collecting data
associated with organizational service provision, format consistency,
and briefing service provision. As of June 2009, the agencies had
completed evaluations of 13 service units and plan to complete
evaluations for all 21 service units by September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The agencies are working to obtain a baseline of the 21 center
weather service units' performance in organizational service provision,
format consistency, and briefing service provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the agencies have not established a baseline of
performance for the nine other performance measures. NWS officials
reported that they are not collecting baseline information for a
variety of reasons, including that the measures have not yet been
approved by FAA, and that selected measures involve products that have
not yet been developed. A summary of the status of efforts to establish
baselines and reasons for not establishing baselines is provided in
Table 7.
While four of the potential measures are tied to new products or
services under the restructuring, the other five could be measured
using current products and services. For example, accuracy and customer
satisfaction axe measures that could be tracked for current operations.
NWS continually measures the accuracy of a range of weather products--
including hurricane and tornado forecasts. Customer satisfaction
measures could be determined by surveying the FAA managers who receive
the aviation weather products.
It is important to obtain an understanding of the current level of
performance in these measures before beginning any efforts to
restructure aviation weather services. Without an understanding of the
current level of performance, NWS and FAA will not be able to measure
the success or failure of any changes they make to the center weather
service unit operations. As a result, any changes to the current
structure could degrade aviation operations and safety--and the
agencies may not know it.
NWS and FAA Face Challenges in Efforts to Modify the Current Aviation
Weather Structure
NWS and FAA face challenges in their efforts to modify the current
aviation weather structure. These include challenges associated with
(1) interagency collaboration, (2) defining requirements, and (3)
aligning any changes with the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) )--along-term initiative to increase the efficiency of the
national airspace system. Specifically, the two agencies have had
difficulties in interagency collaboration and requirements development
leading to an inability to reach agreement on a way forward. In
addition, the restructuring proposals have not been aligned with the
national strategic vision for the future air transportation system.
Looking forward, if a proposal is accepted, the agencies could face
three additional challenges in implementing the proposal, including (1)
developing a feasible schedule that includes adequate time for
stakeholder involvement, (2) undertaking a comprehensive demonstration
to ensure no services are degraded, and (3) effectively reconfiguring
the infrastructure and technologies to the new structure. Unless and
until these challenges are addressed, the proposed restructuring of
aviation weather services at en route centers has a reduced chance of
success.
Interagency Collaboration
To date, FAA and NWS have encountered challenges in interagency
collaboration. We have previously reported on key practices that can
help enhance and sustain interagency collaboration.\9\ The practices
generally consist of two or more agencies defining a common outcome,
establishing joint strategies to achieve the outcome, agreeing upon
agency roles and responsibilities, establishing compatible policies and
procedures to operate across agency boundaries, and developing
mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of
collaborative efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While NWS and FAA have established policies and procedures for
operating across agencies through an interagency agreement and have
initiated efforts to establish a baseline of performance for selected
measures through their ongoing site evaluations, the agencies have not
defined a common outcome, established joint strategies to achieve the
outcome, or agreed upon agency responsibilities. Instead, the agencies
have demonstrated an inability to work together to resolve issues and
to accomplish meaningful change. Specifically, since 2005, FAA has
requested that NWS restructure its aviation weather services three
times, and then rejected NWS's proposals twice. Further, after
requesting extensions twice, NWS provided its proposal to FAA in June
2009. As a result, it is now almost four years since FAA first
initiated efforts to improve NWS aviation weather services, and the
agencies have not yet agreed on what needs to be changed and how it
will be changed. Table 8 lists key events.
Until the agencies agree on a common outcome, establish joint
strategies to achieve the outcome, and agree on respective agency
responsibilities, they are unlikely to move forward in efforts to
restructure weather services. Without sound interagency collaboration,
both FAA and NWS will continue to spend time and resources proposing
and rejecting options rather than implementing solutions.
Defining Requirements
The two agencies' difficulties in determining how to proceed with
their restructuring plans are due in part to a lack of stability in
FAA's requirements for center weather service units. According to the
best practices of leading organizations, requirements describe the
functionality needed to meet user needs and perform as intended in the
operational environment.\10\ A disciplined process for developing and
managing requirements can help reduce the risks associated with
developing or acquiring a system or product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute,
Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development, Version 1.2
(Pittsburgh, PA: August 2006). Capability Maturity Model and
Capability Maturity Modeling are registered in the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. CMM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA released its revised requirements in December 2007 and NWS
subsequently provided proposals to meet these requirements. However,
FAA rejected all three of NWS's proposals in September 2008 on the
basis that the costs of the proposals were too high, even though cost
was not specified in FAA's requirements. NWS's latest proposal is based
on FAA's December 2007 requirements as well as detailed discussions
held between the two agencies in October 2008. However, FAA has not
revised its requirement to reflect the guidance it provided to NWS in
those discussions, including reported guidance on handling the Alaska
center and moving to the two-center approach. Without formal
requirements developed prior to the development of the new products and
services, FAA runs the risk of procuring products and services that do
not fully meet their users' needs or perform as intended. In addition,
NWS risks continued investments in trying to create a product for FAA
without clear information on what the agency wants.
Alignment with the Next Generation Air Transportation System
Neither FAA nor NWS have ensured that the restructuring of the
center weather service units fits with the national vision for a Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)--a long-term initiative
to transition FAA from the current radar-based system to an aircraft-
centered, satellite-based system. Our prior work on enterprise
architectures shows that connecting strategic planning with program and
system solutions can increase the chances that an organization's
operational and IT environments will be configured to optimize mission
performance.\11\ Our experience with federal agencies has shown that
investing in IT without defining these investments in the context of a
larger, strategic vision often results in systems that are duplicative,
not well integrated, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and
interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to
Establishing and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational
Transformation, GAO-06-831 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Planning and Development Office\12\ is responsible for
planning and coordinating NextGen. As part of this program, the Joint
Planning and Development Office envisions restructuring air traffic
facilities, including en route centers, across the country as well as a
transitioning to new technologies. However, NWS and FAA efforts to
restructure the center weather service units have not been aligned with
the Joint Planning and Development Office's vision for transforming air
traffic control under the NextGen program. Specifically, the Chair of
NextGen's weather group stated that Joint Planning and Development
Office officials have not evaluated NWS and FAA's plans for
restructuring the center weather service units, nor have they been
asked to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Joint Planning and Development Office has multiple federal
partners, including FAA; the Departments of Transportation, Commerce,
Defense, and Homeland Security; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; and the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other groups within FAA are responsible for aligning the agency's
enterprise architecture with the NextGen vision through annual roadmaps
that define near-term initiatives.\13\ However, recent roadmaps for
aviation weather do not include any discussion of plans to restructure
the center weather service units or the potential impact that such a
change could have on aviation weather systems. Additionally, in its
proposal, NWS stated that it followed FAA's guidance to avoid tightly
linking the transition schedule to NextGen's expected Initial Operating
Capability in 2013, but recommended doing so since the specific role of
the center weather service units in NextGen operations is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These groups include the NextGen and Operations Planning
Service Unit's Aviation Weather Office, Systems Engineering Office, and
NextGen Integration and Implementation Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the agencies ensure that changes to the center weather
service units fit within the strategic-level and implementation plans
for NextGen, any changes to the current structure could result in
wasted efforts and resources.
Schedule Development
Looking forward, if a proposal is accepted, both agencies could
also face challenges in developing a feasible schedule that includes
adequate time for stakeholder involvement. NWS estimated a three-year
transition timeframe from current operations to the two-center
approach. FAA officials commented that they would like to have the two-
center approach in place by 2012. However, NWS may have difficulty in
meeting the transition timeframes because activities that need to be
conducted serially are planned concurrently within the three-year
schedule. For example, NWS may need to negotiate with its union before
implementing changes that affect working conditions--such as moving
operations from an en route center to a remote location.\14\ NWS
officials acknowledge the risk that these negotiations can be prolonged
and sometimes take years to complete. If the proposal is accepted, it
will be important for NWS to identify activities that must be conducted
before others in order to build a feasible schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NWS's agreement with its union includes the need to negotiate
on the impact and implementation of any changes affecting working
conditions before those changes can be implemented. As such, any effort
to realign the center weather service units will involve negotiations
between union employees and NWS management.
Demonstrating No Degradation of Service
If a proposal is accepted, both agencies could face challenges in
demonstrating that existing services will not be degraded during the
restructuring. In its proposal, NWS identified preliminary plans to
demonstrate the new operational concept before implementing it in order
to ensure that there is no degradation of service. Key steps included
establishing a detailed demonstration plan, conducting risk mitigation
activities, and implementing a demonstration that is to last at least
nine months. NWS also proposed that the demonstration will include an
independent evaluation by a team of government and industry both before
the demonstration, to determine if the demonstration is adequate to
validate the new concept of operations, and after, to determine the
success of the demonstration. In addition, throughout the nine-month
demonstration, NWS plans to have the independent team periodically
provide feedback, recommendations, and corrective actions.
However, as noted earlier, NWS has not yet defined all of the
performance measures it will use to determine whether the prototype is
successful. In its proposal, NWS stated that the agencies will begin to
document performance metrics and develop and refine evaluation criteria
during the demonstration. If NWS waits to define evaluation criteria
during the evaluation, it may not have baseline metrics needed to
compare to the demonstration results. Without baseline metrics, NWS may
be unable to determine whether the demonstration has degraded service
or not.
Technology Transition
Both agencies could face challenges in effectively transitioning
the infrastructure and technologies to the new consolidated structure,
if a proposal is accepted. In its proposal, NWS planned to move its
operations from 20 en route centers to two sites within three years.
However, to do so, the agencies will need to modify their aviation
weather systems and develop a communications infrastructure.
Specifically, NWS and FAA will need to modify or acquire systems to
allow both current and new products for an expanded view of the
country. Additionally, NWS will need to develop continuous two-way
communications in lieu of having staff on-site at each en route center.
NWS has recognized the infrastructure as a challenge, and plans to
mitigate the risk through continuous dialogue with FAA. However, if
interagency collaboration does not improve, attempting to coordinate
the systems and technology of two agencies may prove difficult and
further delay the schedule.
Implementation of Draft Recommendations Should Improve Interagency
Approach to Aviation Weather
In our draft report, we are making recommendations to the
Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation to improve the aviation
weather products and services provided at FAA's en route centers.
Specifically, we are recommending that the Secretaries direct the NWS
and FAA administrators, respectively, to improve their ability to
measure improvements in the center weather service units by
establishing and approving a set of performance measures for the Center
Weather Service Units, and by immediately identifying the current level
of performance for the five potential measures that could be identified
under current operations (forecast accuracy, customer satisfaction,
service delivery conformity, timeliness of on-demand services, and
training completion) so that there will be a baseline from which to
measure the impact of any proposed operational changes.
In addition, we are recommending that the Secretaries direct the
NWS and FAA administrators to address specific challenges by
improving interagency collaboration by defining a
common outcome, establishing joint strategies to achieve the
outcome, and agreeing upon each agency's responsibilities;
establishing and finalizing requirements for aviation
weather services at en route centers;
ensuring that any proposed organizational changes are
aligned with NextGen initiatives by seeking a review by the
Joint Program Development Office responsible for developing the
NextGen vision; and
before moving forward with any proposed operational
changes, address implementation challenges by developing a
feasible schedule that includes adequate time for stakeholder
involvement; undertaking a comprehensive demonstration to
ensure no services are degraded; and effectively transitioning
the infrastructure and technologies to the new consolidated
structure.
In summary, for several years, FAA and NWS have explored ways to
improve the operations of the center weather service units by
consolidating operations and providing remote services. Meanwhile, the
two agencies have to make a decision on the interagency agreement,
which will expire at the end of September 2009. If FAA and NWS are to
create a new interagency agreement that incorporates key dates within
the proposal, decisions on the proposal will have to be made quickly.
An important component of any effort to improve operations is a
solid understanding of current performance. However, FAA and NWS are
not working to identify the current level of performance in five
measures that are applicable to current operations. Until the agencies
have an understanding of the current level of performance, they will
not be able to measure the success or failure of any changes to the
center weather service unit operations. As a result, any changes to the
current structure could degrade aviation operations and safety--and the
agencies may not know it.
If the agencies move forward with plans to restructure aviation
weather services, they face significant challenges including a poor
record of interagency collaboration, undocumented requirements, and a
lack of assurance that this plan fits in the broader vision of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System. Moreover, efforts to implement
the restructuring will require a feasible schedule, a comprehensive
demonstration, and a solid plan for technology transition. Until these
challenges are addressed, the proposed restructuring of aviation
weather services at en route centers has little chance of success.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may
have at this time.
GAO Staff Acknowledgments
Key contributors to this testimony include Colleen Phillips,
Assistant Director; Gerard Aflague; Kate Agatone; Neil Doherty; Rebecca
Eyler; and Jessica Waselkow.
Attachment 1
Scope, and Methodology
For the draft report on which this testimony is based, we
determined the status of NWS's plans for restructuring the center
weather service units by reviewing the existing interagency agreement,
FAA's proposed requirements, and NWS's draft and final proposals for
addressing FAA's requirements. We analyzed NWS's draft transition
schedules, cost proposals, and evaluation plans. We also interviewed
NWS and FAA officials to obtain clarifications on these plans.
To evaluate the agencies' efforts to establish a baseline of the
current performance provided by center weather service units, we
reviewed documentation including FAA's performance standards, the
current interagency agreement, NWS's restructuring proposals and
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, and the agencies' plans for
evaluating the centers. We compared the agencies' plans for creating a
baseline of current performance with best practices for performance
management by the Department of the Navy and General Services
Administration.\15\ We also interviewed NWS and FAA officials involved
in establishing a baseline of current performance provided by center
weather service units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Guide for Developing and Using Information Technology (IT)
Performance Measurements (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2001); General
Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy, Performance-
Based Management Eight Steps To Develop and Use Information Technology
Performance Measures Effectively, (Washington, D.C.: 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate challenges to restructuring the center weather service
units, we reviewed agency documentation, including FAA's requirements
document and NWS's proposals to restructure the center weather service
units. We also reviewed planning documents for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. We compared these documents with best practices
for system development and requirements management from the Capability
Maturity Model Integration for Development; and with GAO's best
practices in interagency collaboration and architecture planning.\16\
In addition, we interviewed NWS, FAA, and Joint Planning and
Development Office officials regarding challenges to restructuring the
center weather service units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute,
Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development, Version 1.2
(Pittsburgh, PA: August 2006); 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,
Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing and
Leveraging Architectures for Organizational Transformation, GAO-06-831
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We performed our work at FAA and NWS headquarters offices, and
FAA's Air Traffic Control System Command Center in the Washington,
D.C., metropolitan area. We conducted this performance audit from
August 2008 to July 2009, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Biography for David A. Powner
Experience
Twenty years' experience in information technology issues in both
public and private sectors.
Education
Business Administration, University of Denver
Senior Executive Fellows Program, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy
School of Government
Director, IT Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Dave is currently responsible for a large segment of GAO's
information technology (IT) work, including systems development, IT
investment management, health IT, and cyber critical infrastructure
protection reviews.
In the private sector, Dave has held several executive-level
positions in the telecommunications industry, including overseeing IT
and financial internal audits, and software development associated with
digital subscriber lines (DSL).
At GAO, Dave has led teams reviewing major IT modernization efforts
at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, the National Weather Service,
the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service.
These reviews covered many information technology areas including
software development maturity, information security, and enterprise
architecture.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Powner.
Dr. Hayes for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. ``JACK'' HAYES, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES; DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WEATHER
SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Broun and other
Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on the
National Weather Service provision of aviation weather
information to the FAA. I am Jack Hayes, the Assistant
Administrator for Weather Services and the Director of the
National Weather Service. The National Weather Service is a
line office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
The Weather Service plays a critical role in providing
weather information to the FAA in support of their mission for
safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace System.
We provide warnings, forecasts, meteorological advice, and
consultation throughout all phases of flight, including pre-
flight planning and operations. These services come from many
National Weather Service offices, including our weather
forecast offices, the Alaskan Aviation Weather Unit, the
Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers, the Aviation Weather Center, and
Center Weather Service Units, CWSUs for short.
We are committed to providing quality aviation weather
services. Let me focus on CWSUs. Meteorologists at our CWSUs
provide weather advisories, forecasts, and advice to air
traffic management. The CWSUs are located at each of the 21 FAA
air route traffic control centers. CWSUs operate 16 hours per
day, typically between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time,
seven days a week when air traffic is at its peak.
Since the last hearing in 2008, FAA and the National
Weather Service have worked to refine service requirements. The
Weather Service delivered a revised response to FAA in June of
this year. Our response provides--proposes, rather, to provide
CWSU support from two centers in the lower 48 states. As part
of our approach, we plan to conduct a demonstration validation
or dem/val, to objectively test and validate the viability of
this solution.
A critical component of our response, and prerequisite
before any decision is made to change the operational structure
of CWSU support, is to demonstrate the capability of meeting
FAA requirements from two centers with no degradation of
aviation weather services and no impact to safety. If the
demonstration is successful, consolidation of 20 CWSUs in the
lower 48 states into two centers is proposed. Each center would
serve as an operational backup for the other.
New weather products and services, including the provision
of 24 by seven or 24 hours a day, seven days a week, weather
support services will be introduced to meet FAA requirements in
support of the National Air Space System. We will work
collaboratively with the FAA to plan, conduct, and evaluate the
dem/val to ensure that the proposed structure does not degrade
aviation weather services.
The National Academy of Sciences has agreed to provide
unbiased expertise to oversee and evaluate the results of the
dem/val. The FAA has stated that face-to-face services and
briefings are no longer required. We believe new technology can
be leveraged to allow remote service and improved consistency.
Our response provides for remote briefing services to FAA
Terminal Radar Approach Control and control tower personnel,
which are currently not co-located with our CWSUs but have
routine interactions with our forecasters.
The consolidated CWSU structure would reduce the staff from
84 to 50. I am committed to ensuring that any affected CWSU
employee who wants a job with the National Weather Service will
have one. We have reviewed our staffing model and are confident
we can absorb the 34 positions through normal attrition.
Our 42-month schedule for transition to a consolidated CWSU
structure, including a planning phase, a nine-month period for
dem/val, followed by transition to the new structure. We have
been working with the FAA to define future CWSU services. In
addition, over the past 18 months we have been working to
improve the consistency and quality of existing CWSU aviation
weather services.
Our joint CWSU site evaluations and ongoing discussion with
the FAA are helping us to establish and refine baseline
performance measures by this fall. These measures will provide
the basis for evaluating and continuing to improve our
services.
NOAA recognizes the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, or NextGen, will result in a system-wide air traffic
management transformation. This transformation will affect how
we collect, manage, and disseminate weather-related information
and how the FAA makes weather-related decisions. We also
recognize the need for close coordination with the federal
weather community to meet NextGen weather support needs.
NOAA is working with the Joint Planning and Development
Office to fully integrate NOAA's weather information and
service improvements into the NextGen development. This will
enable us to meet requirements for the transformation and
ensure NOAA's contributions are compatible with NextGen
decision support, dissemination, display systems, including
inter-operability of any revised CWSU support structure.
Last week we received the GAO's draft report, ``Review of
Aviation Restructuring.'' We are reviewing the draft report and
developing our action plan. Moreover, we believe our June,
2009, response to the FAA for CWSU services addresses some of
the key recommendations in the draft report, including a dem/
val overseen by the National Academy of Sciences to ensure
involvement of stakeholders in an unbiased evaluation.
Also highlighted in our response to the FAA is the
importance of aligning organizational changes with NextGen
initiatives. We agree with the need to establish baseline
performance measures as stated by the GAO, and we are working
to--now collecting data on four of the five standards
originally developed by the FAA and the National Weather
Service to establish that baseline.
We will continue to work together to review assessment and
measure methods for the fifth proposed standard (forecast
accuracy). These performance metrics are critical data points
to evaluate the dem/val.
The National Weather Service reaffirms its commitment to
providing critical weather support that assists the FAA in
managing the National Air Space System. The National Air Space
System must remain safe, efficient, and cost-effective for the
people of this country.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of John L. ``Jack'' Hayes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the National Weather Service's provision of
aviation weather information to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). I am Jack Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
and the Director of the National Weather Service (NWS). The Weather
Service is a line office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), within the Department of Commerce (DOC).
Background
The NWS has an extensive infrastructure supporting the development
of its products and services. The NWS issues more than a trillion
forecasts, and 10,000 warnings annually for protection of life and
property and enhancement of the national economy. Every day we process
1.7 billion surface and upper air observations from across the country
and around the globe. These data are assimilated into complex computer
models providing the backbone of weather information for all--
government and private weather forecasters both nationally and
internationally. The aviation industry uses this vast array of weather
information for flight planning and safety.
The NWS has a long history of providing weather support for
aviation dating back to 1914. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat.
568), added specific responsibility for providing weather services to
civil aviation. Today, NWS aviation services are focused on meeting the
needs of the Nation in coordination with our partner, FAA. In 1994,
Public Law 103-272 (49 U.S.C. 44720(a) ) directed the Secretary of
Commerce to provide weather support for aviation and to give complete
consideration to the recommendations of the FAA Administrator in doing
so:
``The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall make recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce on
providing meteorological services necessary for the safe and
efficient movement of aircraft in air commerce. In providing
the services, the Secretary shall cooperate with the
Administrator and give complete consideration to those
recommendations.''
Today, forecasters across the Nation comprise the aviation weather
forecast team, including meteorologists at 122 local Weather Forecast
Offices, 21 Center Weather Service Units (CWSUs), the Alaska Aviation
Weather Unit in Anchorage, Alaska; and the Aviation Weather Center in
Kansas City, Missouri.
The Aviation Weather Center operates 24 hours a day, seven days per
week, to provide aviation warnings and forecasts of hazardous flight
conditions at all levels within domestic and international air space
including turbulence, icing, and convection forecasts. The
Collaborative Convective Forecast Product, a graphical representation
of expected convective occurrence at two-, four-, and six-hours, is
produced by the Aviation Weather Center after collaboration with
Meteorological Service of Canada, CWSUs, and meteorological offices of
airlines and service providers.
On the local scale, the Weather Forecast Offices provide terminal
area forecasts for approximately 625 locations every six hours, with
additional updates as conditions change. These forecasts consist of the
expected weather at a given airport or terminal area and are used
primarily by commercial and general aviation pilots. The Alaska
Aviation Weather Unit provides specialized products for the unique
general aviation community and severe weather conditions in Alaska, and
also includes the Anchorage Volcanic Ash Advisory Center, one of nine
such advisory centers worldwide.
Center Weather Service Unit Support to the FAA
My testimony today will focus on services provided in support of
the FAA by forecasters at our 21 CWSUs. CWSUs were established in 1978
in response to National Transportation Safety Board recommendation A-
77-68 resulting from a serious weather-related accident over New Hope,
Georgia, which caused numerous fatalities. This recommendation called
for the FAA to, ``Formulate rules and procedures for the timely
dissemination by air traffic controllers of all available severe
weather information to inbound and outbound flights in the terminal
areas.'' Based on this recommendation, FAA, with the assistance of NWS,
formed the CWSUs.
NWS forecasters at CWSUs provide weather advisories and forecasts
to the FAA, and advise and consult with air traffic controllers, which
helps to maintain a safe and efficient national airspace. The CWSUs are
located at each of the 21 FAA Air Route Traffic Control Centers
(ARTCC). CWSU meteorologists provide weather advisories valid for two
hours or less describing areas of hazardous weather in progress or
forecast to develop; forecasts for up to 12 hours describing areas of
weather that may impact air traffic operations; twice daily face-to-
face briefings; and on-demand consultations to ARTCC traffic managers.
CWSU meteorologists also provide remote briefings telephonically, as
needed, to FAA Terminal Radar Approach Control and control tower
personnel, and they train controllers on the interpretation of weather
information.
Under an interagency agreement, the FAA provides basic equipment,
communications, space, and supplies for the CWSUs, and currently
reimburses the NWS about $12 million per year. Based on local
requirements, CWSUs operate 16 hours per day, typically between 5:00
a.m. and 9:30 p.m. local time, seven days a week, when air traffic is
at its peak. If weather conditions pose a threat to an ARTCC's area of
responsibility, our CWSU forecasters may work additional hours to
support the ARTCCs.
Recent History of NWS and FAA Interactions to Improve CWSU Services
In 2005, the FAA provided NWS with feedback that service
improvements from CWSUs were needed. In 2006, NWS proposed changes to
CWSU services, which were not accepted by the FAA. The FAA determined
the requirements for CWSU services were not well defined and needed to
be solidified before any changes to CWSU services were made.
In January 2008, FAA provided a requirements document to the NWS
for CWSU services. The requirements included an increase in coverage to
24 hours a day service seven days per week, improved product and
service consistency, and a national situational awareness for weather.
The FAA requested the NWS provide service solutions for three CWSU
business models: a single site model; a regional model (more than one
CWSU, but less than the current 21); and a model reflecting the current
structure of 21 CWSUs. The NWS submitted its initial response to FAA in
May 2008.
In September 2008, FAA determined that although there were positive
elements in each of the three business models, none of models were
acceptable and all were too costly. In their responding letter to NWS,
FAA stated they did not require direct, face-to-face contact at each of
their ARTCCs and they would support an approach utilizing two CWSUs.
FAA agreed to work with NWS to further refine the CWSU requirements,
with a final response from the NWS expected by the end of 2008. In
October 2008, FAA and NWS worked together to revise the CWSU
requirements to reflect the FAA's request to reduce costs and
consolidate 20 CWSUs in the lower 48 states into two centers, leaving
the Alaska CWSU as it is. The NWS prepared an updated response by
December 2008, but did not provide it to FAA until June 2009 which
allowed for review and consideration by the new Administration.
Overview of the NWS Response to the FAA for CWSU Services
The NWS's revised response proposes to meet FAA requirements by
developing the capability to provide CWSU support from two centers in
the lower 48 states. The response calls for development and
demonstration test of a prototype. As a point of emphasis, a critical
component of our response, and a prerequisite before any decision is
made to change the operational structure of NWS CWSU support, is to
demonstrate the capability of meeting FAA requirements from two centers
with no degradation of aviation weather services and, at a minimum, no
impact to safety. If the demonstration is successful, the response
plans for a consolidation of 20 CWSUs in the lower 48 states into two
centers: one in Kansas City, Missouri, co-located with the Aviation
Weather Center; and the other co-located at the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction in the Washington, D.C. area Each of these
centers would serve as an operational backup for the other, should
those services be necessary. The response also introduces a suite of
new national forecast guidance products to emphasize consistency across
the National Airspace System to meet the revised FAA requirements. We
and the FAA believe this will enhance aviation safety.
We will work collaboratively with the FAA to plan, run, and
evaluate a prototype, referred to as a demonstration/validation, to
ensure the proposed structure for aviation services does not degrade
aviation weather services. The Board on Atmospheric Sciences and
Climate (BASC) of the National Academy of Sciences has agreed to
oversee and evaluate the results of the demonstration/validation. The
NWS believes this outside, unbiased group of experts is critical for
determining the feasibility and prudence of moving to any revised CWSU
structure while ensuring no degradation of service.
The FAA has stated face-to-face services and briefings from NWS
forecasters at the ARTCCs are no longer required. The NWS believes new
technology can be leveraged to allow remote service and improve
consistency. Our response also provides for remote briefing services to
FAA Terminal Radar Approach Control and control tower personnel, which
are currently not co-located with CWSUs but have routine interactions
with NWS forecasters. However, a rigorous demonstration of any new
technology, products, and services must be conducted and independently
evaluated before we modify our current structure. We will not proceed
with any change that would jeopardize safety.
The consolidated CWSU structure would reduce NWS staff from 84 to
50. Any affected NWS CWSU employee who wishes to continue to work for
the NWS will have the option of doing so. We have reviewed our staffing
model and are confident we can absorb the 34 positions through normal
attrition.
Our 42-month schedule for transition to a consolidated CWSU
structure includes a planning phase, a nine-month period for the
demonstration/validation, followed by transition to the new structure
provided the demonstration/validation demonstrates no degradation of
aviation weather services and aviation safety is enhanced. During the
nine-month demonstration/validation period, current weather support
will remain unchanged.
Ongoing Improvements to CWSU Services
While working with FAA to define future CWSU services, over the
past 18 months we have been working to improve the consistency and
quality of existing CWSU aviation weather services. Improvements to our
aviation weather services include improved weather information with new
graphic capabilities, a more concentrated focus on National Airspace
System weather impacts, and improved consistency between forecasts
across multiple ARTCCs. We also are improving our customer service by
increasing CWSU meteorologists' understanding of air traffic flow
management and FAA operations, initiating proactive communication to
controllers, towers, and others in air traffic management, and
improving access and usefulness of CWSUs Internet presence. We have
implemented a methodology to measure weather impact on air traffic
across 35 major airports, customized forecast criteria to specific
airports to meet specific ARTCC needs, and are conducting CWSU site
reviews. These site visits are conducted jointly by NWS and FAA
management. Thirteen site reviews are complete and eight more will be
done by September 2009. Taken together, we believe these are
significant steps that have already improved weather services to our
ARTCC partners.
Weather Information in the Next Generation Air Transportation System
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is intended
to meet projected 2025 U.S. air transportation needs--significant
growth in air traffic is projected. Given that weather is a factor in
70 percent of air traffic delays, NOAA is actively involved in NextGen
through its participation on the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) Board and in providing leadership for the JPDO Weather Working
Group.
NOAA recognizes the NextGen will result in a system-wide air
traffic management transformation that will affect the manner by which
weather-related information is collected, managed, disseminated, and
used in decision-making. The robust integration of weather data
envisioned by the FAA will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
airspace use and airport throughput, and is expected to reduce the
impacts to our nation's travelers and businesses when weather is a
factor. To that end, NOAA is working with FAA to fully integrate NOAA's
weather information and services improvements into NextGen development
to meet requirements for the transformation and ensure NOAA's
contributions are compatible with NextGen decision support,
dissemination, and display systems. The NWS response to restructure
CWSU support provides key links to NextGen and will ensure inter-
operability of any revised CWSU support structure during the NextGen
era. NWS planners will work closely with the FAA during any CWSU
restructure to ensure a linkage into the NextGen program.
The vision of NextGen requires NOAA to develop a four dimensional
grid of environmental data (referred to as the ``4D Weather Cube'')
with fine scale forecasts of wind, temperature, cloud heights,
visibility and thunderstorms. There are scientific challenges we must
address to meet this vision. For example, we are developing the
capability to forecast the development of a thunderstorm within airport
airspace 30 minutes before it starts. Thunderstorms are a significant
cause of air traffic delays. By forecasting the beginning of
thunderstorms, we can provide greater advance notice, and air traffic
managers can change aircraft routes and headings before the threat
appears, which will mitigate the impact through the system, resulting
in less impact to passengers and businesses. Forecasting the beginning
of thunderstorms is a difficult scientific challenge, requiring greater
sensing of the atmosphere through satellites, radars, and other
methods, as well as higher resolution forecast models. NOAA is focused
on meeting the scientific challenges associated with developing earlier
thunderstorm forecasts, as well as improving forecasts for cloud
heights and visibility, two other weather-related threats that impact
aviation operations.
Another key component of the 4D Weather Cube will be probabilistic
information that will help FAA decision-makers make more informed,
risk-based decisions when appropriate. The probabilistic 4D Weather
Cube will support both tactical decision-making (radar, one- to six-
hour thunderstorm forecasts, observations, emergency support) and
strategic decision-making (six to 30-hour forecasts of key parameters
including icing, turbulence, convection, and winter weather ground
support forecasts). The vision of the 4D Weather Cube is to support
aircraft specific, runway specific, trajectory specific information as
early as possible in the planning phase. The NWS vision is to issue
``Warnings-on-Forecast'' in four dimensions when probabilities of
certain hazards exceed user agreed upon probabilistic thresholds within
hazard areas. The key take-away for operations is to avoid the hazard
areas.
Weather in the data cube will contain a constantly refreshed source
of critical information, keeping the eyes of all decision-makers on
target. All of the data will be network-enabled, using common standards
and architectures. Network-enabled information access will foster a
private-public partnership to keep the National Airspace System as
efficient and safe as possible. Weather information in digital forms
can ``speak'' from machine to machine, supporting the NextGen vision of
integrating current and future sources of weather data. NWS efforts to
build the 4D Weather Cube will include working closely with partners to
ensure a fully unidirectional approach to National Airspace System
support.
Finally, the NWS forecaster will remain a key component of the
future forecast system supporting the FAA. The NWS forecaster will
continue to assist FAA traffic managers and decision-makers, alerting
them of rapidly changing conditions and the impacts on operations and
safety.
The vision described above and the service improvements envisioned
are still under development. Today, aviation products are generally in
textual and graphic formats and their development is very labor
intensive. Over the next five years, aviation elements will become
available in digital as well as textual and graphical formats as we
move forward towards the NextGen era. Furthermore, advances in the
automation and rapidly updated (hourly) forecast routines of
convective, low ceiling and visibility, icing, turbulence and wind in a
digital environment will enable the NWS to focus our forecasters on
improving decision support services to the FAA by allowing the
forecaster to focus not only on the weather, but how the weather will
potentially impact aircraft operations. These science and technology
enablers, together with attention to risk management, will evolve CWSU
products and services over the next five years and into the NextGen
era. The anticipated advances in the science and technology
underpinning aviation weather support will enable evolution of CWSU
products and services to make them more effective.
GAO Review of Aviation Weather Restructuring
Late last week we received the Government Accounting Office (GAO)
Draft Report: ``Review of Aviation Weather Restructuring.'' We are
reviewing the draft and will develop our action plan once the final
report is completed. We believe our response to the FAA for CWSU
services addresses some of the key recommendations in the draft GAO
report. For example, our response to FAA includes, as the centerpiece,
a nine-month demonstration/validation. The planning, execution, and
evaluation of this demonstration/validation will be overseen by the
BASC to ensure involvement of stakeholders and an unbiased review to
ensure no degradation of aviation weather services. The current 21
CWSUs will continue to operate during that period. Our response to FAA
also highlights the importance of aligning organizational changes with
NextGen initiatives. We have been working with our representative to
the NextGen JPDO to ensure the NWS connection to NextGen. In addition,
I serve on the JPDO Executive Weather Working Group, where I highlight
important NextGen weather issues for discussion with other members of
the board including representatives from the Department of Defense,
FAA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Consistent
with the GAO report, the NWS agrees there must be a linkage between the
CWSUs and NextGen. I believe we have taken the necessary first steps to
ensure this, and we will continue to incorporate NextGen concepts into
our CWSU plans.
We also agree with the need to establish baseline performance
measures, as stated by the GAO. NWS is now collecting data on four of
the five standards developed by FAA and proposed by NWS, to establish a
baseline. Methods by which to measure the fifth proposed standard
(forecast accuracy) will be reviewed by FAA and NWS. These measures are
critical data points to allow the BASC to evaluate the demonstration/
validation and to determine its success. The FAA also recommended that
NWS identify in our proposal additional performance measures that
involve proposed products and services. To address this, NWS has
identified eight additional performance measures which are listed in
our response to FAA.
Conclusion
Much has changed since the CWSUs were first established in 1978.
The science and our understanding and ability to observe, analyze, and
predict the weather has improved tremendously; new technology to
support our products and services continues to evolve. We believe a
disciplined test of new service alternatives incorporating the best and
newest science and technology has the potential to improve air traffic
management and provide the capabilities needed in NextGen. We believe
new 21st century technologies provide a viable option for remote
weather support. We will support a change of the current operational
model after a successful demonstration/validation shows no there would
be no degradation in current services. The NWS mission is to provide
weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of lives and property
and enhancement of the national economy. We will not take any steps
that would jeopardize our ability to deliver life-saving weather
information. It is our goal to help the FAA ensure the National
Airspace System remains safe, efficient, and cost effective for the
people of this country.
Biography for John L. ``Jack'' Hayes
John L. ``Jack'' Hayes is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Weather Services and
National Weather Service (NWS) Director. In this role, Dr. Hayes is
responsible for an integrated weather services program, supporting the
delivery of a variety of weather, water, and climate services to
government, industry, and the general public, including the preparation
and delivery of weather warnings and predictions, and the exchange of
data products and forecasts with international organizations.
Dr. Hayes returned to the NWS in 2007 after serving as the Director
of the World Weather Watch Department at the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations located
in Geneva, Switzerland. In that position, he was responsible for global
weather observing, weather data exchange telecommunications, and
weather data processing and forecasting systems.
Before joining the WMO, Dr. Hayes served in several senior
executive positions at NOAA. As the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
NOAA Research, he was responsible for the management of research
programs. As Deputy Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean
Service (NOS), he was the Chief Operating Officer dealing with a
multitude of ocean and coastal challenges, including the NOS response
to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in August 2005. As Director of the
Office of Science and Technology for the NWS, Dr. Hayes had oversight
of the infusion of new science and technology essential to weather
service operations.
Dr. Hayes was also an executive in the private sector and the
military. He was General Manager of the Automated Weather Interactive
Processing System (AWIPS) program at Litton-PRC from 1998 through 2000.
AWIPS is the interactive computer system used by all weather service
forecasters. From 1970 through 1998, Dr. Hayes spent a career in the
United States Air Force. He held a variety of positions, culminating
his career as the Commander of the Air Force Weather Agency in the rank
of Colonel.
Dr. Hayes received both his Ph.D. and Master of Science degrees in
meteorology from the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey,
California. A Fellow in the American Meteorological Society, he also
graduated from Bowling Green State University, with a Bachelor's degree
in mathematics.
Dr. Hayes has been married to his wife, Sharon, for over 37 years
and has three grown children.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. Hayes.
Mr. Day for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
OPERATIONS, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Day. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to testify
about the future of Center Weather Service Units.
Our job at the FAA is to oversee a safe and efficient
National Airspace System. Reliable aviation weather forecasting
is an integral part of that, and the National Weather Service's
support has been a key component of that as well.
Our operations data tells us that 70 percent of air traffic
delays are caused by weather. To address this problem we are
collaborating with the National Weather Service on aviation
weather forecasting and how to improve that forecasting to
promote safety and reduce weather delays.
In our constant quest to improve aviation safety and
efficiency, we are looking to capitalize on technological
improvements that have emerged over the last 30 years since
CWSU operations began. Technological improvements have changed
the way in which weather information is generated,
disseminated, and used.
In addition, we have also asked the National Weather
Service to examine three different service methods. First,
using the existing CWSU configuration, second, using a reduced
number of CWSUs, and third, using one centralized facility to
provide improved, consistent, and continuous weather service to
centers 24 hours per day, seven days per week, versus the
current 16 hours per day, seven hours--seven days per week
service presently provided.
Since the Committee's last hearing on CWSUs, the National
Weather Service responded to our request with three
alternatives. Each of these had some innovative ways to meet
our requirements. However, none were accepted because the costs
were too high for each alternative compared to the cost of the
program.
Last year the FAA advised the National Weather Service that
we preferred the single weather center solution but recognized
the need for backup and requested the National Weather Service
refine its proposal. We were served--we received the National
Weather Service revised proposal last month and expect to
complete our assessment of the proposal in early August.
Although our assessment of the National Weather Service
proposal is not complete, with a two weather center approach,
we see an opportunity to improve aviation weather forecasting
services in the near-term. We expect this approach to provide
finer resolution and more consistent and accurate forecasts
that will improve the safety and efficiency of traffic flows
through the National Airspace System.
This consolidation--or, excuse me, this consolidated CWSU
model would allow meteorologists to dynamically allocate
resources to areas with active weather conditions having the
most impact on aviation operations. We understand that there
may be some concern about providing weather services remotely.
I want to assure you that we have considerable experience with
remote weather briefings. Today CWSUs provide remote support to
Terminal Radar Approach Controls and select towers, just as
Flight Service Stations provide remote weather briefings to
pilots.
In addition, providing weather services using this model is
consistent with centralized weather operations used
internationally, by the Department of Defense, and by airlines.
And CWSUs will not be the only source of aviation weather
information for FAA's air traffic operations. The National
Weather Service would continue to have approximately 130
meteorologists providing meteorological watch and issuing
forecasts for parts of the National Airspace System from its
weather forecast offices and the Aviation Weather Center
providing both terminal and end-route forecasts.
In addition to the benefits we expect to see in the near-
term, a two-weather center approach will also help aviation
weather services towards the FAA's future needs envisioned in
the Next Generation Air Traffic System or NextGen. One key
concept of NextGen is a common operational picture of weather
information for all air traffic management decisions. This
concept is already being put into practice through the
Collaborative Convective Forecast Product or CCFP. The CCFP
provides a common operational picture of convective weather on
which they build the air traffic management plan.
FAA and National Airspace System stakeholders now rely on
the CCFP as the primary forecast product for NASS-wide
operations planning during the convective season. Consistent
with NextGen, we need a common operational picture of all
weather elements that impact air traffic.
In conclusion, we are very hopeful about the benefits of
the National Weather Service proposal. However, I want to
assure the Committee that our assessment of the National
Weather Service proposal is not the final consideration prior
to implementation. Let me be clear. We will not change the
current configuration until a demonstration and validation show
that we are able to effectively disseminate the most timely and
accurate weather forecasting for the safe operation of flights
in our system.
This concludes my remarks, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Day
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here to testify about the status of
Center Weather Service Units (CWSU). As this is my first opportunity to
testify before this subcommittee, I would like to take just a moment to
introduce myself. My name is Rick Day, and I am the Senior Vice
President for Operations for the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO). As Senior Vice President for
Operations, I oversee the safe and efficient delivery of air traffic
services provided by the FAA. My career with the FAA began 35 years ago
as an air traffic controller at the Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control
Center. I have first hand experience relying on CWSU forecasts so it is
especially fitting that in my first appearance before you I will
testify about the CWSUs and their future.
The FAA has had a longstanding, productive relationship with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National
Weather Service (NWS). We want to continue to this relationship with a
renewed focus of improved aviation weather forecasting.
A little history of our working relationship may be helpful.
Aviation weather forecasting services have always been integral to safe
and efficient operations within the National Airspace System (NAS) and
support from the NWS has been key. The formal arrangement by which the
NWS now provides aviation weather services to the Air Route Traffic
Control Centers (ARTCC)\1\ originated with the NTSB recommendation
issued on October 28, 1977, following its investigation of the crash of
Southern Airways Flight 242. The NTSB recommended that FAA develop
rules and procedures for the timely dissemination by air traffic
controllers of all available severe weather information to inbound and
outbound flight crews in the terminal area. To address this
recommendation, the FAA entered into an Interagency Agreement with the
NWS, to create CWSUs at each FAA ARTCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ARTCCs provide air traffic control services to aircraft
operating on instrument flight rule (IFR) flight plans within
controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of
flight. When equipment capabilities and controller workload permit,
certain advisory/assistance services may be provided to visual flight
rule (VFR) aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, CWSUs are located at each of the FAA's 21 ARTCCs throughout
the United States. They are staffed by 84 NWS meteorologists, 16 hours
a day, seven days a week. Typically, the CWSU forecaster on duty works
with the ARTCC Traffic Management Unit (TMU), providing two scheduled
weather briefings and updates throughout the day. The CWSU forecast is
used in the development of the operational plan for air traffic,
including runway configurations and routing traffic around significant
weather.
The original Interagency Agreement with the NWS that established
the CWSUs has been renewed a number of times since it was first entered
into in 1978. The current agreement will expire in September of this
year but we expect to execute the agreement's one-year extension option
to continue the existing CWSU operations through September 2010.
Over the last several years, the FAA has been exploring
opportunities to improve safety and efficiency within the NAS and
capitalize on technological improvements that have emerged over the
last 30 years since CWSU operation began. Technological improvements
have changed the way in which weather information is generated,
disseminated and used. In addition to the change in technology, we
found that the CWSUs were not providing the same level of services at
all of its locations, and the services and forecasts were not
standardized across the 21 locations. There was also little
collaboration or communication between the different CWSUs. In
addition, neither the FAA nor the NWS had a formal quality assurance
program for CWSU products and services. To this end, in 2005, the FAA
asked the NWS to examine different service methods to provide improved,
consistent and continuous (24 hours per day, seven days per week)
weather support to ARTCCs. In response to this request, the NWS
submitted a restructuring proposal in October 2006. In April 2007, the
FAA declined this proposal because we were in the process of an
internal requirements review. We completed that review in late 2007.
Following this review, we refined our requirements for services
provided by the CWSUs because our existing requirements were too broad
to ensure the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the services. Also,
as GAO found, FAA did not have a system in place to gather information
about the effect of forecasts on delays and diversions in the NAS.
In December 2007, the FAA asked NWS to provide a new proposal based
on more narrowly tailored requirements for the future weather
forecasting needs and the need for performance evaluation. Our
requirements included 24-hour, seven-days-a-week staffing, standardized
services to promote consistency in service delivery across the NAS as
well as NAS-wide monitoring and a new Terminal Approach Control
(TRACON) forecast that provided higher resolution information for 10 of
our busiest TRACONs. The FAA also asked that NWS outline three
different service methods to meet these requirements using: (1) the
existing CWSU configuration at 21 ARTCCs; (2) a reduced number of
CWSUs; and (3) one centralized weather facility. NWS responded with
three proposals, each of which had some innovative ways to meet our
requirements, however we did not accept any of them because the costs
were too high for each alternative compared to the current cost of the
program.
In September 2008, the FAA advised the NWS that we preferred the
single weather center solution but recognized the need for back up and
requested the NWS refine their proposal. Safety and efficiency have
always been and will continue to be the driving forces behind any
improvements to the CWSU service. We received the NWS revised proposal
last month. Currently, the FAA has a team assessing the proposal and we
expect to have the assessment completed in early August.
Although our assessment of the NWS proposal is not complete, with a
two weather center approach, we see an opportunity to improve aviation
weather forecasting services in the near-term. The agency expects the
two center approach to provide finer resolution and more consistent and
accurate forecasts that will improve the safety and efficiency of
traffic flow through the National Airspace System 24 hours a day versus
the 16 hours currently covered. This consolidated CWSU model would also
allow meteorologists monitoring the NAS to dynamically allocate
resources to areas with ``active'' weather conditions, having the most
impact on aviation operations.
We understand that there may be some concern about providing
weather services ``remotely.'' We think this concern is unfounded
because we have considerable experience with remote weather briefings.
Today, CWSUs provide remote support to TRACONS and select towers just
as Flight Service Stations provide remote weather briefings to pilots.
In addition, providing weather services using this model is consistent
with centralized weather operations used by NavCanada, Eurocontrol, and
the U.S. Department of Defense as well as the airlines.
Further, CWSUs will not be the only source of aviation weather
information for FAA's air traffic operations. NWS would continue to
have, at any one time, approximately 130 meteorologists providing
meteorological watch and issuing forecasts for parts of the NAS from
its weather forecast offices and the Aviation Weather Center providing
terminal and en route forecasts.
The current requirements for the CWSUs to provide ``consistent''
information will also help move aviation weather services towards the
FAA's future needs envisioned for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System or NextGen. One key concept of NextGen is a
common operational picture of weather information for all air traffic
management decisions. This concept is already being put into practice
through the Collaborative Convective Forecast Product (CCFP). Several
years ago we asked the NWS to develop and provide the CCFP based on
user feedback that there were several convective forecasts available,
often providing different answers. FAA needed a ``common operational
picture'' of convective weather on which to build the air traffic
management plan. The CCFP provides this common forecast of convective
weather. It is developed from collaboration among meteorologists from
CWSUs, the Aviation Weather Center, Meteorological Service of Canada,
and the airlines. FAA and NAS stakeholders now rely on the CCFP as the
primary forecast product for NAS-wide operations planning, during the
convective season. Consistent with the NextGen Concept of Operations,
we need a common operational picture of all weather elements that
impact air traffic.
In the time since the GAO's January 2008 evaluation of weather
services provided by CWSUs, we have taken steps to address GAO's
recommendations for establishing standards by which to evaluate CWSU
performance. We have already established standards for participation in
the development of the Convective Forecast, when convective weather is
expected to occur within that specific ARTCC domain; consistency of
CWSU product formats, information content, and procedures for issuance,
across all CWSUs; and, provision of on site or back up daily services
16 hours per day, seven days per week. We began baselining these
performance standards with the NWS during site evaluations we started
this year. We have also established a standard for accuracy of
forecasts used in decisions for traffic management initiatives. The
metric that results from this is being developed jointly by FAA and
NWS. This metric will take a little more time to refine, but we believe
that building on a developing tool called the Weather Impact Traffic
Index, which translates weather and weather forecast impact on air
traffic, will help us in these efforts.
As I mentioned, the NWS and the FAA are also in the process of
conducting a new series of site evaluations. As of June, we had
evaluated 13 of the 21 CWSUs and expect to complete the remaining site
evaluations by September. So far, we have found what previous FAA, NWS
and GAO reports have documented: a lack of standardization in CWSU
services. Having said that, we have also found that CWSUs are well
integrated into air traffic management operations. We have also found
positive dividends from new FAA and NWS initiatives. Specifically, NWS
has provided all CWSUs with a common tool set--standardized technology,
collaboration and training--which is producing improved and consistent
service. The FAA has funded a hardware and software technology upgrade
of the AWIPS Remote Display (the standard meteorological workstation
used by the NWS) which has improved system performance and weather
information availability because it provides faster, more effective
manipulation of forecast data.
In conclusion, we are very hopeful about the benefits of the NWS
proposal. However, I want to assure you that our assessment of the NWS
proposal is not the final consideration prior to implementation. Let me
be clear--we will not change the current configuration until a
demonstration and validation show we are able to effectively
disseminate the most timely and accurate weather forecasting for the
safe operation of flights in our system.
We will work with the NWS to plan, execute and evaluate the
demonstration and validation to prove whether the consolidated CWSU
model will be able to provide on-demand services remotely. In addition,
we understand that the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the
National Academy of Sciences has agreed to oversee the demonstration
and validation, providing an independent assessment of the consolidated
CWSU model. We also expect the NTSB to contribute to the demonstration
and validation by participating in the independent review. Finally,
during the demonstration and review, we expect to develop the data
necessary to assess, in quantitative terms, the improvements we have
identified.
We have an opportunity to couple the art and science of aviation
weather to reduce the impact weather has on aviation and increase the
safety of operations. FAA and NWS will continue to learn and grow
together as we move towards our common goal of improved aviation
weather services.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, Members of the Subcommittee,
this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
Biography for Richard Day
Rick Day was named the Senior Vice President for Operations in
September 2008. In this capacity, he is responsible for leading all
segments of Operations--Terminal, En Route, Systems Operations and
Technical Operations--and representing those service units on the
Executive Council. Operations also directs the Office of Technical
Training and Office of Service Center. In addition, Day will work to
help Operations prepare for the transition to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System.
From 2005-2008, Day served as Vice President of En Route and
Oceanic Services. He was responsible for providing air traffic services
that met customer target levels of safety, efficiency and security in
the national airspace system and international airspace assigned to
U.S. control. He also concentrated on bolstering ties with civil
aviation authorities to promote harmonization and cooperation as the
world moves to the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
Day joined the Federal Aviation Administration in 1974, beginning
his career as an air traffic control specialist at Cleveland Air Route
Traffic Control Center. He eventually moved to the Central Region and
Great Lakes Region where he served as Manager of the Kansas City ARTCC.
He held various branch and staff manager positions, before serving as
Assistant Air Traffic Division Manager for three years. He later served
as acting Regional Administrator.
He also spent time as an instructor/evaluator at the Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center following the PATCO strike from 1980-1984.
In 2001, Day became Manager of the Air Traffic Division of the
Federal Aviation Administrations Southern Region in Atlanta, eventually
serving as Area Director for Eastern En Route and Oceanic Operations in
February 2004.
In March 2005, Day was selected as Vice President for En Route and
Oceanic Services. He leads nearly 9,000 employees supporting 47 million
operations a year over more than 5.6 million square miles of airspace
in the U.S. and 24.6 million square miles of oceanic airspace. This
domain equates to more than 15 percent of the world's airspace.
Day holds a Bachelor's degree in management from Mid-America
Nazarene University. He chartered and was the first President of the
Kansas City Metropolitan Chapter 293 of the Federal Managers
Association.
Day lives with his wife, Jill, in Springfield, Va.
Discussion
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Day. We will now begin our
first round of questions. I now recognize myself for five
minutes.
Involvement of Air Traffic Controllers in Reform
Again, I understand based upon our staff interviews and
other information that the air traffic controllers strongly
support keeping meteorologists where they are in the regional
air traffic control centers where they can stand over their
shoulder in times of weather crisis.
Mr. Day, since the air traffic controllers are the
consumers, the customers for the weather services, what role
have they played in developing this proposal for the
consolidation of services?
Mr. Day. The air traffic controllers have not had a central
role in developing the requirements for those services,
however, there has been assessments ongoing between the FAA and
the National Weather Service going out and reviewing the
services currently provided in Center Weather Service Units.
And as I understand, they have gotten feedback from the Center
Weather Service employees, as well as the controllers on those
assessments.
Chairman Miller. Would those be the CWSU's site reviews? I
think we have now gotten a copy of.
Mr. Day. Yes, sir, and there has been 13 completed out of
the 21 sites.
Chairman Miller. My understanding is that in every case the
view of the air traffic controllers is they like things the way
they were a whole lot better than the proposed change. Is that
correct?
Mr. Day. This is change, and having been a controller many
years ago, I have gone through a number of technological
changes, and oftentimes I would resist those changes because I
felt comfortable with the tools and the assets and the advice
around me. And our controllers are the same way, and we have
done a number of technological changes, and what we often find
is after we introduce the change safely and we work to resolve
concerns, we oftentimes find that--in most cases we find that
they--it is hard to pry the new technology from their hands.
We also find that our new controllers, the `NextGen-ers'
and `Gen X-ers' really do embrace technology, and they are
actually pushing us to continue to look for new technologies
and new ways to do business.
So we do find that while--and we do understand resistance
to the change, we do want to address their concerns and feel
that as we work through a successful demonstration and
validation process, which would include their involvement and
feedback, we will resolve those concerns and come up with a
much superior service than we have today.
The Effects of Reducing the Number of Meteorologists
Chairman Miller. I understand the consolidation proposal
would require at least a 60 percent reduction in the staffing
of meteorologists during the heaviest traffic hours.
Understanding that there is continuing new technology and we
certainly want to overcome resistance to using new technology
where it does actually improve weather forecasting, will the
reduction by 60 percent of the people, the forecasters, not
have some significant effect on the quality of the forecasting?
Will the skies really be as safe if there are eight forecasters
on duty as opposed to 20?
Dr. Hayes.
Dr. Hayes. Well, I would say that our--any--on any given
day we don't have significant weather affecting aviation
covering the entire United States, and so in our existing
structure we have people who are monitoring areas where there
is no significant weather, and our consolidation plan is really
to reduce the number of employees involved in this from 84 to
50. We will have eight people, and our plan here is actually to
put more eyes on where weather has an impact on aviation in our
proposal.
So it is our view that we will actually increase the
attention that we are putting on weather that has an impact on
aviation safety.
Chairman Miller. Okay, and I suppose it is also true that
on most days firefighters have the easiest job in America.
Safety and Potential Degradation of Service
Mr. Powner, do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Powner. Well, clearly, these are all very fair
questions, Mr. Chairman. I think the rubber is going to meet
the road on the demonstration project. I mean, the key here is
to demonstrate no degradation of service, and you know, and not
having that face-to-face, on-demand consultation is a concern.
We heard that during the course of our work also, and we really
won't know that until we have that demonstration in place.
And, again, I would like to reiterate that demonstration is
going to be very difficult because as we heard here, we still
have performance measures to agree to in terms of what we are
measuring, and then once we get those in place, then we have to
baseline those so that we have baseline performance to measure
against.
It is tough to demonstrate no degradation of service if you
do not have baseline performance metrics.
Chairman Miller. Okay. My time has expired.
Dr. Broun for five minutes. Ranking Member and licensed
pilot, Dr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Mr. Day, are you a pilot?
Dr. Hayes, are you a pilot?
Dr. Hayes. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. Broun. Mr. Day, I have used Atlanta Center. I flew out
of Athens, Georgia, for a long period of time and then I flew
out of South Georgia a long period of time and worked out of
Jack Center or flying into Atlanta Center a lot, and I
appreciate your centers' good service that I have gotten.
But I want to make a statement. As a pilot, instrument-
rated pilot, frequently I would be talking to a controller at a
center and would talk to the controller about what weather I
was facing, and this is--we would fly at night as well as in
the daytime. And just to make a statement to begin with, I
don't like this change as a pilot, that you are proposing, and
I think it is not going to be a good change for pilots.
I think it is--and the reason I say that is because
frequently I have talked to the center controllers and asked
about weather--and have talked to a National Weather Service
specialist in the center about what I was dealing with. Trying
to consolidate that and working with the controller that was
handling my aircraft at the time, being pilot in command,
talking to the controller, talking to the Weather Service
specialist trying to figure out the safest way for me and my
aircraft and frequently passengers to traverse through a
weather system, I think it is absolutely critical for pilots to
have that ability.
So my change that I would suggest as a pilot to FAA is to--
let us go to a 24/7, 52 weeks out of the year service with
somebody in each control center and not trying to consolidate
these things. I think it is absolutely critical.
Now, Mr. Day, have you all at FAA consulted AOPA about
their opinion about this change that you all are proposing?
Mr. Day. We have had conversations with AOPA\1\ just like
we had with the flight service consolidation and the many
pilots like yourself, oftentimes they do want that comfort of
having face-to-face briefings or assets available, and what I
would say, because I used to work down in that area, and I have
been to all those facilities, including Athens Airport, the
CWSU forecasting is not the only product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, as a controller they have the corridor
information or corridor information weather service services,
as well as an integrated terminal weather services----
Mr. Broun. Mr. Day, let me interrupt you because my time is
very limited. I understand all that, and I understand that we
are still going to have towers as well as approach and
departure control help on that, but there is a lot of territory
in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana that I have been flying
in that is not covered by a tower, it is not covered by a
terminal radar. It is covered by the Center, and I have talked
to those weather specialists, and I have--it is not about
having the comfort.
It is about having safety, and I think it is absolutely
critical to have those specialists in the Centers to be able to
talk to those folks and talk to a controller with the weather
specialist looking over their shoulder so I can talk to both of
them at the same time. And I think you all, just as the
Chairman said in his opening statement, and I really
appreciated his opening statement, I think you all are looking
for solutions for a problem that is not broken.
I would like to see you guys go to 24/7 personally. I think
that is going to be the safest way. You know since you worked
in the Atlanta control, Atlanta Center that we have a lot of
thunderstorms. Daytime, nighttime. I need as a pilot to know
where those are and how to circumnavigate them. And talking to
somebody in Silver Springs, Maryland, with a controller being
in Hampton is not going to get it as far as I am concerned.
I like technology. I want to stay on the cutting edge of
technology, but I think you all are--you have no metrics to
measure what is going on today. You have no possibility of
determining what is going on from the National Weather Service
absolutely providing the services that the pilots desperately
need in operating a safe aircraft in the Air Traffic Control
System, and I think until we have the metrics in place, until
we have all the things that are absolutely necessary to make
sure that we continue in a safe manner and operate in the air
traffic control system, I think you are premature in just
jumping out and trying to do what you are doing.
Now, my time is just about expired. Mr. Chairman, you have
been very gracious in allowing some variance on time. Dr.
Hayes, I have got a question for you very quickly, because my
time is up, and the Chairman is being very gracious to offer me
some extra time.
Can NOAA provide weather specialists in the centers to
give--to use all the technology that is available to help us as
pilots to provide safe travel within the center structure? Can
you all do that and do it in a cost-effective manner and
utilize all the technology?
Dr. Hayes. Mr. Broun, are you referring to Centers as
currently configured today or in the proposed----
Mr. Broun. No. I am talking about in Centers as they
currently are configured today.
Dr. Hayes. And the answer is an unqualified yes.
Mr. Broun. Okay.
Dr. Hayes. I think our view is that the system works well
today, but it needs to work better. There are challenges we
face, and as you look to the future of aviation in the United
States, the demands for air traffic management are only going
to grow, and weather, as you noted, being a significant impact
on traffic, is going to grow in its importance.
We need to bring to bear new science and technology. We
need to improve the consistency of our forecasts. These are
part of what causes some of the delays you experience. I want
to assure you I am committed to enhancing the services that we
provide to the FAA. I am--and I am also committed to doing it
in a way that ensures safety.
So I have responded to their requirement because I believe
that what they are asking is viable, and I have a
responsibility since I am the service provider to test what I
consider to be scientifically-viable solutions, have an
objective, independent, third-party evaluate, and if there is
any concern about degradation, then there is no commitment on
our part to move forward.
Thank you.
Mr. Broun. I appreciate the great services you all provide.
My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. Broun.
Ms. Dahlkemper.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I want to piggyback on what we were just talking
about, but as you were talking about the conclusions regarding
the CWSU baseline performance, are they going to be evaluated
by the National Academies? Dr. Hayes, Mr. Day, one of you.
Dr. Hayes. Our plan with the involvement in the National
Academies is that they will bring together the expertise and
that will be involved in looking at the plan, looking at the
metrics we have, overseeing the execution of the dem/val,
evaluating the results, and again, part of their evaluation, if
there is any concern with the baseline metrics that we have,
whether they are strong enough, whether the execution is strong
enough to indicate that there is no degradation, we expect them
to tell us that.
In addition, internally I have a responsibility to the
American people that every step of the way I evaluate our
internal processes, and if I see something that they don't see,
I have a responsibility to say, hold everything. So I think
there is a dual aspect to this evaluation, both external and
internal.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Will all the metrics that are proposed by
the recent GAO strictly be adopted in that?
Dr. Hayes. I think we have got four of them in work, in
implementation today. We are looking at forecast accuracy. We
are working with the FAA, and we hope to have that soon, and I
would say that if there are additional metrics, again, our
intent here is not to cut any corners with regard to safety of
air flight and our services.
Thank you.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Mr. Powner, when FAA rejected the second
NWS proposal for consolidation, they stated that they believe
the technology has moved to a point where face-to-face
communication between forecasters and air controllers is not
needed. Given your experience looking at the technology
acquisitions in use in federal agencies, are there risks in
this approach that relies on technology to fill in for direct
human contact?
Mr. Powner. Well, clearly the on-demand consultation you
can't put in--there are technologies to put in place, you know,
with various communication mechanisms. We could have that--I
will tell you, though, during the course of our review we
actually visited four centers, and three of the four preferred
to move forward with a face-to-face, on-demand consultation. So
I still think that is the mode that most folks are comfortable
with. I think the technology when you want to continue to
pursue that, I think that what we are talking about here is
consistent with where FAA is going with their longer-term
NextGen initiatives where you do more remotely, not just
weather but other things associated with air traffic control.
So you want to continue to push that, but, again, you want
to make sure--you need to listen to the users, and you want to
make sure there is no degradation of service.
Ms. Dahlkemper. And I guess I just want to go back to Dr.
Hayes and Mr. Day and, again, kind of piggyback on what has
already been asked.
I guess what is it that we are trying to fix through this
consolidation? Exactly what is it we are trying to fix, because
there seems to be unanimity among meteorologists that this--
they are a necessary part of this safety team. So what is it
that we are trying to fix?
Mr. Day. Thank you. So first of all, through evaluations by
both the GAO as well as our site visits and from customer
feedback we lack the consistency and accuracy of our forecasts,
and as--what we have seen is that many times our very competent
and committed meteorologists provide a regional view, however,
that becomes murky as you look at a National Airspace System
and a common operational picture by which to make mission-
driven decisions and ensure safety and a successful mission.
So we believe that by moving to this new model we can
resolve some of those inconsistencies and accuracy like we
realize with the CCFP product for convective weather.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Dr. Hayes, did you want to comment on that?
Dr. Hayes. I would say that I have seen evidence in the
past 18 months since I have been in the job where we have some
challenges with consistency. FAA identified an impact three
weeks ago in the New York City area where our weather forecast
office Terminal Aerodrome Forecast was inconsistent with the
CCFP product, and so we are taking action now to address that.
And that will be part--and that is part of our response, is
to focus on a consistent message to air traffic controllers. I
mentioned in my opening----
Ms. Dahlkemper. And that can't be done in the current
system that we have right now? The consistency issue can't be
fixed?
Dr. Hayes. No. It can. It can be with the existing system.
Ms. Dahlkemper. It can be or it cannot?
Dr. Hayes. It is. There are challenges there that we would
have that we wouldn't have with fewer locations. Obviously the
more people in the message generation, the more difficult it is
to ensure consistency.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Okay. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Ms. Dahlkemper.
My current plan is to represent Mr. Lipinski for five
minutes of questions, and at that point we probably need to go
to vote, so we will be gone for votes for a sufficiently long
time. It does not make sense to come back, so Mr. Lipinski for
five minutes.
Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent
to enter into the record a statement from the air traffic
controllers, from the Weather Union folks, as well as AOPA?
Chairman Miller. That would be fine.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. It is so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Chairman Miller. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Broun for, both of you for
holding this important hearing and for allowing me to join in
on the Subcommittee here this morning.
As some of you may know, Midway Airport is in my District,
and O'Hare is close, and air traffic safety is very important
to me. I have been following this proposed consolidation with
increasing concern.
A little over a month ago we had Administrator Babbitt in
before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
Aviation Subcommittee, and I was asking him questions that we
have--are focusing on here this morning. Unfortunately, he had
just gotten into that position and at that time he really
didn't have much to tell me. He said he hadn't had a chance to
review the latest version of the NWS proposal. So I am hoping
that today with this very helpful GAO report we can get a
clearer picture.
I have a lot of questions here. Let me try to focus, and I
will have some questions for the record, but focus in on two if
we have time.
Dr. Hayes, the meteorologists who currently work the 21
CWSUs have developed very precise knowledge of how weather
patterns have emerged in each area. During the test phase of
the consolidated program how do you intend to staff this new
consolidated center? If, for instance, you were taking some of
the most senior people out of the existing 21 centers, how can
you fairly and accurately evaluate the current system versus a
new proposal? And what will become of the meteorologist at the
existing CWSUs if consolidation occurs?
Dr. Hayes. For staffing the dem/val, Mr. Lipinski, our plan
is to not take the people out of the existing CWSUs. Our plan
is to take aviation weather expertise out of our Science and
Operations Officers at our Weather Forecast Offices. Some of
our meteorologists in charge will staff the dem/val sites so
that we do have, I think, a fair and objective comparison of
`as is' versus `to be.'
Mr. Lipinski. Do you see any problem with the difference in
experience that you will have at the--comparing two different,
the two different systems?
Dr. Hayes. Actually, I think if it biases it at all, it
would bias it toward the as is today because that is where the
aviation experience is today. And so, no, I don't think that it
is an unfair comparison.
Mr. Lipinski. So what happens with the meteorologists at
the existing CWSUs?
Dr. Hayes. Well, we would offer them a job elsewhere if
they were, if we were to reduce or to eliminate that CWSU and
offer them a job ideally at one of the two that we are going
to--that we have proposed, and if we also have vacancies at
nearby Forecast Offices, and we would attempt to offer them
opportunities.
One other aspect of the proposal that we put forward that
we think will enhance its attractiveness to members of our CWSU
staff is to raise the GS grade of aviation weather forecasters,
and I think what this will in a long-term create an aviation
career opportunity that they don't have today.
Mr. Lipinski. Okay. I just want to--I don't have much time
here. I would quickly move onto the second question for Dr.
Hayes, and on May 9, 2008, when the National Weather Service
sent the FAA's latest consolidation proposal, you accompanied
the proposal with a transmittal letter that included some
language which concerned me. You wrote that, ``The non-remote
option expands and improves CWSUs' services at the 21 current
locations. This option sustains the capability to provide face-
to-face decision support, which reduces risk when rapidly
changing weather has a potential for first order impact on
aviation.''
I think we can all agree that if the proposal increases the
risk relative to the current system, that it is not going to be
acceptable. There are two things I want to understand.
First, what did you mean by ``first order impact'' on
aviation, and second, how could a new system with less local
weather knowledge possibly reduce risk? And haven't the air
traffic controllers spoken out in favor of keeping the
forecasters co-located?
Dr. Hayes. Well, I think, Mr. Lipinski, when you are trying
to communicate, one has to say that face-to-face does lessen
risk, whether it is a significant reduction or--I don't think I
can categorically say one way or the other. There is--it just
depends on the situation.
I guess my position is and has been that I think that what
the FAA has asked me to do is viable, and I am willing to test
it and then see what the results show with an independent
evaluation.
Mr. Lipinski. How much of an increase in risk are we going
to allow?
Dr. Hayes. Well, again, the risk is to communicating what
we intend. Whether that risk translates into an impact on
safety or not, I don't, again, I don't think I can say.
Mr. Lipinski. Okay. I have some more questions for the
record, but I know that we don't have much time here, and so I
will yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and the record
will remain open for three days, three legislative days for
records.
We have provided to the minority a list of documents, and I
now move or ask unanimous consent that they be entered into the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix 2: Additional Material
for the Record.]
Chairman Miller. Under the rules of the Committee the
record will remain open for two weeks, excuse me, for
additional statements from the Members and for questions for
follow up and for answers to any follow-up questions that the
Committee may submit.
And it certainly appears based on today's testimony that by
the time we have developed a reasonable, careful criteria for
the dem/val for determining whether the new procedure is the
equal of the old, NextGen will be here, and playing out the
clock may not be such a bad thing.
And with that the hearing is adjourned. The witnesses are
excused.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John L. ``Jack'' Hayes, Assistant Administrator for
Weather Services; Director, National Weather Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Mr. Powner's GAO report stated that ``It is important to obtain an
understanding of the current level of performance in these measures
before beginning any efforts to restructure aviation weather
services.'' If we cannot quantify how the current Central Weather
Service Units (CWSUs) are working, I do not understand how we can
rigorously compare them to the proposed consolidated centers. How can
you design a reliable test when you cannot even characterize the
control in your experiment? What steps are you taking to quantify
current CWSU performance, and how well do those steps capture
differences due to local weather patterns?
A1. In February 2008, the GAO recommended NWS ``. . . perform annual
evaluations of aviation weather services provided at en route centers
and provide feedback to the Center Weather Service Units.'' In response
to this recommendation, the NWS developed and implemented the CWSU Site
Review Program in January 2009. These documented site reviews assess
the current level of performance at each of the Centers (including
local aviation weather support) through observation, interaction, and
dialogue. In addition, the review includes interviews with FAA
representatives to assess CWSU performance and determine how well NWS
meteorologists are addressing FAA weather concerns. By September 2,
2009, a total of 18 site reviews will have been completed.
We continue to gather data on CWSU performance using performance
metrics identified in the GAO report. These metrics will provide a
baseline for performance metrics for each CWSU and will be available
prior to the demonstration/validation (dem/val) period for NWS'
proposal.
When the dem/val starts, we will have a standard baseline from
which all CWSUs will be performing. We are working collaboratively with
the FAA before the dem/val period to define and quantify additional
metrics; this collaboration will continue during the dem/val. We will
have independent verification and validation of all metrics, and we
have engaged the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a final,
objective assessment of the dem/val.
CWSUs are tasked with providing a regional and national weather
picture, and collaborate with NWS's 122 Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs)
to gain additional local expertise. [The proposal continues these
fundamental concepts of operations.] FAA's requirement is for a common
national picture of weather affecting the National Airspace System
(NAS), and the proposed CWSU structure will be better suited to provide
this support. Airport-specific weather forecasts, which address the
local weather patterns, will continue to be provided by the local WFOs.
CWSUs will continuously communicate and collaborate with local WFOs to
ensure data consistency as we support Air Route Traffic Control Centers
(ARTCCs), Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACONs), and Control
Towers.
Q2. The meteorologists who work in the 21 current Central Weather
Service Units have developed detailed local knowledge of weather
patterns. During the test phase of the consolidated program, I am
wondering how you intend to staff the new consolidated center. If, for
instance, you take the some of the most senior people out of the 21
existing centers, how can you fairly and accurately evaluate the
current system versus the new proposal? What will become of the
meteorologists at the existing CWSUs if consolidation occurs?
A2. While the CWSUs have developed local knowledge of weather patterns,
much local expertise also resides with forecasters at the 122 WFOs, who
provide specific airport forecasts via the Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts
(TAF). In the new aviation services model, we will continue to combine
the expertise of the WFO and CWSU, and the flying public will receive
the benefit of a total collaboration to show a more consistent weather
picture, enhanced by the new technology, 24x7 service, and improved
weather products.
For the dem/val phase, we propose to use a mix of CWSU
Meteorologists-in-Charge, WFO management staff (including
Meteorologists-in-Charge, Warning Coordination Meteorologists, Science
and Operations Officers), Regional Aviation Meteorologists (each of the
six NWS Regions has one), and other regional management staff. Any
person participating in the dem/val will have a solid background in
aviation meteorology and the NWS aviation program. This dem/val
staffing proposal would bring in experienced aviation meteorologists
while leaving the current forecasting core undisturbed at all 21 CWSUs.
Should this consolidation occur, no NWS employee will be without a
job opportunity. Anyone who wishes to continue their employment with
NWS will have the opportunity to do so, either by bidding on one of the
new positions at the CWSUs or by moving to another NWS position. The
NWS anticipates that the majority of the FTE reductions will come from
CWSU retirement-eligible employees electing to retire.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Mr. Powner's GAO report stated that ``It is important to obtain an
understanding of the current level of performance in these measures
before beginning any efforts to restructure aviation weather
services.'' If we cannot quantify how the current Central Weather
Service Units (CWSUs) are working, I do not understand how we can
rigorously compare them to the proposed consolidated centers. How can
you design a reliable test when you cannot even characterize the
control in your experiment? What steps are you taking to quantify
current CWSU performance, and how well do those steps capture
differences due to local weather patterns?
A1. In January 2009, the FAA provided the National Weather Service
(NWS) with five performance standards for Center Weather Service Units.
The performance standards are:
(1) participation in the development of the Collaborative
Convective Forecast Product (CCFP), 100 percent of the time
when convection is expected to occur within that specific ARTCC
domain;
(2) consistency of Meteorological Impact Statements (MIS) and
Center Weather Advisories (CWA) product formats, information
content, and procedures for issuance, across all CWSUs;
(3) support for twice-daily stand-up briefings to ARTCC
leadership 100 percent of the time;
(4) provision of on-site or backup services 16 hours per day,
seven days per week, 100 percent of the time; and
(5) accuracy of forecasts used in decisions for traffic
management initiatives.
Both the NWS and FAA are currently base-lining the performance
standards we established and will be prepared to use these to compare
services during the proposed demonstration/validation to ensure no
degradation of services from those which are currently provided by
CWSUs, locally and on-site. The standard and corresponding metric for
the accuracy of forecasts used in decisions for traffic management
initiatives will take a little more time to refine, but we believe that
building on a developing tool called the Weather Impact Traffic Index,
which translates both weather and weather forecast impact on air-
traffic, will help us in our efforts.
Additionally, if we move forward with a demonstration/validation
phase, we expect to develop a standard for response time for on-demand
services provided remotely as we do not do measure this today.
Q2. The most recent NWS proposal is actually the latest in a long
series of steps that began with two FAA goals: saving $2 million a year
and ensuring uniform, high quality data from all Central Weather
Service Units. While I am a strong advocate of saving taxpayers money,
I worry that for a savings of only six cents per flight, we may be
compromising public safety. As I understand it, the current proposal
would only save about $1 million per year, savings that would be offset
by transition costs of about $12 million. This means that it would take
a decade to earn back the costs of transition. Are these figures
correct? If so, can you explain the FAA's rationale for pursing these
changes?
A2. The primary reason FAA is pursing changes in CWSU services is
improved services, not a reduction in cost. These improvements include
weather forecasting services available 24/7 as opposed to the current
16/7 coverage; higher-resolution, consistent forecasts, both temporally
and spatially, for high demand terminal areas; standardized weather
forecast operations; and performance based services.
The current NWS proposal indicates estimated savings of $2.6M per
year. This equates to an approximate 20 percent savings compared to the
current program. In addition, we expect transition costs to be offset
by operational savings within five years.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record