    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

              NEXTGEN: AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)/REQUIRED NAVIGATION
                               PERFORMANCE (RNP)

    =======================================================================

                                    (111-55)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 29, 2009

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    51-384 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          Virginia
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    PHIL HARE, Illinois
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
    VACANCY

                                      (ii)

                            Subcommittee on Aviation

                     JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman

    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama             HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    Columbia                             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             Virginia
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              CONNIE MACK, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California      VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio               BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    VACANCY
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                                   TESTIMONY

    Beck, Captain Gary, Vice President, Flight Operations, Alaska
      Airlines, on Behalf of the Air Transport Association...........     3
    Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Aviation Safety
      Specialists, AFL-CIO...........................................     3
    Calvaresi-Barr, Ann, Principal Assistant Inspector General for
      Auditing and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Transportation.....     3
    Day, Richard L., Senior Vice President for Operations, Air
      Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration..........     3
    Fuller, Chet, President, GE Aviation Systems, Civil..............     3
    Martin, Captain Jeff, Senior Director, Flight Operations,
      Southwest Airlines.............................................     3
    Sinha, Dr. Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager,
      Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, The Mitre
      Corporation....................................................     3
    Thomann, Brad, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
      Jeppesen, a Boeing Company.....................................     3

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Costello, Hon. Jerry F. of Illinois..............................    45
    McMahon, Hon. Michael E., of New York............................    53
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona..............................    55
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................    56
    Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin..............................    60

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Beck, Captain Gary...............................................    67
    Brantley, Tom....................................................    75
    Calvaresi-Barr, Ann..............................................    85
    Day, Richard L...................................................   101
    Fuller, Chet.....................................................   117
    Martin, Captain Jeff.............................................   137
    Sinha, Dr. Agam N................................................   160
    Thomann, Brad....................................................   183

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Beck, Captain Gary, Vice President, Flight Operations, Alaska
      Airlines, on Behalf of the Air Transport Association, responses
      to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of New York............................    71
    Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Aviation Safety
      Specialists, AFL-CIO, responses to questions from Rep. Michael
      E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
      York...........................................................    81
    Calvaresi-Barr, Ann, Principal Assistant Inspector General for
      Auditing and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Transportation,
      responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of New York..........    97
    Day, Richard L., Senior Vice President for Operations, Air
      Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration:.........
          Response to question from Rep. Charles W. Dent, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania    30
          Response to question from Rep. James L. Oberstar, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota...    34
          Response to question from Rep. James L. Oberstar, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota...    39
          Responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of New York....   113
    Fuller, Chet, President, GE Aviation Systems, Civil, responses to
      questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of New York............................   131
    Martin, Captain Jeff, Senior Director, Flight Operations,
      Southwest Airlines:............................................
          Brochure entitled, "Destination RNP Automatic Evolution
            Transforming Southwest"..................................   148
          Responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of New York....   156
    Sinha, Dr. Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager,
      Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, The Mitre
      Corporation, responses to questions from Rep. Michael E.
      McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
      York...........................................................   177
    Thomann, Brad, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
      Jeppesen, a Boeing Company, responses to questions from Rep.
      Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of New York....................................................   192

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        HEARING ON "NEXTGEN: AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)/REQUIRED NAVIGATION
                               PERFORMANCE (RNP)"

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, July 29, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
                              Subcommittee on Aviation,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F.
    Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
    Chair will ask that all Members, staff, and everyone in the
    room turn electronic devices off or put them on vibrate.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
    "NextGen: Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance
    Performance." The Chair would ask unanimous consent that the
    gentleman from Alaska, the former Chairman of the Full
    Committee, Mr. Young, a Member of the Full Committee, be
    allowed to participate in today's Subcommittee hearing. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        I have a lengthy opening statement that I will submit for
    the record and then recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for
    any remarks he may have, and then we will go directly to
    witnesses.
        I welcome everyone here to the Subcommittee hearing on
    "NextGen: Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance."
    The employment of RNAV and RNP procedures are key near to
    midterm NextGen initiatives. RNAV and RNP procedures are part
    of the Federal Aviation Administration's NextGen implementation
    plan and are expected to be a major part of the NextGen midterm
    implementation task force final report that is due next month.
        Let me say that we have indicated in the past, since I have
    been Chair of the Subcommittee and even before that, when we
    have been examining NextGen and its progress that we would hold
    hearings from time to time to get a progress report as to where
    we are, where we are headed, and this hearing today is a part
    of that commitment.
        With that, the Chair would recognize my Ranking Member, Mr.
    Petri, for any remarks that he might have.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to
    submit my full statement for the record and just say that I
    very much thank you for having another of a series of meetings
    and hearings that this Subcommittee has had on NextGen and
    issues surrounding it.
        This is a major undertaking. It is outside the normal scope
    of the FAA as a line agency to come up with a whole new
    technology, and there are a lot of issues involved in how to--
    not just technical issues, but business issues as to how to
    roll out this new technology in a way that is attractive and
    used by the community and that people will buy into because it
    is in their interest to do it at various stages of the
    procedure.
        So I am hopeful that there will be even more discussion and
    consultation and work to kind of come up with a roadmap that
    makes sense for the aviation community for rolling this out so
    that it can be used by different companies and in a way that
    maybe gives them a little competitive edge and incentivizes
    their competitors to buy into it rather than being done sort of
    a mandate approach.
        There are a lot of issues involved in this whole area, and
    it is clearly very important to try to get it right in advance
    rather than pointing fingers, as often happens with various
    major Federal undertakings, because things haven't worked after
    the fact.
        And with that, I thank all of our witnesses for being here
    and look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member and would advise
    all Members that their full statement will be submitted and
    appear in the record.
        The Chair would now recognize and introduce our witnesses
    today. Let me say to each of our witnesses that your full
    statement will appear in the record as well. It will be in the
    record as you submit it. We would ask that you summarize your
    testimony in 5 minutes, and that will allow for us to have
    adequate time to ask questions.
        The first witness will be Mr. Richard L. Day, who is the
    Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization,
    Federal Aviation Administration.
        Ms. Ann Calvaresi Barr, who is the Principal Assistant
    Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation with the U.S.
    Department of Transportation.
        Dr. Agam Sinha, who is the Senior Vice President and
    General Manager for the Center of Advanced Aviation System
    Development at the MITRE Corporation.
        Mr. Tom Brantley, the President of the Professional
    Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO.
        Mr. Chet Fuller, who is the President of GE Aviation
    Systems, Civil.
        Captain Jeff Martin, the Senior Director of Flight
    Operations of Southwest Airlines.
        Mr. Brad Thomann, who is the Senior Vice President and
    Chief Operating Officer with JEPPESEN, a Boeing company.
        And Captain Gary Beck, who is the Vice President of Flight
    Operations of Alaska Airlines on behalf of the Air Transport
    Association.
        So ladies and gentlemen, your statement will appear in the
    record. And at this time I would call on Mr. Day to offer your
    testimony.

        TESTIMONY OF RICHARD L. DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
        OPERATIONS, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
        ADMINISTRATION; ANN CALVARESI BARR, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT
    INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
    OF TRANSPORTATION; DR. AGAM N. SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
         GENERAL MANAGER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM
     DEVELOPMENT, THE MITRE CORPORATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT,
    PROFESSIONAL AVIATION SAFETY SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO; CHET FULLER,
      PRESIDENT, GE AVIATION SYSTEMS, CIVIL; CAPTAIN JEFF MARTIN,
     SENIOR DIRECTOR, FLIGHT OPERATIONS, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES; BRAD
      THOMANN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
        JEPPESEN, A BOEING COMPANY; AND CAPTAIN GARY BECK, VICE
    PRESIDENT, FLIGHT OPERATIONS, ALASKA AIRLINES, ON BEHALF OF AIR
                         TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Day. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
    Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee, and thank you for
    inviting me here today to discuss the FAA's program for RNAV
    and RNP.
        These are some of what we call Performance-based
    Navigational Procedures, or PBN. PBN requires a certain level
    of performance from the aircraft and the air crew to fly a
    certain type of air traffic procedure. It used to be that
    aircraft could navigate primarily by ground-based navigational
    aids. Depending on the location and the position of those
    navigational sources, the aircraft was limited in how
    efficiently and precisely it could fly. Now, with advances in
    technology, we are able to take advantage of space-based
    navigational sources, such as GPS.
        RNAV and RNP gives greater aircraft flexibility in flight
    paths and profiles, and it enables them to fly more precise and
    efficient routes. This leads to potential for flights to reduce
    the miles flown, save fuel, and improve efficiency. The
    development of RNAV/RNP procedures is a relatively young
    program at the FAA, as you can see from the slide--and I know
    it is difficult to see--which shows the current state of RNAV/
    RNP implementation.
        Since 2002, we have accomplished quite a bit. Currently, we
    have 159 RNAV routes and 270 RNAV arrival and departure
    procedures implemented into the NAS. We also have an additional
    163 RNP special aircraft and air crew required approaches, or
    SAAAR approach procedures in the NAS. By the end of fiscal year
    2009, we anticipate that we will have an additional 48 RNAV
    routes, 35 RNAV arrival and departure procedures, and 29 RNP
    SAAAR approach procedures in place. Overall, we have over 8,000
    PBN procedures throughout the NAS.
        Along the way, we have encountered some challenges and we
    have learned from them. We intend to apply those lessons
    learned as we move forward. For example, while we have a
    standard process for developing RNAV and RNP procedures in the
    terminal area, we do not have a comparable process for
    developing procedures elsewhere in the operational environment.
    We believe this is an area where we can improve by mapping
    agencywide all the PBN processes to standardize how we develop,
    test, chart, and implement PBN procedures. I am pleased to
    report that we should be starting work on the mapping process
    in the next couple of weeks.
        As we move forward, there are other challenges that
    continue to face us in the advancement of RNAV and RNP. First
    on the list of challenges is prioritization of which procedures
    to create and implement and in what order. Second are the
    environmental issues which require time for us to examine.
    Third, as the industry moves to equip, we are seeing a hybrid
    equipage environment where some aircraft are capable of flying
    RNAV/RNP and others are not.
        Some of our other technical challenges are illustrated in
    the second slide that we have prepared for this hearing. Each
    phase of flight faces unique challenges. For example, for
    departures and arrivals we may be faced with deconflicting air
    traffic between adjacent airports. In the en route environment,
    we may need to avoid restricted military space, and for
    arrivals and departures we want to ensure that we provide our
    controllers with the right tools to make the right decisions
    when managing the air traffic.
        I want to assure you that the FAA has developed a solid
    foundation of routes and procedures for RNAV/RNP as part of
    NextGen. Using this foundation, we are transitioning from a
    site-by-site or runway-by-runway implementation process for a
    NextGen readiness concept by treating the system as a network.
    This will include development of an integrated system of PBN
    routes and procedures NAS-wide. This broader view will help to
    advance and accelerate NextGen as much as possible.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the
    Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Day, and now
    recognizes Ms. Calvaresi Barr.
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Subcommittee. I appreciate you inviting us here to this
    important hearing on FAA's efforts to modernize the use of
    airspace through RNAV and RNP. Inspector General Scovel regrets
    not being able to make it here today due to a family medical
    matter. However, I can assure you that this statement has
    received his full attention.
        As you know, RNAV/RNP are key to the success of FAA's
    NextGen. They are the legs of the table. Without them NextGen
    will not function. By relying on satellite navigation and on-
    board avionics to maximize airspace, RNAV and RNP could achieve
    substantial benefits, including fuel savings and improved
    airport arrival rates.
        While RNAV and RNP have considerable industry support, some
    stakeholders are dissatisfied with FAA's overall method for
    implementing these initiatives. Today I will focus on two key
    areas: first, implementation concerns that limit the benefits
    of RNAV and RNP and, second, the lack of clarity surrounding
    the role and oversight of third parties in developing new
    procedures.
        RNAV/RNP have achieved some benefits, but FAA must address
    several concerns to realize their full potential. First, FAA
    has yet to develop unique routes. Instead, the agency places
    new routes over existing ones and continues to focus on the
    quantity rather than the quality of new flight paths. As
    airline representatives know, the new routes provide few, if
    any, added benefits because they are essentially the same ones
    that airlines already fly.
        Another longstanding concern is the potential impact mixed
    equipage will have on RNP's implementation. Experts believe
    most aircraft will need to be equipped with advanced avionics
    to realize benefits. Equipping the aircraft has been a subject
    of intense debate. Until this is resolved, concerns remain that
    mixed equipage will increase controller workload and may
    introduce new hazards in the congested airspace. We are
    particularly concerned about this given the large number of
    developmental controllers in the system.
        A third concern is that FAA has not developed a plan to
    effectively manage interdependent efforts, including RNAV and
    RNP, airspace redesign, and air traffic control modernization
    systems. All of these efforts must be fully integrated and
    synchronized to maximize benefits. As FAA begins to develop
    more complex and demanding routes and procedures, it will need
    to reevaluate, align, and coordinate plans and budgets as well
    as address controller and pilot training needs.
        Now I would like to focus on the second key area regarding
    third parties. The role of third parties in developing RNP
    procedures is unclear, and industry is skeptical of FAA's
    ability to deliver the more complex procedures. At industry's
    request, FAA entered into agreements with two third parties to
    design and develop certain RNP procedures. Airlines believe
    third parties could provide expertise and resources to
    complement FAA's efforts and to achieve quality procedures.
    However, FAA program officials told us that they do not plan to
    use third parties to speed RNP adoption because FAA is meeting
    its annual production goals.
        As part of the agreement, FAA provided an option for
    carriers to use third parties to develop public procedures--
    those that can be used by all airlines with equipped aircraft.
    But we question the soundness of this business case because it
    is unlikely that carriers will invest in procedures that other
    carriers will benefit from at no cost. Air carriers that choose
    to use third parties to develop public procedures would
    essentially be investing in their competitors.
        From the carriers' perspective a more logical business case
    would be to use special RNP procedures, those that are designed
    specifically for their use and are not available to other
    carriers. However, FAA is concerned that an increasing number
    of special procedures will further burden controllers and
    complicate the airspace.
        Ultimately, the role of third parties will require an
    understanding of the in-house skill mix and expertise of FAA,
    but this type of assessment has not been done. Absent clear
    roles and responsibilities, it is difficult for FAA to
    establish a plan to oversee third parties.
        Over the next decade, FAA and the industry plan to invest
    billions of dollars in RNAV/RNP and other NextGen efforts. To
    better ensure efficient use of taxpayer and industry dollars,
    we will continually monitor FAA's vision and strategy for RNAV/
    RNP, the role and use of third parties, and training needs for
    controllers and pilots.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
    to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
    Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes Dr.
    Sinha.
        Mr. Sinha. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
    Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    me to participate in today's hearing on NextGen: RNAV and RNP.
    My testimony today will highlight some examples of RNAV and RNP
    applications which together form the performance-based
    navigation initiative, commonly known as PBN, and constitute a
    foundational element of NextGen.
        RNAV enables aircraft to fly any desired path rather than
    flying to or from a fixed ground navigation aid. RNP takes
    advantage of more advanced on-board avionics to monitor the
    aircraft's navigation performance and to alert pilots when the
    required performance is not being achieved.
        RNAV and RNP equipage has been steadily increasing over the
    last several years. For air transport aircraft operations in
    2009, RNAV equipage exceeds 90 percent, RNP equipage exceeds 60
    percent, and advanced RNP equipage with curved-path
    capabilities is nearly 40 percent.
        RNAV and RNP procedures are being implemented to achieve
    repeatable and predictable departure, en route, arrival, and
    approach paths for aircraft. RNAV departure procedures
    implemented at Atlanta in 2006 have shown a measured capacity
    gain of 9 to 12 departures per hour. RNAV procedures also
    result in reducing the workload associated with the routine
    voice communications between pilot and air traffic controllers.
    Atlanta RNAV departure procedures show a decrease of about 50
    percent in voice communications required between the pilots and
    controllers.
        Similar RNAV procedures have been implemented at airports
    such as Dallas/Fort Worth, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a
    cumulative savings of $130 million from 2006 to 2008. RNP
    procedures at Portland have resulted in fuel savings of 150,000
    gallons and a reduction of 7,500 tons of carbon emissions since
    implementation in 2006.
        In many metropolitan areas, arrival and departure paths at
    nearby airports can interfere with each other. Decoupling
    operations at Chicago O'Hare and Midway through the use of an
    RNAV departure procedure at Chicago O'Hare in combination with
    an RNP approach for Chicago Midway has been modeled to show a
    savings of approximately $4-1/2 million per year in reduced
    delays under a full PBN equipage scenario.
        RNP SAAAR that Rick Day has defined can provide an
    alternative means of access to runway ends that currently
    cannot support an ILS. At Palm Springs airport, Alaska Airlines
    has reported over 20 instances where they were able to complete
    the flight and land at Palm Springs using RNP SAAAR approaches
    since its implementation in 2005.
        Within the descent phase of flight, a strategy for reducing
    fuel use and emissions is to minimize the use of level offs. A
    general term for the broad class of descent routes and
    procedures which are designed to reduce fuel and carbon
    emissions during descent is Optimized Profiled Descents (OPDs).
    Several domestic trial implementations of regularly scheduled
    flights have shown significant promise. OPD flight trials at
    Atlanta and Miami during 2008 involved 20 flights, with a fuel
    savings of 50 gallons per flight and a carbon emissions
    reduction of approximately 450 kilograms per flight.
        MITRE recently conducted a nationwide analysis of arrival
    flows at over 100 airports to assess the potential application
    and benefits of OPD procedures. Ten airports were identified
    with less complex airspace structures and flows where OPDs can
    be implemented in the near term. The estimated range of
    benefits achieved at those airports is equivalent to removing
    4,400 to 13,000 cars off the road every year. At larger
    airports the benefits are higher but the implementation of OPD
    is more complex and is likely to require a longer time.
        Beyond the near term, there are opportunities to combine
    different NextGen capabilities to achieve even greater
    benefits. Concepts for approaches to closely spaced parallel
    runways combine the use of ADS-B and RNP capabilities with the
    potential capacity benefit of adding 15 to 22 arrivals during
    instrument meteorological conditions at airports such as San
    Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle.
        In summary, RNAV and RNP implementation over the past few
    years have resulted in significant benefits. These
    implementations have been successful due to the close
    collaboration between the FAA and the aviation community
    through forums such as RTCA and the Performance-based
    Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee, commonly known as
    PARC.
        As we move forward, we must consider the implementation of
    those RNAV and RNP procedures that result in measurable high
    benefits to the community, not just the number of procedures
    that are implemented. Furthermore, we suggest a focus on
    implementing OPD procedures at airports with less complex
    airspace structures and flows which can more easily be achieved
    in the near term. OPD procedures implementation at airports
    with more complex airspace structures and flows should be
    undertaken as a part of a more comprehensive airspace design.
        Finally, as we look ahead, RNAV and RNP, in combination
    with other capabilities such as ADS-B, data communications,
    enhanced ground automation capabilities, and safe reduction in
    separation standards, can result in even greater benefits.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy
    to answer any questions the Committee may have.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Sinha. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Brantley.
        Mr. Brantley. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to
    testify today on RNAV/RNP.
        PASS represents approximately 11,000 FAA employees
    throughout the United States and overseas, including the flight
    procedures development specialists, flight inspection pilots,
    and mission specialists in aviation systems standards.
        It is generally accepted that the use of new performance-
    based routes and procedures has great potential to enhance
    system capacity and reduce environmental impact and fuel costs.
    However, a lack of clear guidance from the FAA has led to
    conflicting ideas among the industry, FAA, and even
    congressional proponents as to how these benefits can best be
    realized.
        An agenda supported by many in the aviation industry and
    advanced by some Members of Congress is to set quotas for the
    production of new RNP procedures without regard for the
    feasibility of such a plan. PASS believes that quotas are
    unrealistic, very likely unachievable, and are not based on the
    potential safety, capacity, and operational benefits to the
    overall NAS.
        NextGen's promise is founded on shifting from ground-based
    to satellite-based operation. This will not be accomplished
    solely through the use of new technology. It will be a mix of
    new technology procedures and operations that will transform
    our current system into the one promised by NextGen. But it
    seems that the drive for industry to equip with new technology
    to realize benefits as soon as possible may lead to unintended
    problems that could actually delay those gains. The best
    equipped, best served policy offered by the FAA may not be the
    best way to promote the adoption of new technology by users.
        Since the FAA left it to the RTCA NextGen Implementation
    Task Force to define the specific policy details, the priority
    treatment promised by the FAA is unclear. Yet the rush to gain
    this priority treatment has begun. The very complex issues
    involved in developing and implementing new RNP procedures in
    support of NextGen won't necessarily align themselves with the
    best equipped, best served policy.
        The work involves developing an integrated infrastructure,
    not individual stand-alone procedures. Obstruction and
    environmental issues must be resolved; controlled airspace and
    air traffic flow must be taken into consideration; any needed
    airspace rulemaking processes must be initiated; and
    coordination with air traffic is needed to ensure that the new
    procedure can be safely integrated into the management of the
    overall airspace.
        Additionally, during the development of a new procedure,
    changes in other procedures are often identified, and further
    coordination must take place to ensure that everything
    continues to work together.
        The numbers of special use procedures meant for the benefit
    of the user developing them have always been small in
    comparison to public use procedures which are meant for the use
    of all qualified users of the system. However, the push to
    develop thousands of new special use procedures would require a
    coordination unlike any we have ever seen. Without extensive
    oversight, these new procedures may not fit ongoing airspace
    redesign efforts, and they may conflict with other RNP
    development that is underway at the same time. To assume that
    all conflict with public use procedures will be resolved
    through the FAA's best equipped, best served policy is
    unrealistic.
        PASS also feels that any policy change to allow third
    parties to develop public use RNP procedures is misguided. PASS
    believes this safety critical work to be inherently
    governmental. As such it should not be outsourced to private
    vendors. Additionally, the changes in air traffic operations
    that will be required for a systematic transition to the
    capabilities offered by NextGen must not be unduly rushed. We
    cannot forget that the changes that are coming include people,
    not just technology and procedures.
        The FAA has said that it believes it needs to take a
    strategic approach to RNP/RNAV procedures development and any
    corresponding airspace redesign work that is required to deploy
    those procedures. PASS agrees with this approach and stands
    ready to work with the FAA and other stakeholders to accomplish
    the transition to the new capabilities.
        That concludes my statement and I thank the Subcommittee
    for having me here today.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Brantley, and now
    recognizes Mr. Fuller.
        Mr. Fuller. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank
    you for opportunity to testify today. There are a few things I
    would like you to believe about RNP.
        First, RNP means greater accuracy and precision and RNP
    enables efficiency. It is through RNP that operators and the
    flying public will derive the value of the NextGen air traffic
    management system.
        Second, RNP provides enormous environmental benefits.
        Third, RNP is fundamental to the transition from the past
    to the future.
        Fourth, the technology is ready today. All we have to do to
    reap the benefits of RNP is accelerate implementation.
        GE Aviation is a leader in efficient technology, known for
    its innovation in aircraft engines. But GE Aviation's
    navigation systems have guided the world's most successful
    aircraft for almost 2 decades. In fact, every 2.7 seconds an
    aircraft goes airborne with a GE Aviation flight management
    system computer guiding it.
        Our current ATC system is outdated. It is a very large sky,
    but we don't use very much of it, and what we do use, we use
    pretty inefficiently. The airways we fly today are 8 nautical
    miles wide because they have to be.
        Radar was a technical wonder 50 years ago, but today it is
    an anachronism. Today's GPS equipped aircraft are almost always
    within a wingspan of airway centerline. The improved navigation
    accuracy in all four dimensions enables increased airspace
    capacity and efficiency.
        Let me tell you about a couple of examples which showcase
    the benefit of RNP and GE's technology. In Brisbane, Australia,
    Qantas has been the lead carrier in a project that has
    demonstrated that air traffic controllers can integrate RNP
    capable aircraft and non-RNP capable aircraft in a medium
    traffic density environment. They have already implemented RNP
    at 15 Australian airports and are saving fuel and carbon today.
        Another demonstration conducted by Scandinavian Airlines in
    Sweden has taken RNP one step further and added the dimension
    of time. Time increases predictability. With four dimensional
    trajectory-based operations, they have added the ability to
    deconflict traffic through trajectory negotiation. In thousands
    of approaches into Stockholm, they have reduced by over 50
    percent the area affected by noise greater than 65 db through
    the use of RNP and 4D TBO.
        In the case of RNP, it should be noted that all approaches
    are not created equal. If you take an existing approach and
    merely recreate it so that it might be flown using RNP
    equipment and procedures, you get exactly the same results. No
    reduction in noise, no reduction in fuel, and no reduction in
    distance traveled. Unfortunately, many of the RNP procedures
    posted in the United States over the last few years simply
    replicate the existing ground-based navigation procedures and
    in doing so create very little benefit.
        We support the emphasis on measuring the benefits of new
    RNP procedures as included in the Senate's FAA reauthorization
    bill. We should increase the rate of RNP procedure deployment
    and have metrics to ensure their effectiveness. RNP offers
    substantial environmental benefits. It is estimated that RNP
    has the potential to cut global CO-2 emissions by 13 million
    metric tons. That is 1.2 billion gallons of fuel. This is a
    very important path to energy independence.
        Oddly enough, one of the factors slowing down the
    proliferation of RNP procedures is the environment. Because the
    RNP path differs from the path of the previous instrument
    approach there is some question as to whether an environmental
    impact statement is required to determine the impact of new RNP
    paths. While this is a valid concern, there are immediate ways
    that beneficial RNP paths can be designed that will not require
    environmental review. In particular, RNP routes could be
    designed in a way that replicate the routes taken by aircraft
    on visual approaches over the same track of ground.
        The benefits of RNP are very clear. So what should we do?
    We think we should accelerate the creation of high quality RNP
    procedures that use aircraft performance to drive the
    efficiency. We think that, second, we need to create metrics
    for success and measure approaches based on their efficiency.
        Third, we need to accelerate the movement toward 4-
    dimension trajectory-based operations and add time as an
    element of the approach design.
        And fourth, we need to integrate the efforts around
    communications, navigation, and surveillance so that there is
    one strategy and one vision. We think the time is now to work
    together for the benefit of the environment, the airline, and
    the flying public.
        Thank you very much for your time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Fuller, and now
    recognizes Captain Martin.
        Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
    Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jeff Martin.
    I am the senior director of flight operations and a Captain for
    Southwest Airlines. Since 2006, I have been directing
    Southwest's NextGen program, training our nearly 6,000 pilots
    and equipping more than 500 Boeing 737 aircraft in RNP and
    associated NextGen efforts.
        Like Southwest, our RNP project is unique. In March of
    2007, Southwest made an unprecedented commitment of $175
    million to advance NextGen and make RNP an integral part of our
    day-to-day operations.
        Southwest based our business plan and set the standard for
    a return on investment by determining that we need to reduce
    our flight track miles by 3 miles per leg. Reducing flight
    track miles burns less fuel. Fuel is an airline's highest cost
    behind labor. So there is a national incentive for airlines to
    reduce fuel burn. That also translates into reduced aircraft
    emissions and lower fuel costs.
        Southwest NextGen RNP project can be broken down into four
    distinct work areas. One, aircraft equipage and modification.
    Each of our 500 aircraft required some equipment modification
    that consumed over 80 percent of our NextGen budget. Today 66
    percent of our fleet is RNP capable, and we will complete our
    remaining motivations within 4 years.
        Two, FAA regulatory approval. For 2 years Southwest has
    been working with the FAA towards achieving regulatory
    approval. We learned last night that we had received FAA
    approval from the FAA to proceed to our next level of our RNP
    certification.
        Three, pilot training. Training is already underway, but
    developing that curriculum took 19 months and consumed 13
    percent of our budget.
        And fourth and last, airport procedures. Southwest is
    working closely with the FAA to assist in the design of new RNP
    flight procedures. Our goal is to have at least one carbon
    negative RNP procedure at each of the airports we serve, much
    like Chicago's Midway Airport as you can see on the screen. It
    is safe, it deconflicts two airports, it reduces fuel and
    reduces emissions.
        A recent audit of our airport procedures revealed that we
    have 412 runway ends that we serve. Of these 412 runway ends,
    69 RNP procedures currently exist. Of these 69 procedures, 6
    would reduce fuel and reduce emissions.
        From start to finish, Southwest's RNP program will take 6
    years. In addition to time and money, it has required focus,
    project oversight, and considerable attention to human factors
    such as education and training.
        As mentioned, RNP benefits the environment, it benefits the
    consumer, it benefits the carrier. By using available
    technologies like RNP, the implementation of NextGen can be
    accelerated. If implemented correctly and widely throughout the
    national aviation system, RNP will, one, strengthen our
    environment by greatly reducing the amount of fuel we consume
    and greenhouse gases we emit; two, provide our customers with
    less congestion and fewer delays; and, three, improve safety
    and operational performance of the aviation industry.
        Based on Southwest Airline's own demonstration flights, RNP
    can reduce fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions by as much as
    6 percent per flight. Translating those savings across our
    entire fleet, we can burn 90.6 million less gallons of fuel and
    reduce our CO-2 emissions by 1.9 billion pounds annually at
    Southwest airlines.
        NextGen's success is dependent on industry and government
    working together. We have worked closely with the FAA from day
    one and we continue to have quarterly meetings with the FAA
    Administrator. The FAA Administrator, Randy Babbitt, said--and
    I quote--we must take advantage of what operators already have
    invested.
        RNAV and RNP work. We know that. With the airlines and the
    economy still looking at a steep climb, the return on
    investment is even more important. Southwest Airlines could not
    agree more. Achieving a return on investment is necessary to
    justify continued NextGen efforts.
        Let me conclude with lessons learned. During the past 3
    years, our airline has been fully engaged and committed to our
    NextGen project. We have already equipped over 300 aircraft and
    will complete our pilot training by 2010. Developing and
    implementing our RNP project is without a doubt one of the most
    complicated, time consuming, and expensive projects that
    Southwest Airlines has undertaken.
        In order for the industry and the public to achieve the
    full benefits of RNP, it is incumbent on the FAA to design and
    implement flight procedures like those at Chicago's Midway
    Airport. For NextGen to succeed, FAA, airlines, and other
    stakeholders must all be in sync.
        Existing regulations and guidelines from the 1960s and
    1970s need to be updated in order to utilize and benefit from
    NextGen capabilities and technology. Successful use of RNP and
    NextGen requires, one, a definable return on investment; two,
    an emphasis on the quality of the procedure, not just meeting a
    quota for production; and, three, a mandate to design and
    implement new flight procedures that will reduce airline
    emissions and fuel burned.
        Southwest Airlines is proud to be leading the industry in
    deploying our 500 aircraft into NextGen airspace. Thank you for
    this opportunity to testify and to share our thoughts and
    experiences with RNP. We look forward to working with the FAA,
    elected officials, and industry stakeholders in ensuring RNP's
    future success. Southwest Airlines remains committed to RNP and
    NextGen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Captain Martin, and
    recognizes Mr. Thomann.
        Mr. Thomann. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Brad
    Thomann, and I am the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating
    Officer at JEPPESEN.
        JEPPESEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Company
    based near Denver in Inglewood, Colorado. For more than 75
    years, our company has been the premier provider of navigation
    charts, databases, and other information solutions to the
    general aviation, business aviation, and commercial entities
    around the world in airlines.
        Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your convening this
    hearing to discuss NextGen and RNAV and RNP. JEPPESEN and
    Boeing believe these procedures are an essential element in the
    NextGen transformation. In the previous testimony, we have
    heard a lot about what RNP is. Please allow me to show you
    visually what we are talking about.
        So what we are looking at here is a traditional approach.
    These traditional approaches are typically based upon land-
    based navigation or way points off those land-based navigation.
    There is large buffers around terrain and obstacles and
    restricted airspace. There is a complex network obviously to
    these base navigational facilities. And typically in approach
    procedures pilots do what we call a dive and drive procedure
    where we hit a way point or we hit one of these navigational
    aids and reduce power and we come down. And that is how in this
    case we make a descent into the airport and for the landing
    where we catch the ILS or the localizer. A dive and drive
    procedure is not very fuel efficient, nor is it environmentally
    friendly.
        Now, a vast majority of the instrument approaches in the
    world today are flown according to this design philosophy. This
    is well established, very safe, but we all agree it is near its
    maximum capability in terms of efficiency, carbon emissions,
    and capacity.
        So let me show you, Mr. Chairman, now what the future looks
    like. Let us look at RNP. So this is an RNP approach. And again
    as we have talked already in testimony, it is a satellite-based
    navigation based on GPS with RNAV performance monitoring. RNP
    of course requires special certifications with the pilot, the
    airplane, close coordination obviously with ATC. There is
    training and equipment that Captain Martin talked about. But it
    gives us a lot greater design flexibility. It allows us to do
    curve-path approaches, stabilize continuous descent, which is
    safer, gives pilots--I think the pilots in this room would
    disagree--or agree. It gives us a lot more situational
    awareness as we are flying stabilized approaches rather than
    dive and drive, And it puts us in this very confined and
    contained and safe containment corridor.
        So why do we want to do this? And we have talked about this
    throughout the panel, but one of the biggest one obviously to
    pilots in this Committee and us is safety. It allows us to
    provide these stable approaches, it allows to us get away from
    this no dive and drive, a continuous descent approaches, pilots
    obviously would agree that this is a safer method. It gives us
    protection in engine-out emergencies and ensuring limited areas
    with the very precise navigation requirement. It is
    environmentally friendly, as we have already heard. Emissions
    reductions, noise reductions is critical, not only for the
    aviation community, the business and general aviation
    community, but the military community as well.
        And of course we have heard about the financial savings. We
    get fuel savings as we have less path that we travel over the
    ground. We get fuel savings as we have more of an idle approach
    to this. And that allows the airlines to have greater
    utilization. Every minute that they can shave off of a flight
    is another minute they can put in productive service.
        RNP is a critical part of Next Generation. The FAA has
    built over 140 RNP procedures at 42 airports. And as we have
    heard, some of the procedures do not provide the desired
    benefit of time or lower minimums to allow us to get in. Only
    15 to 25 percent of the aircraft, as I know it right now, are
    equipped to use RNP and we need continued justification for the
    airlines to equip like Southwest and Alaska, and that is by
    building more procedures and allowing RNP to more airlines to
    participate in and take advantage.
        We need more procedures. And third party providers like
    JEPPESEN can complement and partner and work side by side with
    the FAA in order to give us more capacity.
        However, we do feel that the FAA should conduct ongoing
    maintenance of procedures once they are built. There is no one
    better equipped, no one with a greater core competency to
    understand our national airspace system than the FAA. And so
    like we are doing currently at JEPPESEN and other providers, we
    work every day side by side with the published approaches for
    the airlines around the world, working with the FAA, and we
    suggest we continue to have that great working relationship.
        So in summary, RNP is a vital part of NextGen. This picture
    up here is Heng Shan, China, a very complex terrain approach
    that we designed out in China. It is a technology that is ready
    now. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. What we do need to do
    is continue to work together, government and industry, to make
    this a reality.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any of
    your questions.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Thomann, and now
    recognizes Captain Beck.
        Mr. Beck. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member
    Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gary Beck. I
    am the Vice President of Flight Operations for Alaska Airlines.
    I came to Alaska Airlines from Delta Airlines, where I served
    as Senior Vice President of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot.
    I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the Air Transport
    Association and offer Alaska Airlines' unique experience with
    and perspective on RNP technology. My testimony today will
    focus on three key points.
        First point, RNP is proven technology. Alaska Airlines has
    a relatively long history with RNP technology, having pioneered
    its use during the mid-1990s to improve safety and reliability
    of our flights operating into and out of Juneau, Alaska, an
    airport known for its bad weather and challenging mountainous
    terrain. The first RNP-guided flight path was used by Alaska
    Airlines to land in Juneau in 1996.
        As many of you know, RNP enables aircraft to fly more
    direct routes with pinpoint accuracy and reduces diversions due
    to weather by using on-board navigation technology in the
    Global Positioning System satellite network. It improves safety
    and reliability in all weather conditions and reduces reliance
    on ground-based navigational aids.
        You could say the rough terrain and equally rough weather
    in the State of Alaska gave the company the business case to
    invest early in innovative technology that could help us more
    reliably and safely serve communities throughout the State.
        In doing so, our corporate leaders then took a risk in
    being the first major U.S. Air carrier to invest in RNP, an
    unproven technology at that time. We believe that risk was one
    worth taking. Today we are the only major domestic air carrier
    with a completely RNP equipped fleet and fully trained crews.
        In addition to RNP, our all-Boeing 737 fleet is 100 percent
    equipped with other modern safety technology, including the
    Heads-up Guidance System, which allows take-offs and landings
    at the lowest minimum weather conditions certified by the FAA,
    as well as the Runway Awareness and Advisory, or RAAS, System,
    a key tool in alleviating runway incursions. Alaska is the
    first U.S. passenger carrier to install RAAS on all of its
    aircraft.
        Since that first RNP flight into Juneau in the mid-1990s,
    Alaska Airlines has launched RNP procedures in partnership and
    with the approval of the FAA into Palm Springs, San Francisco,
    Portland, Oregon, and cities throughout the State of Alaska.
    Alaska Airlines was also the first carrier to use RNP precision
    technology to land aircraft at Reagan National Airport right
    here in Washington, D.C., having worked with the FAA after 9/11
    on the development of the Reagan procedures. Recognizing the
    safety and environmental advantages of RNP approaches and
    landings, the FAA worked diligently to make the RNP procedures
    publicly available to all airlines that operate at Reagan
    national.
        In total, Alaska Airlines currently has RNP approaches
    available to us at 23 airports throughout our system, nine of
    which we developed with the coordination and approval of the
    FAA.
        In another first on the RNP front, last December, the FAA
    approved Alaska Airlines to become the first U.S. commercial
    air carrier to conduct its own RNP flight validation, laying
    the groundwork for faster procedure approvals.
        Second point. RNP saves time, fuel, and emissions. The
    numbers speak for themselves. For example, in 2008, Alaska
    Airlines used RNP procedures 12,308 times. 1,774 of these were
    called saves. A save is defined as an operation that would not
    have been completed if RNP were not available. In other words,
    the flight would either have been canceled or diverted. In
    doing so, we saved 1-1/2 million gallons of fuel, which equates
    to a savings of approximately 17,000 metric tons of CO-2
    emissions. In addition, we realized a savings of $17 million in
    operating costs.
        Third, RNP is a key tool in the NextGen modernization
    effort. The original purpose of RNP was to provide guidance to
    runways without Navaids and to reduce minimums. However, RNP is
    now taking a new path. As part of the NextGen effort, the same
    technology can and should be used to enhance capacity and
    create more efficient approach and departure paths. In order
    for the operational and environmental benefits of these more
    efficient paths to be realized, the FAA must implement new
    standards and procedures that enable the technology to be fully
    utilized. For example, the FAA must develop new reduced
    separation standards that take advantage of RNP's technological
    capabilities.
        At Sea-Tac airport in Seattle, Alaska Airlines is leading
    an effort, in partnership with the FAA, the Boeing Company, the
    Port of Seattle, and Southwest Airlines, to use RNP in just
    that way to create more efficient paths that will reduce flight
    path length and in turn reduce time in the air, fuel
    consumption, emissions, and noise. This Sea-Tac project is
    leading edge on the RNP front in that it involves the use of
    RNP in complex airspace, requiring air traffic to be sequenced
    and spaced at altitude as opposed to in the terminal space.
        The lessons learned from and the benefits of the Sea-Tac
    project can be replicated at major airports across the country.
    The benefits are impressive. Carriers equipped to fly these
    procedures at Sea-Tac will save more than 2 million gallons of
    fuel per year, which equates to an annual savings of 22,400
    metric tons of CO-2 emissions. The airline industry and the FAA
    should be leveraging the use of existing technology as much as
    possible to create airspace efficiencies and reduce aviation's
    impact on the environment. That really is the mission of
    NextGen.
        Alaska Airlines is proud to continue our history of
    technological innovation in our use of RNP at Sea-Tac. We look
    forward to replicating the benefits of this project for all
    equipped users at airports across the country.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral testimony. I am
    pleased to answer any questions from the Committee.
        Mr. Costello. Captain Beck, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr, I have a few questions for you. One,
    you stated in your written testimony that the FAA will need to
    implement a formal oversight program to ensure that third
    parties properly follow FAA design criteria and procedures for
    key areas. I wonder if you might elaborate on that statement.
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Absolutely. I think we did hear clearly
    across the board that the role of the third parties is
    currently unclear, and while the vision for their use is on the
    development of public procedures as well as special procedures
    that would benefit specific carriers, we call into question how
    well thought out a business case that is and to what extent
    they will be used.
        The first thing that has to happen to have a formalized
    oversight structure is you need to know who you are overseeing
    and what you are asking them to do. So my short answer to this
    is we need to step back, we need to rethink the role that the
    third parties will play. Then we have to recognize what it is
    we are asking them to do. We have to do an in-house assessment
    of our own capabilities and skill sets to oversee what we have
    been asking them to do. We need to have metrics in place to
    measure the ability to achieve the goals, and we need to do
    that on a continual basis.
        And the final thing that I would add is if it is not
    achieving the larger vision, then we need to go back, rethink,
    and have a mitigation contingency plan in place to revision.
        Mr. Costello. You also expressed concerns about how special
    procedures may further complicate the workload for the air
    traffic controllers and increase the complexity of the national
    airspace. I wonder if you might elaborate on that as well.
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Sure. I would be happy to.
        I guess if I would put myself in the seat of a controller
    and I was dealing with a number of mixed capabilities and mixed
    procedures, the number one thing I would want to know is how
    big is that mix, what is that mix, what is coming at me, and
    what do I have to be aware of to do my job to ensure safe and
    efficient flights?
        This is an issue. We need to understand what the new routes
    are going to be, what the new procedures are going to be, and
    who is equipped with what, and all the players and
    stakeholders, including the controllers, need to be aware of
    that. They also then need to be properly trained to handle the
    uniqueness of these routes and these procedures, and they have
    to have the tools to do so.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you. Mr. Brantley, you indicated in
    your testimony, you talk about how the FAA must have a
    strategic approach to deploying RNAV and RNP. I wondered if you
    might elaborate on what you think that this strategic plan
    should look like.
        Mr. Brantley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I believe, as
    was just stated, part of the difficulty with everyone coming to
    grips with this or getting on the same page is differences over
    what priorities there may be, how new procedures will fit into
    the overall system, and right now I don't believe the agency
    has a comprehensive plan that stakeholders have bought into
    that they have been part of. I think everyone needs to
    understand what the priorities are for the overall NAS and then
    develop a plan on how to get there. Everyone can't just be in a
    rush, and that is where we have concern with the best equipped,
    best served philosophy.
        It sounds good, but that doesn't necessarily take the
    agency where it needs to go. If everything could transition
    overnight, that is one thing. But since it is going to be a
    phased evolution it has to be done in a logical, thoughtful
    manner in a way that best suits the needs of the overall NAS
    and the flying public.
        So that may cause conflict with different constituents'
    priorities, but I think that has to be grappled with and a plan
    has to be developed to address that as much as possible.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you. Captain Martin, you say that the
    FAA must apply useful RNP procedures, starting with the
    Nation's 35 busiest airports. In your opinion, what is the
    biggest hurdle that the FAA faces in deploying useful
    procedures?
        Mr. Martin. First, let me define "useful." We define
    "useful" at Southwest Airlines as a safe approach, an efficient
    approach, and an accessible approach. We agree with the FAA's
    OEP roll-out plan. We have done a cross inventory against the
    roadmap. And if the FAA meets their plan for deployment, that
    meets our return on investment. So we completely support the
    FAA's OEP plan roll-out. But our definition of "useful" is any
    procedure that we define as safe, efficient, carbon negative,
    and accessible, sir.
        Mr. Costello. Very good. The Chair now recognizes the
    Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much. I appreciate the effort
    that went into each of your statements, and the complete
    statements of course are part of the record. I wonder--there is
    one area that was a theme in many of your remarks, and that is
    that there seems to be something of a chokepoint in going
    through the environmental clearance procedures for these
    variable, more efficient routes into airports. And I sit here
    listening and think to myself, well, if you had an
    environmental impact requirement on the rule here, these more
    efficient routes save time, fuel, reduce emissions overall. So
    is the rule that you are supposed to achieve environmental
    efficiency, is that causing overall environmental inefficiency.
    There is something wrong here with this procedure, because with
    more flexible routes and changes and having to approve all of
    them, it is delaying efficiency in the overall system and it is
    counterproductive.
        Could you comment on that? And is there some way we can
    stand back and figure out a more efficient approach to achieve
    the legitimate goals of these environmental requirements, and
    really achieve them rather than saying we are meeting the
    formal requirement when in fact what we are doing is causing
    more pollution and use of fuel and all the rest of it? Who
    would care to comment? Maybe Mr. Fuller or----
        Mr. Fuller. Yes, sir, I will start. If you think about the
    approval process and you think about rolling out what we think
    are thousands of approaches that take into account aircraft
    performance in order to gain efficiency, we have to think about
    defining the process start to finish that can be achieved and
    repeated very quickly and robustly. The organizations
    responsible for approving the approaches have absolutely got to
    be engaged in the machine, in the factory that produces these
    approaches. And the environmental impact piece of it needs to
    be addressed--what I would consider rationally--against a
    balance of constraints. In other words, if 20 percent of your
    approaches are flying a ground track as described by a visual
    approach, we don't understand the need for reevaluating the
    environmental impact if they are roughly the same track over
    the ground.
        Mr. Petri. They take into account evidently noise and
    emissions right in that area, they don't take into account fuel
    savings, time savings, overall improvements to the environment
    that aren't related to those two factors. So it is kind of a
    weird thing. It pretends to be an environmental impact
    statement. It is really a not-in-my-backyard for people who
    live near airports requirement as best I can tell.
        Mr. Fuller. It most definitely could be.
        Mr. Petri. Any other comments?
        Mr. Day. Yes, sir. First of all, we can't take shortcuts.
    And I think everybody agrees on safety and on our environmental
    responsibility. And our approach to date has been runway by
    runway. And what we propose moving forward is to look at the
    National Airspace System and that when we look at these areas,
    to look at an integrated approach to these performance-based
    procedures so that as we look at the impact on the environment,
    we are looking at adjacent airports and airspace, and we can
    show the overall effect or savings as far as fuel and noise and
    impact on the environment and on the communities.
        So we believe that making the shift from looking at
    individual procedures, to looking more at regions and more of
    an integrated system in the communities, we can streamline the
    procedure and be good stewards of the environment at the same
    time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono.
        Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been talking
    about NextGen for quite a while in this Committee, and I
    confess that just sometimes I get very confused as to what we
    are really talking about and today for the first time we are
    talking about something very concrete. So I thank all of the
    panelists.
        I am curious to know--I commend Southwest and Alaska for
    taking the lead. I am wondering why it is that the other
    airlines such as United, American, Northwest, why they have not
    proceeded to implement RNP since it saves money, fuel, lowers
    carbon footprint, efficiency? It sounds really good. Anybody
    care to opine? FAA person. Sorry. Mr. Day.
        Mr. Day. Certainly. It is tough times for the airlines and
    they do have to make difficult choices in this environment. I
    think everyone is committed and sees the value of these
    performance-based procedures and the larger NextGen system as
    we look at other capabilities and operational improvements. But
    they are oftentimes faced with very difficult decisions. We are
    absolutely delighted that we have had such champions and early
    adopters as Alaska Airlines and American and Delta, and most
    recently, Southwest to be those leaders. And we do think from
    these measurable benefits that Dr. Sinha described, we will
    excite and show the business case for making an investment in
    this capability for these airlines.
        Ms. Hirono. Are some of the other--did you want to say
    something?
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I would just also like to add that in
    order to invest that kind of money in the types of avionics
    that these carriers will be required to put on their aircraft,
    they have to be assured at some point that the routes and the
    airspace have been aligned in order to maximize those benefits.
    So if I was buying a system, I would want to make sure that I
    have an environment in which that system would be able to
    return its investment, and right now I think with what we have
    learned, the vision that FAA has currently on the books is just
    overlays of what was the traditional ground-based radar system.
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr.  I am very encouraged to hear Mr. Day
    say that they are taking a step back and they are thinking
    about ways to maximize the airspace. I think once that is done,
    you may see other carriers willing to step up and say now it is
    time to put that kind of money into those high-cost avionics
    because I think I can realize the benefits.
        Ms. Hirono. I think that makes a lot of sense to me.
        Mr. Day, sir, does FAA have some kind of a time frame in
    which they can put in place the kind of procedures and
    basically, I guess, procedures so that other airlines can make
    these kinds of decisions moving forward.
        Mr. Day. Yes, ma'am. So first of all, we have been on track
    with our Flight Plan and also from the recommendations from the
    performance-based aviation rulemaking committee to deploy
    procedures. And from the community we are gathering an interest
    and a desire to really move out more quickly in putting out
    those procedures of value that have measurable benefits and
    solve real operational problems. So we have the NextGen
    Operations and Planning Office, and the Integration and
    Implementation Office, which is responsible for helping to
    integrate all of these operational improvements.
        And as I mentioned before, we are making a shift from just
    production to looking at the National Airspace System in
    geographical areas, and when we go in there, looking at the
    airspace, the airports, including the satellite airports from
    the air transport airports, and taking a redesign of the
    airspace so that we really can provide the value and the
    benefit of having not only the vertical integrity of the
    performance aircraft----
        Ms. Hirono. My time is about to run out, so I am glad that
    you are taking a comprehensive approach.
        But what kind of time frame are you talking about? I don't
    want to rush things. That is not what we are talking about. I
    understand the testimony that says we are not just wanting to
    have numbers here, we want to have qualitative improvements. So
    is there a time frame for you to put these in place so that
    more airlines can use this kind of system?
        Mr. Day. Yes, ma'am. We have a NextGen integration plan. In
    August, we will be getting the recommendation from the RTCA
    NextGen Midterm Implementation Task Force which has over 300
    participants. And we expect them to make recommendations that
    are actionable for us to give that kind of clarity and focus to
    our steps moving forward.
        Ms. Hirono. Mr. Brantley, are you being consulted or are
    you at the table with the FAA in all these discussions and
    planning?
        Mr. Brantley. Not to date.
        Ms. Hirono. I think you should be.
        Mr. Brantley. I agree. We would love to be.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And I really appreciate Mr.
    Costello for holding this hearing.
        Like many on this Subcommittee, I have spent a great deal
    of time looking at ways to stop the flight delays that we are
    seeing, and there are many causes. And I think one of the ways
    we can easily stop the delays is technology and NextGen.
    Everyone on this panel has opened my eyes to the potential and
    the problems.
        I am going to focus my question to Mr. Fuller first, and
    anyone else that would like to answer, simply because Mr.
    Fuller represents my community. General Electric is in my
    community. The headquarters is just outside my district, but
    they test the engines in People's, Ohio, which is in my
    district. And it is very important, and I want to thank GE for
    all that they do to make my district as robust as it can be in
    these tough times.
        So, two questions for you, Mr. Fuller. The first is: Do you
    have any suggestions on how the FAA might streamline the
    lengthy environmental review process for special RNP
    procedures?
        And the second is, the RNP-equipped airline fleet has the
    potential to save an airline significant sums of money, reduce
    emissions, and contribute increasingly to the efficiency of our
    national airspace system. Has the FAA done enough to
    incentivize equipage for airlines? Two parts: speed it up,
    streamline it and incentivize the process.
        Mr. Fuller. Just real quick on the environmental piece, I
    think, getting back to the thought that we need thousands of
    these approaches in a short amount of time frame. To my
    knowledge, the FAA--the United States infrastructure has never
    had this kind of step change over this short duration of time.
    All the aircraft that come out today, every 737 is RNP-capable
    if it has dual FMS. And so we are not going to wait for the
    airplanes to equip the airplanes will not be the delay.
        So the machine that certifies the approach has got to be
    robust and it has got to operate just like every other machine
    that we would have in our facilities or our plants. It has got
    to take the procedures through a process quickly and
    expeditiously, and it has to find means of approving procedures
    on time schedules that would make sense and achieve the kind of
    goals that we are trying to achieve.
        The second part of your question, you know, I think if you
    looked at what really has to happen, performance, the aircraft
    performance, the performance of each aircraft is what drives
    one approach to be excellent and provide benefit or another
    approach to not provide any benefit at all. And so unless we
    create a system that allows the cooperation of industry and the
    cooperation of the approving authorities, we are not going to
    get to the approaches which take into account aircraft
    performance. All aircraft do not fly alike. And so the
    approaches that he wants are not necessarily going to be the
    approaches that are optimum for every other aircraft. But the
    efficiency gains for 737, A320 narrow body aircraft are
    enormous, and so we have to get to that point where we can
    deliver aircraft performance-based procedures.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Does anyone else care to answer the two-part
    question? Or one part of it?
        Mr. Thomann. Ma'am, I would like to point out, in Ohio
    there is a company called NetJets.
        Mrs. Schmidt. That is a pretty decent company. I like that
    company.
        Mr. Thomann. And we need to consider them as well, because
    the business aviation environment--NetJets is, what, 700
    aircraft roughly? It is huge. And they have the same needs that
    we need in the commercial environment. And they certainly
    deal--we all deal in that same airspace. So we need these
    solutions not only for the commercial side but for the business
    and general aviation aircraft.
        Mrs. Schmidt. I do have Lunken Airport in my district,
    which NetJets probably go into quite a bit.
        Mr. Thomann. Yes, ma'am.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Richardson.
        Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
        Mr. Day, could you please share with this Committee to what
    degree the air traffic controllers have been involved in RNAV
    and RNP in terms of its creation and implementation?
        Mr. Day. As you know, the RNAV/RNP is a complex technology
    requiring a lot of sophisticated software and design
    characteristics. And so, while the overall design makes use of
    engineers, mathematicians and whatnot, when the rubber meets
    the road and we have to apply these procedures we need to
    engage our controllers.
        For example, the National Air Traffic Controllers
    Association was invited and participated in the NextGen RTCA
    Task Force that was making recommendations in August and did a
    yeoman's job in helping us tackle some of those difficult
    issues, and we look for recommendations.
        Likewise, while the design may occur in other offices, when
    we go to the facility for implementation, we do need the
    participation of the controllers in making sure that we solve
    some of these complex problems that have been described as far
    as fitting equipped and nonequipped aircraft into the
    operational environment safely. So they have participated in
    that area, as well as the task force, and we look forward to,
    as we get the recommendations out of the task force, their
    continued involvement.
        Ms. Richardson. On July 3rd, Secretary LaHood came to the
    Los Angeles International Airport and met with the air traffic
    controllers. And I don't believe, based upon what I heard in
    that meeting, I did not walk away with the impression that they
    felt they were fully engaged. And I would venture to say that
    being more involved in a simple stakeholder and an occasional
    meeting probably wouldn't be sufficient. Although we have
    engineers who might deal with the mathematic aspects, it
    doesn't mean that an ongoing personal, up-close personal
    involvement throughout the entire process wouldn't be helpful.
    Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Day. I would agree that, as we do go to the location,
    it is essential that we have the operators directly involved in
    the implementation of these procedures.
        Ms. Richardson. Are they engaged right now in every step of
    the way of what you are doing?
        Mr. Day. I can't say that they are involved in every step
    of the way. I know that I certainly have engagement with
    different representatives from the workforce in this, and we do
    engage subject matter experts as we implement these procedures.
        Ms. Richardson. I would strongly recommend, if you would
    refer back to the staff with the Secretary based upon the
    meeting and what was said, and ensure that to whatever degree,
    because we don't want to reinvent the wheel, and it is far
    better to have people involved all along the way, consistently,
    as opposed to whenever you happen to show up at a particular
    location for them to assist in training or implementation.
        Mr. Day. I will take that IOU. And I was an air traffic
    controller so I do know how important it is to have them
    involved in the process.
        Ms. Richardson. Great.
        Ms. Barr, based upon your testimony and the work that has
    been done so far, in your testimony you said that you would
    recommend that this Subcommittee in particular would keep its
    attention in regard to these two programs. What did you mean by
    that and what specifically are you asking us to do?
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I think this is an excellent step right
    now, continued oversight with regards to how FAA is thinking
    about the strategy for RNAV and RNP. Clearly this is an
    enormous undertaking and task, but the benefits can just be
    tremendous. Based on what we know so far, we have raised a
    number of issues with regard to their implementation strategy,
    which has for the most part relied on an overlay of existing
    routes. That is not going to get us the benefits that can be
    realized by these two systems and clearly will not get us to
    what the NextGen goals are. So a continual look and focus on
    the vision and the implementation plan by FAA on that front is
    critical.
        The second point that I would make is, given the discussion
    we have had thus far regarding the role of the third parties,
    if they are, in fact, needed for their expertise to develop
    these kinds of avionics and these kinds of routes, then the
    role has to be clear. All the stakeholders have to know what
    each other is supposed to do, and it has to be put together in
    an integrated and synchronized way.
        So with that, I think much remains to be done. And I think
    keeping a watchful eye over it is a good thing. I can assure
    you the OIG has plans to continue to look at those two efforts
    overall.
        Ms. Richardson. Thank you so much and thank you, Southwest,
    for your participation. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
    recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, the former
    Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always nice to
    be recognized as a former Chairman; but I will tell you it is
    nice to be the Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, it really is.
        But Captain Beck, I am brave, I fly your airline a lot,
    Alaskan Airlines, and I think I know this answer. But I have
    two questions of you. How does the RNP benefit the residents of
    Juneau since you have instigated the RNP technology?
        Mr. Beck. First of all thanks for your business. We
    appreciate it.
        But secondly, we have had a number of saves and I define
    "saves" in my testimony; that is, a flight that would have been
    canceled or diverted if we had not had RNP. And for Juneau
    specifically, through June of this year we have had 338 saves.
    Last year we had 956. This goes all the way back to 2005. I
    believe we had about 550 saves that year. So every year, Juneau
    is about one-third to one-half of all of the saves that we
    experience with RNP.
        Mr. Young. Do you use that same system in any other place
    in Alaska?
        Mr. Beck. Yes, sir. We have got RNP approaches at a number
    of cities. Cordova comes to mind, Ketchikan, Kodiak,
    Petersburg, Red Dog Mine, Sitka, and I believe Wrangle also.
        Mr. Young. Now when you have a save, literally how much
    does that save the airlines; do you have any idea?
        Mr. Beck. Yes, sir. Last year it amounted to a little over
    $17 million in savings. Since 2005 through June 2009, the total
    amount of savings is $61 million.
        Mr. Young. So this is a case where the equipment, although
    expensive, can be paid for pretty rapidly because of the saves?
        Mr. Beck. That is correct, sir. Our investment in RNP is
    somewhere around $35 million. That includes the equipage. The
    equipage is about $300,000 per aircraft, and it includes
    equipage and training of our flight crews so you can see the
    ROI on it has been very good for us.
        Mr. Young. Like I say, I feel very good that you have that
    equipment, because I used to fly into Juneau a lot and still
    do. And it is a little bit awesome, if my members have done
    this, because it is surrounded by mountains. I believe it is
    the safest airport now with this equipment that we have in the
    State, probably because before it was a little bit
    questionable. Now we get in there most of the time, and I just
    want to compliment the airlines for putting the equipment in
    and making it modern.
        I would like to see this done across the Nation because I
    do believe in the long run it saves the pollution and it will
    take and make money for the airlines. And I yield back the
    balance.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Bocceri.
        Mr. Bocceri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate this
    discussion we are having today. It is very important we get
    this right.
        To Mr. Day, current procedures, departure procedures, SIDs
    and the like, and instrument approaches into air fields are
    already TERPSed, are already evaluated for performance-based
    procedures. I am not real clear on why there is such delay in
    putting weigh points through the RNF system overlaying existing
    routes or existing points that have already been TERPSed,
    already been evaluated for environmental conditions and the
    like. Can you explain to me what the delay is with respect to
    that?
        Mr. Day. I am not sure I understand the question. If it is
    just: is there a delay in production on overlaying the
    departure procedures over ground-based procedures?
        Mr. Bocceri. Yes. For ground-based NAVAID systems, we have
    the automarker, you have the funnel approach fix and the like.
    Why can't we just overlay our NAV positions, our NAV weigh
    points over top of these? Is there some sort of complication
    with technology with respect to that?
        Mr. Day. We can and we do. And I don't know of a specific
    issue that we have. Part ofthis is as you go to the more robust
    performance-based procedures, it requires certification of the
    air crew, the training program, the avionics, and then
    certainly flying and testing the procedure and validating it
    before it goes to publication. So there was just a normal cycle
    time to produce those, but they are not technologically
    difficult.
        Mr. Bocceri. So surely that if we have existing ground-
    based landing systems in ground-based NAVAIDs that had existing
    routes, that have already been tested for environmental,
    already have been performance-based on category of aircraft--A,
    B, C, D--that we could put overlay RNF points along them to
    save time. Or you are saying that is not a relatively
    complicated measure?
        Mr. Day. No, sir; it is not.
        Mr. Bocceri. Why hasn't the FAA implemented that if it is
    not very complicated?
        Mr. Day. I think in my remarks, I noted that we have
    published over 8,000 performance-based type of approaches; and
    the overlays, which were the priority early in the life cycle
    performance-based navigation routes, were where the focus was.
    It was on the overlays. And one of the things that we believe
    is important is to shift more towards where the greatest
    benefits are; and as other members on the panel have discussed,
    where we can change the route over the ground and cut miles
    short to really add additional value to the procedures.
        Mr. Bocceri. And I think that the airlines are talking
    about using these RNF procedures because they are very precise.
    They use NAVAIDs and INS systems to make this a very precise
    approach. Does the RNAV program that you have running right
    now--and RNP program--eliminate NextGen, eliminate ground-based
    NAVAID in the future, looking out into the future?
        Mr. Day. Looking out in the future, we do have to solve the
    issue of backup to make sure that we have the safety component
    covered. So, well down the road, because we do have a mixed
    equipage environment, which will depend on ground-based
    navigational capabilities for some time, as the equipage level
    comes up we would expect to see that we will be able to retire
    some of these ground-based assets, which we have already done
    in some cases. I think you mentioned the outer markers and/or
    the ADFs, you know, some of these legacy navigational aids. So,
    yes, over time we will be able to retire some of those assets.
        Mr. Bocceri. I know most pilots love redundancy, and from
    the "department of redundancy department," we should make
    certain that we have a backup, and ground-based NAVAIDs seem to
    be that route.
        Speak to me, as my time wraps up here, about the IKO, in
    international--it seems as if Europe and some of our other
    friends who have much more compressed airspace than we have,
    have already implemented to sort of RNP procedures. Why is
    there such a delay with respect to what we are doing when we
    have much broader airspace than what they are doing?
        Mr. Day. For one, the airlines operate worldwide, and
    business aircraft as well, so we definitely want to harmonize
    internationally those procedures. And we have a number of
    standing Committees working with ICAO, CANSO, and other
    organizations and air navigation service providers to
    synchronize those efforts. And we are making very good progress
    in the area. Also in some air navigation service providers in
    country states, they mandate the equipage, so they could leap
    ahead in the development of those routes. But we are very
    closely harmonized, and I have a number of efforts going to
    harmonize those efforts with other air navigation service
    providers.
        Mr. Bocceri. I think we can be the leaders in this and not
    just followers in terms of what Europe is doing and what other
    countries are doing. It is important that we get this right.
    And I think we have to move with a sense of urgency, especially
    around our congested airports. To help save money, fuel
    efficiency and the like are very important to the airlines to
    keep them solvent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, the former Chairman of
    this Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Day, let me ask you this. In Vision 100 we had an
    environmental streamlining provision that allowed airports to
    help provide funding and even use AIP funds at times to hire
    additional staff to help speed up the NEPA or the environmental
    procedures and reviews. Has that provision been used very much,
    to your knowledge, or should it be expanded in any way?
        Mr. Day. I can't speculate on the expansion of the program.
    It has been a good program, particularly where we are putting
    down new runways and infrastructure in airports. It has been
    helpful to use some of those AIP funds to help fund the
    environmental aspects of those operations related to the new
    runways.
        As you move out from the runways, certainly you get into
    the airspace where then it becomes the responsibility of others
    in the FAA and other budgets to work the environmental issues.
    So we work very closely with the Council on Environmental
    Quality in a lot of efforts to try and streamline the process.
    But at times, based again on ground tracks of aircraft, it can
    be a very lengthy and complicated process.
        Mr. Duncan. Has the FAA made any estimate as to how many
    environmental assessments and full environmental impact
    statements might be necessary to fully implement this program?
    In our briefing paper, it says you have got 2,000 to 4,000
    development targets in the RNAV/RNP procedures, 800 to 1,200
    RNAV and RNP routes; 1,000 to 2,000 RNP approaches; and then we
    get on over, several pages later, and it says it normally takes
    12 to 18 months to do an environmental assessment, and it says
    that these environmental assessments are going to cost $250,000
    to $1 million, and several millions of dollars for a full EIS.
    We have got another estimate saying that up to $5 million and
    as long as 8 years for one of these environmental studies.
        And I just wonder, have you made any estimate or rough
    guess as to how much and how long all this might take?
        Mr. Day. I will have to take an IOU. I am not aware of
    those estimates. I will say, however, that the shift that we
    are making to step away from the legacy and look more towards
    an integrated approach to airspace design meeting up with
    performance-based procedures as well as integration with the
    airports themselves. We believe this will help improve the time
    and the efficiency and use of appropriated dollars to complete
    those environmental studies.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, is the estimate of 800 to 1,200 routes,
    is that accurate? It is in a briefing paper we have.
        Mr. Day. Yes, sir. We believe that is accurate at this
    point in time. And we do believe that that may need to be
    modified once we get the recommendations from the RTCA Task
    Force.
        Mr. Duncan. And would all of those require--or how many of
    those do you think would require full environmental reviews?
        Mr. Day. I can't speculate on what that number will be.
    Again, if we overlay existing routes, we can normally cover
    that with the existing environmental study and any Record of
    Decision relative to those operations. As we move away and put
    aircraft where they hadn't been before, sometimes depending on
    the numbers and the altitudes, the numbers of aircraft and the
    altitudes they fly, it could trigger anything from a
    categorical exclusion to an environmental assessment, all the
    way up to the most complex and expensive environmental impact
    study.
        Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Day, in your response to my colleague from California,
    Ms. Richardson's, question about the air traffic controllers
    being part of the NextGen planning process, I was just reminded
    it seems that--I am from New York, Staten Island and Brooklyn,
    New York--and it seems that in the planning for the
    reconfiguration of the airspace there, the air traffic
    controllers were not consulted in that process.
        Am I correct in that belief? And if so, how does that
    comport with what you said about the FAA working so closely
    with the air traffic controllers?
        Mr. Day. If you are referring to the New York/New Jersey/
    Philadelphia airspace redesign, that project has been going on
    for some time. And there was quite a bit of involvement, direct
    involvement with the line controllers during that time. There
    was a period where there was not as much involvement, although
    there were subject matter experts that were involved, and we
    continue to talk with the representatives of the air traffic
    controllers and work towards more direct involvement in these
    airspace projects.
        Mr. McMahon. So you will agree with me that that is
    something that should be achieved and they should be part of
    that process?
        Mr. Day. Yes, sir.
        Mr. McMahon. As well as they should be NextGen. Thank you,
    I appreciate that.
        Mr. Fuller, in your written testimony that had been
    submitted, you state that the advanced RNP technology is
    "shovel ready," very important word to Congress and to America.
    And could you just--and it could begin being implemented today.
    Could you explain that more fully for us?
        Mr. Fuller. Sure. Well the work that Alaska Airlines did
    back in the nineties was with the flight management system
    computers of GE Aviation. And the work that Southwest Airlines
    is doing, upgrading their airplanes, is with GE Aviation
    displays and flight management system computers. So new
    aircraft are all capable of RNP today, by and large, every
    narrow body and most of the larger business aviation airplanes.
    So we are ready. The airplanes are ready to go.
        Mr. McMahon. A broad question. I am almost asking you to
    state the obvious, and I will ask if anyone on the panel--or as
    many as can at a time--what, in your opinion, could Congress be
    doing, what could we be doing to help speed up this processing
    to get the next NextGen up and running? I am not stating the
    obvious, but if you have any specific suggestions we would
    certainly appreciate it.
        Mr. Fuller. Was that specifically for me sir?
        Mr. McMahon. If you would start, and if you have some
    thoughts, I would be glad to hear them, Mr. Fuller.
        Mr. Fuller. Sure. We continue to say that the airplanes
    have the capability and it is aircraft performance that counts
    the most; the vision of getting the FAA to realize that time is
    the critical next element in the vision, the narrowing the
    ellipse around the aircraft as it relates to its trajectory
    negotiation is critical in forming the system of the future.
        So as we talk about accelerating the things that are
    important to us is that we collaboratively, the FAA, the
    manufacturers, the airlines, collaboratively and quickly
    demonstrate to ourselves that we can do this amongst a region
    with a little less challenge; that we take those learnings to a
    little more complex region. And we take those learnings to a
    little more complex region; but we continue to learn through
    the process, and we don't lose the opportunity to take those
    learnings from sector to sector to sector, because it is just
    absolutely critical that we take the two decades of learnings
    that Alaska has and the 6 or 7 years that the Southwest has
    been working on this and start pushing those into other
    airlines in other regions.
        Mr. Beck. Sir, if I may comment. I think we really need two
    things. We need an expedited--and we know this is part of the
    obvious--expedited certification and operational procedures
    approval process. And secondly, we need a prioritized list of
    where these procedures provide the most bang for our buck.
        Mr. Martin. Sir, I would like to add also from Southwest
    Airlines, as we move through this project I believe defining
    environmental as carbon in addition to just noise. Our business
    case was also built on fuel reduction and carbon savings. And
    then also establishing the metric; how will we know if we
    succeeded? We can do overlays, we can do special procedures, we
    can do public procedures; but how do we know if we have
    succeeded; what is the metric?
        Mr. Brantley. I will try to be brief. I think doing what
    you have done today, providing oversight, bringing the issues
    to light, is very helpful. And I think continuing to do that
    will be great because so many things have come up today that I
    believe have to be addressed.
        One of the things I have heard a lot is trying to speed
    up--whether it is the review process, the approval process--
    development. Those are all great things if it is necessary. I
    think without knowing how many procedures are needed, where
    they are needed, when, who is going to benefit, which ones do
    need environmental reviews, without knowing the answers to all
    that it is hard to say that anything has to go quicker, or if
    it has to go more quickly what needs to be done to expedite it.
        I think that the FAA really has to get their arms around
    the priorities and what is doable. We know we can't implement
    this all at once, so at some point the agency has to decide who
    is first, and when, and lay that out for everyone.
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr.  Yes, I would also just like to
    comment. I think "oversight" is an operative word, but here is
    what I would add to that. These are the things I would want to
    oversee.
        I would want to oversee that FAA is moving from the old
    ground-based system to the new one and the benefits that can be
    achieved. I would want to make sure that they have an
    integrative plan that aligns and synchronizes RNAV/RNP with
    airspace redesign, with ground infrastructure improvements, and
    new avionics, and that their policies and procedures are
    updated to reflect that. Also, that the controllers and pilots
    are trained and that there is an oversight strategy. That is
    the business model. There is a lot within that.
        Third, I would say we need to clarify the role of FAA and
    then the role, alternatively, of third parties. And, finally,
    someone needs to figure out what type of incentive structure we
    need to equip the aircraft with the avionics they will need to
    maximize the benefits.
        Mr. McMahon. Thank you. I see my time is up. I thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        To clarify a point, Mr. Fuller, you indicated that the
    newer aircraft have the equipage. How new? How far back do we
    go?
        Mr. Fuller. Right now the standard 737 coming off the line,
    if it is equipped with dual FMSs, RNP, .1 out of the box, and
    the A320 is also RNP, .15, then capable of .1 as well. So all
    the narrow bodies that are being delivered today are capable of
    RNP. And then a good number of the large business aircraft are
    capable as well.
        Mr. Costello. And how long has that been the case? How far
    back?
        Mr. Fuller. I don't know. I might refer that question to
    Captain Martin or Captain Beck.
        Mr. Martin. Yes, sir I can help you with that. Just as a
    breakdown of our fleet all of the 737 NGs, airplanes we have
    probably taken delivery of in the last 7 to 10 years, are RNP-
    capable. Two hundred of our airplanes we refer to as the
    classics require the modifications. So it is safe to say any
    airplanes that have rolled off in the last 7 to 10 years, dual-
    FMS-equipped will be RNP, .10.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.
        Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Day, good morning. I have a few questions for you. For
    months the FAA has touted its best-equipped, best-served policy
    promising more efficient routing for airlines who invest in the
    NextGen technologies. How will the FAA implement this policy?
        Mr. Day. Thank you, sir. The best-equipped, best-served is
    really a notion that we actually have today. If you are
    equipped with a Category 2 or Category 3 ILS capability, you
    have access to an airport that others not equipped don't have.
    Likewise, when we implement the Mode C Veil rule, we, for
    safety reasons, require transponders with altitude and
    reporting.
        So taking those types of policies and applications, we
    realize the best-equipped, best served does not mean
    necessarily best-equipped, first-served. It does mean that we
    create the opportunities, certainly in high density areas,
    where we can provide a service for the profile in the
    trajectory the aircraft wants to fly, so that they can make
    utilization of their investment. It is complicated, and it is
    going to take a lot of industry involvement from many people to
    figure out in an applied fashion how we can introduce that type
    of policy in some of these areas where we want to take
    advantage of the equipment on the aircraft.
        Mr. Dent. Can I also ask you what is the FAA's estimate for
    the cost of training the air traffic controllers to handle the
    larger volumes of the RNP-equipped air traffic. I want to know
    what your estimate is for the cost of training air traffic
    controllers to handle larger volumes for the RNP-equipped air
    traffic.
        Mr. Day. I don't have a cost estimate for that. We can get
    some feedback.
        Mr. Dent. The Committee would like to have that
    information. Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Dent. And how have air traffic controllers, how are
    they accommodating each special RNP procedure designed for
    individual air carriers; for example, the special procedures
    written for Alaska Airlines?
        Mr. Day. One of the challenges on moving to a performance-
    based environment is the mixed equipage and the different
    profiles that the aircraft will fly. We have trained the
    controllers on what these profiles look like. There still is a
    lot of complexity and cognitive challenges for our controllers,
    and we are working to get them some tools that will help them
    space these aircraft, and early, very early, identify any
    deviation from course or altitude so that they can do an
    intervention to keep it safe. It is part of the integration of
    these procedures into the existing system that is a major
    challenge of implementing NextGen and where we are putting a
    lot of effort.
        Mr. Dent. Also in your testimony, you noted that
    harmonization with the international community is important.
    What are some of the most pressing concerns that must be
    addressed with the international community as the RNP and the
    RNAV procedures are being implemented?
        Mr. Day. Well, building the consensus is certainly one of
    them. And one of the things we have heard from the operators
    and the manufacturers is they do not want to put double and
    triple equipment for the region of the world that they fly in.
    So that harmonization is important, to identify at a high level
    and get agreement on what the requirements are for aircraft,
    either retrofit or forward-fit, so they can operate worldwide.
    And we are making some good progress on that and continue to
    make that a priority.
        Mr. Dent. And Ms. Barr, my question to you is: Some have
    counted the RNAV and RNP among the low-hanging fruit for near-
    term realization of NextGen benefits. Do you think that
    characterization is accurate?
        Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I actually don't. In my statement I
    refer to those two systems as sort of the legs to the table.
    And our understanding is that these two programs, RNAV and RNP,
    represent, out of all the operational capabilities that will be
    needed for NextGen, 50 percent of that. So I would say that
    they are not low-hanging fruit.
        This is an opportunity to redesign our airspace, to take
    greater advantage of it, to have more precision in our flying,
    to achieve a whole bunch of efficiencies. And my understanding
    is that is, in large part, the vision for NextGen. So these are
    major components.
        Mr. Dent. Thank you, and I yield back the time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
    recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
    Chairman Oberstar.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Petri, and
    Committee staff for the splendid work in preparing for this
    hearing and for your continued vigilance, Mr. Chairman, on
    these matters of aviation technology.
        The testimony is both edifying and--well, it is edifying at
    the same time it raises a number of questions. And I think, Ms.
    Calvaresi Barr, you raised the most important issue. It is a
    question I had prepared for myself to ask, but you sort of laid
    the ground work for it.
        And that question, Mr. Day, is has your office--have the
    FAA created a progression graph showing where each of these
    technologies fits in, moving from current NAVAIDs through RNAV/
    RNP into whatever other elements there are of NextGen and how
    each fits with the other and how they fit into the grand plan?
    Or are you just doing step at a time without any overall all-
    encompassing scheme?
        Mr. Day. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. And,
    yes, we are, in the design of NextGen, which has a number of
    solution sets, which I think you have been briefed on, where we
    take the readiness level of the aircraft and apply the
    performance-based navigation capabilities along with the
    automation to support those, along with capabilities like
    Automatic Dependent Surveillance as a surveillance source and
    DataCom for decreasing voice communications and getting more of
    an Internet-type of connection with the cockpit to transfer the
    information that is needed.
        These are laid out in our NextGen Implementation Plan, and
    that is led by Vicki Cox, our senior vice president of NextGen
    and Operations Planning, and we work with her office to
    integrate these and approach these plans.
        Mr. Oberstar. Do you have a graph that you could submit to
    the Committee for our review of how each of these steps, each
    of these new technology initiatives fits in, lays the ground
    work for, is a stepping stone toward the next level, and the
    cost both for air carriers and for FAA, and where this is going
    over the next 15 years? You have a 15-year projection plan for
    NextGen? I know you have repeatedly--FAA told this Committee it
    is going to take that long.
        And I ask that because over my years, 25 or so overseeing
    aviation, we have gone from one technology to another. This one
    is going to be the stepping stone to the next piece, and the
    next one is going to be interoperable and it is going to be
    interchangeable. And what we are dealing with is piecemeal
    progression, not within a comprehensive overall plan, so that
    we really know where one piece fits into the next.
        And I give FAA enormous credit, which it doesn't receive in
    the secular press. The aviation press, to put it in broadest
    terms, does a good job of following these. But since 1985, if
    my numbers are about right, FAA has installed 65,000 pieces of
    technology to improve safety, improve navigation, improve
    workload of controllers, improve the-- make easier the work of
    pilots and air traffic controllers and professional air systems
    specialists and so on.
        But we turned a corner in all of that. We have gone through
    the AAF, advanced automation system. We have gone through the
    new STARS TRACON technology, we have gone through the end route
    technology, and probably pushed those technologies about as far
    as they can go. Now we are into satellite-based navigation
    technology, and it is going to take a much greater level of
    coordination than ever before, much greater control of costs.
    So I would like you to answer that inquiry.
        Mr. Day. Thank you, Chairman, and we will get that
    information for you. And we have been criticized before for
    lining up programs in a very linear fashion. And that is one of
    the reasons why we developed our Enterprise Architecture with
    clear milestones and have an Integration Implementation Office
    to make sure that these system-of-systems that we are deploying
    are synchronized and are aligned and executed well, using the
    taxpayers' dollars and including a lot of stakeholder
    involvement. But we will certainly go back and give you a very
    detailed description of that.
        Mr. Oberstar. I think the Committee would benefit from
    this.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Oberstar. And other Members have asked the question of
    engaging the air traffic controllers and the professional air
    system specialists in the design and development of these new
    technologies. And you have indicated--but I want to get a more
    clear statement from you--yes, we are engaging controllers,
    professional air system specialists as we develop these
    technologies.
        Mr. Day. I think one of the major commitments that the
    Administrator made, and the Secretary, is to get more line
    involvement in these types of technologies, and we are
    committed to improving those relationships and that involvement
    from our subject matter experts.
        Mr. Oberstar. As STARS was being developed--and goodness
    knows, I went to Raytheon, I went to Lockheed Martin and others
    who were--Lockheed was developing their famous Ollie competitor
    system. And each time I did, I found, well, they are going back
    and redesigning this, because after the engineers at FAA--the
    engineers who were implementing FAA specs at the contractor
    level--presented their ideas to the controllers, they thought,
    Oh, there are major things that we didn't anticipate, we didn't
    ask them about, such as the fixed trackball; it is over here
    for right-handed air traffic controllers; well, what about
    lefties? We are going to have to reach all the way across. So
    that led to the moveable trackball.
        Simple things could have avoided hundreds of thousands of
    dollars of redesign if you just brought them in earlier in the
    process. It isn't a matter of, oh, we want to feel good and ask
    their input after we have designed it. You need to engage them.
    They are the practitioners.
        What benefits do you anticipate for the most complex
    airspace from RNP? Like the new New York TRACON, like the
    Southern California TRACON? The Southern California TRACON
    handles, for those who don't really know why I am asking the
    question--I suppose most of the people in the audience do--but
    it handles more air traffic than all of Europe combined. And so
    does the New York TRACON. It handles navigation for 45
    airports. That is 2-1/2 million operations a year, those two
    alone. We have, what, 30 million operations a year handled by
    TRACONs, and that is more than 10 percent of the whole
    operation in those two TRACONS. How are they going to benefit?
    What do you anticipate?
        Mr. Day. First of all----
        Mr. Costello. And my next question is: How does this fit
    into the east coast design?
        Mr. Day. Thank you for the question, sir. And the real
    exciting part about this is we are moving from that hard-wired,
    ground-based, point-to-point, not scaleable system, to one that
    is network centric, very flexible and agile in fitting the task
    to the design.
        And the exciting part of this is that by using technologies
    like performance-based navigation, particularly the highest
    type, the RNP/SAAAR types of capabilities, we are able to take
    the airspace and the approaches and departure and segregate
    them, both the major air carrier port from the satellite
    airports and the routes that they fly. So particularly where we
    have legacy airports that are land-constrained and we can't add
    any more runways, we will be able to take what I call those
    tightly coupled interdependent operations and segregate them by
    the performance of avionics on the aircraft. And then, of
    course, we will need the automation systems.
        But that is where the tremendous value is here with these
    advanced capabilities is: to untangle the old legacy system.
    But it does require automation. It does require airspace
    design, and it is going to need the involvement of a lot of
    stakeholders, operators as well as controllers and technicians,
    to make this work.
        Mr. Oberstar. I would estimate the FAA has spent something
    like 10- to $15 million on the several east coast airspace
    redesigns, each one shelved because some other group said, oh,
    no, we are going to be impacted by the noise or we don't like
    these approaches or something else has come up in the meantime.
        So, I want to get back to my question: What benefits are
    there going to be for, say, the New York TRACON? How is this
    going to make their--how is RNAV going to make their job
    better? RNP, excuse me.
        Mr. Day. One is the confidence of the precision of the
    approach or the procedure being flown. Right now there are a
    lot of touch points. As you mentioned, the New York TRACON
    interfaces with all the adjacent towers in the centers, and
    technology is no longer the limiter on the performance of the
    system.
        So as we converge the technology with the automation
    equipment, we will be able to give them very good situational
    awareness, very good tools to help them know precisely where
    the aircraft will be, and will alert them when they are out of
    conformance. So I think they will be very excited and see a lot
    of benefit in these tools because their business is providing a
    service. And they care about that. They want to provide the
    best service. And with these tools we believe the RNP as well
    as all the other capabilities that we envision----
        Mr. Oberstar. That is a good step in the right direction.
    It is not a test and I am not challenging you, I am just trying
    to unfold the pieces of this system. Is the software going to
    have to be changed in the TRACONs? Are the screens going to
    have to be changed as part of this? Is this going to require
    some additional hardware and software cost investments?
        Mr. Day. We know the life cycle of the equipment that is
    out there, and we have road maps from surveillance as well as
    navigation and automation, and even facilities that we see in
    the future that we are going to have to make design changes.
    But that will likely involve a number of changes from displays,
    increased use of colors, and different alerting, some new tools
    to help them sequence and separate aircraft, so there will be a
    lot of change over time. But the good news is it will be
    organized, not program by program, but really more as a
    portfolio and an integrated approach to making these very
    needed changes in the system, but doing it in an orderly and
    organized way.
        Mr. Oberstar. There has apparently been a success in
    Alaska. Alaska Airlines says they like these changes; it saved
    them. Southwest. Southwest likes the changes. But you have had
    experience, so in those airspace--up in those airspaces, if you
    will, what have been the technology or equipment changes
    required?
        Mr. Day. In Alaska, for example, we were able through the
    Capstone project to put displays in the cockpit so that they
    would have situational awareness of other aircraft in their
    vicinity, so----
        Mr. Oberstar. Both on the flight deck and at the controller
    level.
        Mr. Day. Yes, sir. At the Anchorage Air Traffic Control
    Center, we are able to surveil and separate aircraft using ADS-
    B targets with the radar targets up in the Bethel area. So we
    have been able to--where they didn't have that type of safety
    and service before--at least in the demonstration project, to
    prove that we could use these technologies to provide that
    safety and service.
        And as the gentleman from Alaska Air mentioned, we have
    been able to have just an awful lot of saves, and safety as
    well as good service, for the citizens of Alaska into Juneau.
        Mr. Costello. Will general aviation, not corporate
    aviation, but will piston engine, general aviation aircraft
    benefit, be able to use RNP?
        Mr. Day. Yes, sir. And they are using it now. There is an
    expense, and so not everyone, all facets of general aviation--
    --
        Mr. Oberstar. King Air. What would a King Air have to do?
        Mr. Day. Many of them are equipping now with some of the
    advanced avionics. Certainly RNAV equipment. There is more
    expense involved as you go to the higher levels like RNP, and
    they may not need it, dependent on their----
        Mr. Oberstar. They wouldn't need it flying into a
    noncommercial airport. But in flying into one of the 429
    commercial major airports in the country, you certainly want to
    be--if they want to fly in that airspace they will want to use
    that technology. What would it cost to equip a King Air or
    Queen Air to use that technology?
        Mr. Day. I don't have it off the top of my head but I know
    we do have those estimates for different states of equipage,
    whether it be from the low end to the very high end, or also
    whether it is a retrofit or a forward-fit for those aircraft.
    We can get that for you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Oberstar. We have probably 100,000 of those types of
    aircraft that use the commercial airspace, and it is of
    importance. And when I have to travel around my district, and
    need to go from the Canadian border, International Falls to
    Minneapolis/Saint Paul, and there isn't Northwest Airlines
    service, I have to charter. And I want to know that my charter
    operator is going to be able to--and I hear this from other
    Members as well. It is a general question so it would be useful
    to have that.
        Mr. Thomann, will Jefferson/Boeing--it is so sad that
    Jefferson disappeared on its own. Such a great name in
    aviation. It was swallowed up by Boeing. But at any rate----
        Mr. Thomann. We are privileged.
        Mr. Oberstar. Good answer. I am sort of a nostalgist. Some
    of these things it would be nice to be left alone. But at any
    rate, will you continue to produce hard-copy charts, or will
    this remarkable progress in technology succumb to simply
    changing the software on the computers on board aircraft?
        Mr. Thomann. It will be both. So we are continuing in this
    digital transformation. As you know, it is a 75-year-old
    company, with good old Captain Jeff, started drawing those
    charts on that little black book. We are still drawing those
    charts. In fact, we print about a billion of them. And that is
    down from about 2.2 bil.
        As we get new technologies and the general aviation
    aircraft--which, by the way, are capable of flying RNP--and
    they use them in smaller airports or, like, going into Eagle,
    Colorado, where it is very terrain-challenged, RNP allows an
    airplane to get in there, where normally it would take a 1,200
    AGL above the ground for this person's minimum with 4 miles
    visibility. With RNP, you are pushing it down to 400 feet, a
    mile and a quarter. So it allows these aircraft also to
    participate.
        To answer your question, sir, we are going to continue to
    print the paper charts until we can get a total digital
    transformation, which is our end goal.
        Mr. Oberstar. All the Digital Age is wonderful. I do not
    demean it in anyway. And I love seeing those pilots with stacks
    of charts this thick. And I worry when they come on board with
    something this size that will have 1,200 charts in it and
    something blows a fuse.
        Mr. Thomann. So you can get our charts that way now, sir.
        Mr. Oberstar. I know. And then there is going to be the
    day, as happened to me, when the pilot turns to me and says, Is
    that White Iron Lake down there? And I say, It sure is. And he
    says, I have never flown up here before, I wasn't sure.
        So, yes, I am not a Luddite. I think these are great. But
    when they fail, then you are really out of luck.
        Mr. Thomann. They can be--and there is enough redundancy,
    and I am a pilot with a pacifier myself, sir. So when I fly a
    little Cirrus, it has all the avionics that I could possibly
    ask for and the electronic charts. But I still have my pacifier
    in the left seat, which is a paper chart.
        Mr. Oberstar. That is a good idea.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being vigilant. I thank our
    staff for their splendid work on this complex matter. And we
    will continue to revisit, and we ask the IG to continue your
    vigorous oversight, and thank Southwest and Alaska for real-
    world participation.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Chairman Oberstar.
        And do other Members have questions? If not, let me assure
    you and the IG's Office, Ms. Calvaresi-Barr, that we will
    continue to provide vigilant oversight at the Subcommittee
    level.
        As you know, we have had a number of hearings on NextGen.
    We will continue. And we have had roundtables too, not just
    formal hearings, but we have sat down informally with not only
    folks from the FAA but the inspector general's office and
    others in the industry to get updates, reports, and try and
    stay abreast as to what progress or the lack of progress is
    being made.
        So I think some very good points were made this morning. We
    appreciate all of your testimony. And this concludes the
    hearing today. And the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. Thank
    you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]