[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEXTGEN: LONG-TERM PLANNING AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
=======================================================================
(111-104)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
April 21, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-159 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee VACANCY
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
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
Columbia FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
BOB FILNER, California JERRY MORAN, Kansas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas SAM GRAVES, Missouri
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Virginia
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio, Vice Chair VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DINA TIUS, Nevada
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Bolsinger, Lorraine A., President and Cheif Executive Officer,
General Electric Aviation Systems LLC.......................... 4
Dillingham, Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
United States Government Accountability Office................. 4
Pennington, Steven, Executive Director, Department of Defense
Policy Board on Federal Aviation............................... 4
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, United States
Department of Transportation................................... 4
Shin, Jaiwon, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 4
Toner, Karlin, Director, Joint Planning and Development Office... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 22
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 23
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 30
Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona................................. 33
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 34
Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California............................ 38
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bolsinger, Lorraine A............................................ 42
Dillingham, Geralde.............................................. 52
Pennington, Steven............................................... 77
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L....................................... 81
Shin, Jaiwon..................................................... 96
Toner, Karlin.................................................... 102
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Bolsinger, Lorraine A., President and Cheif Executive Officer,
General Electric Aviation Systems LLC, response to request for
information from Hon. Richardson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................... 49
Dillingham, Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
United States Government Accountability Office, response to
request for information from Hon. Richardson, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California....................... 72
Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, United States
Department of Transportation, response to request for
information from Hon. Richardson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................... 92
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6159.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6159.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6159.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6159.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6159.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6159.006
NEXTGEN: LON-TERM PLANNING AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
----------
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.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 all staff, Members and everyone to turn
electronic devices off or on vibrate.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony
regarding NextGen: Long-term Planning and Interagency
Cooperation. I will give a brief opening statement and I will
submit a longer statement for the record. Then I will recognize
the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his statement or any remarks
that he may have, and then we will go to our panel of
witnesses.
Let me welcome everyone to the aviation Subcommittee
hearing today on NextGen: Long-term Planning and Interagency
Cooperation. Today's hearing will explore how the Federal
agencies responsible for implementing NextGen are reconciling
near, mid-term and long-term goals. This hearing will also
examine how the Joint Planning and Development Office will work
in collaboration with partner agencies.
This is the fourth hearing that Ranking Member Petri and I
have held in the 111th Congress on NextGen. I will continue to
hold regular hearings on NextGen-related issues to provide
congressional oversight and a forum for open dialogue to
explore the challenges that lie ahead.
The FAA has made progress in planning and developing
NextGen, and has tested key technologies such as ADS-B that
allows an aircraft to transmit its own position and receive
information from similarly equipped aircraft. I want to
continue to work with the FAA and industry stakeholders to
ensure these near-term programs stay on schedule for long-term
advancements, in order for them to be made.
Successful implementation of NextGen depends on strong
leadership and a clear organizational structure. The JPDO is
responsible for facilitating coordination among partner
agencies on how to apply each agency's respective expertise,
research and technology to the task of building the NextGen
system. To increase the authority and visibility of the JPDO,
the House FAA reauthorization bill elevates the director of the
JPDO within the FAA reporting directly to the administrator.
Clarity on the JPDO director's leadership and role is
essential.
In our NextGen near-term hearing in March 2009, the
Government Accountability Office testified about uncertainty
over the JPDO's authority and role and a lack of leadership to
clarify and define their role. Almost a year later, the FAA
announced several changes to the JPDO structure and named Dr.
Toner the director of the organization.
As the FAA implements near and mid-term NextGen
capabilities, near to mid-term plans must be connected to the
long term vision. In addition, I firmly believe there needs to
be greater White House involvement in facilitating
collaboration among partner agencies. I am hopeful that the
recent changes to the JPDO signal this administration's
support.
With that, I welcome all of our witnesses here today and I
look forward to hearing their testimony.
Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I
ask unanimous consent to allow 2 weeks for all Members to
revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of
additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
At this time the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for calling this hearing. The transition to NextGen is a
complex undertaking worthy of rigorous oversight. Sometimes I
think when the government is involved, it is more complex and
it takes longer than it might otherwise be. And one of the
reasons we are having this hearing is to see if we can't make
it more efficient and actually get NextGen deployed in a
reasonable period of time.
In October of 2003, we approved the Vision 100 FAA
reauthorization that, among other things, created, as you
pointed out, the Joint Planning and Development Office to
manage the interagency coordination implementation of the
effort to move us to NextGen. The goal was to leverage existing
resources of JPDO partner agencies to facilitate the NextGen
transition as well as to ensure that the future modernized
national airspace system capabilities will meet the needs of
JPDO partner agencies. Vision 100 requires the JPDO to develop
annual integrated work plans to provide step by step work plans
for the JDPO partner agencies.
I am interested to learn how and to what extent the partner
agencies are dedicating resources to the development of
NextGen. There are plenty of examples of NASA and Department of
Defense research and developed technologies that have found
their way into daily civilian life. So I am interested to hear
how human factors research and technology transfer efforts
between JPDO partner agencies are facilitating the advancement
of NextGen.
Vision 100 also established the Senior Policy Committee
comprised of cabinet secretaries and agency heads of the JDPO
partner agencies along with the head of the White House Office
of Science and Technology. The purpose of the Senior Policy
Committee is to provide guidance on key NextGen policy
questions and to maintain senior level accountability for
advancing the NextGen effort.
The bipartisan NextGen provisions of the pending House FAA
reauthorization bill elevates the position of the JPDO director
within the FAA. In November of 2008, President Bush signed an
executive order that restores the focus of senior
administrative level officials on the NextGen planning and
implementation process, and the current administration has
seemingly endorsed this approach.
I look forward to hearing the IG and GAO's assessments of
the current levels of engagement between the JPDO and the
Senior Policy Committee and the FAA executives. I am also
interested in hearing from all of the witnesses on just who
they believe is in charge of NextGen.
A challenging factor within NextGen is that the
transformation must happen on a system that can never be turned
off for repairs. In addition, the exigencies of the day-to-day
operation of the national air space system can overpower any
long-term planning focus. I would like our witnesses to address
how the JPDO is handling the challenges associated with
balancing the needs of the current system integration of long-
term improvements and planning for future needs. It must also
address the need to ensure international harmonization of
satellite-based surveillance and air traffic control
modernization. Not only must we ensure air traffic control
sources are interchangeable, but timelines matter, too.
With regard to satellite-based surveillance, it is not just
a matter of keeping up with the Joneses. We must be sure to
keep with Europe, Australia, and even Mongolia's accelerated
ADS-B timetables. The value of being first means that you set
the standard to which avionics are built. That could mean good-
paying jobs here in the United States, a benefit not lost on
Americans given the current unemployment levels.
I am interested in hearing about the JPDO's efforts to keep
the U.S. the world's leader for air traffic modernization.
Finally, it is argued that NextGen will result in significant
cost savings and environmental benefits, more direct precise
routing, and improved air traffic management which will result
in significant reductions in fuel burn and emissions.
According to an October 2009 GAO report, the procedures
that will result in many environmental benefits are often mired
in review processes mandated by Congress under NEPA that can
take years and can cost millions of dollars. We should
seriously explore how to best get the environmental benefits of
new navigation procedures in the most timely and efficient way.
I believe that the slow pace of the environmental review of new
air traffic control procedures threatens the entirety of the
NextGen enterprise. It is impossible to achieve the goals of
NextGen if the FAA can only clear a limited number of high
quality procedures through the environmental review process
each year.
Both the environmental benefits promised and the overall
success of the NextGen enterprise seem to depend on our ability
to overcome this challenge. I think we can preserve the goals
of NEPA while improving the FAA's ability to implement more
environmentally friendly air traffic procedures, and I welcome
any specific proposals on this issue from our witnesses. And I
understand we do have several of these from the General
Electric witness.
So I thank all of you for participating, and thank you for
your testimony.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now I
will recognize our witnesses.
First is Dr. Karlin Toner, director of the Joint Planning
and Development Office with the FAA and senior staff adviser to
the Secretary of Transportation on NextGen; Dr. Gerald
Dillingham is the director, physical infrastructure issues for
the U.S. Government Accountability Office; the Honorable Calvin
Scovel, III, Inspector General for the U.S. Department of
Transportation; Dr. Jaiwon Shin, associate administrator,
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for NASA; Steven
Pennington, Headquarters Air Force, Director of Bases, Ranges
and Air Space, and the executive director for the Department of
Defense Policy Board on Federal Aviation; Lorraine Bolsinger,
President and CEO of GE aviation systems.
I understand, Ms. Bolsinger, you have to leave at 4 p.m. We
appreciate you being here to testify before the Committee, and
hopefully we will be able to get your testimony and adhere to
the time you have to leave.
STATEMENTS OF KARLIN TONER, DIRECTOR, JOINT PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; GERALD DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE; HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JAIWON SHIN, ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR, AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN
PENNINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY
BOARD ON FEDERAL AVIATION; AND LORRAINE A. BOLSINGER, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, GENERAL ELECTRIC AVIATION SYSTEMS LLC
Mr. Costello. Before I call on our first witness to
testify, you will see me leave about 2:40 and another Member,
Mr. Boswell, will take the Chair for a short period of time. I
am going down the hall to the Financial Services Committee
where I will be testifying on a bill that I have an interest
in, and after my testimony is completed, I will be back here in
the Chair.
With that, the Chair now recognizes Dr. Toner. All of your
statements will be entered into the record in their entirety
and we ask that you adhere to the 5-minute rule to summarize
your statements so we have time for discussion.
Dr. Toner.
Ms. Toner. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking
Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. First, I want to
thank you for inviting me to talk with you today about what the
Joint Planning Development Office work is in long-term planning
and interagency cooperation for NextGen.
Today I am appearing before you as the new Director of the
JPDO, a position I have had the privilege of serving for just
60 days now and I realize that this is not an easy job. I first
worked with the JPDO 6 years ago at that time as a NASA
researcher. Back then I served on an integrated product team
and helped brainstorm the ideas and the concepts that are
NextGen.
Since then, Administrator Babbitt has realigned the Joint
Planning Development Office so that the director reports
directly to the FAA Deputy Administrator. And I note from
Ranking Member Petri's opening comments, the FAA Deputy
Administrator is the point person on NextGen.
I also continue to meet regularly with Secretary LaHood's
office to advise him on NextGen progress and plans, a practice
that started when I served as his NextGen Senior Adviser.
My job as the Director is to refine our longer term goals
and to account for the changing realities of our aviation
world. NextGen capabilities are beginning to be implemented
today. And as we gain experience, our past work will help us
chart a realistic course forward.
Today's world is different than the one in which NextGen
was originally envisioned. The economy, the airlines, the
environment, and our security needs have changed dramatically.
I think we have observed the economic impacts in the past week
with volcanic eruptions. To account for these changes in our
world, we must take a more flexible approach to longer-term
NextGen planning. We must blend evolution and transformation to
meet the national needs for air transportation.
Of equal importance, my responsibilities also include
expanding the opportunities for collaboration among the partner
agencies. The JPDO provides a forum for interagency engagement
and monitors the follow-up of the partners. JPDO will develop
strategic issues for the Senior Policy Committee, a cabinet-
level decision making body. We will continue to identify long-
term research needs, making sure that they are integrated into
current implementation. And we will continue to consult with
industry and assess how they can best contribute to policy and
R&D planning today.
I am looking at all of the possibilities for successful
interagency cooperation. We are very fortunate that with the
increased visibility and responsibility of the JPDO and the
Administration's focus on NextGen, we now have even more tools
to choose from to ensure productive partnerships across the
government.
Of course the more productive these cooperative efforts
are, the better the service that the FAA can provide to the
traveling public.
Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to share my views
with you today. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will
be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Dr. Toner, and now
recognizes Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Petri.
My written testimony focus on two issues. First, the
challenges FAA faces in coordinating planning and
implementation of NextGen internally across the various lines
of business and externally with the partner agencies; and
second, FAA's efforts to integrate near term and mid term
implementation plans with the long term NextGen vision.
Regarding internal coordination challenges, we have
previously reported to this Committee that FAA would find it
challenging to shift from a focus on systems acquisition and
individual programs to a focus on integration and coordination.
Two recent organizational changes may help to address this
ongoing challenge. First, FAA has determined that the deputy
administrator will be the executive in charge and responsible
across all FAA lines of business for the implementation of
NextGen. This development adds to the urgency of filling this
critical position.
Additionally, FAA has begun coordinating some office
functions and moving towards a portfolio approach for
implementation. These are positive, but relatively recent
developments, and it remains to be seen how well they will
address concerns expressed by industry and the Congress about
exactly what is NextGen and who is in charge of NextGen and
whether that official has sufficient authority and
accountability to ensure effective implementation.
With regard to the challenges related to interagency
coordination, we have identified several issues that have
impeded the effectiveness of two key mechanisms designed to
facilitate this kind of coordination, the Senior Policy
Committee and JPDO.
The senior policy Subcommittee is the highest level
coordinating body and includes all of the partner agencies. Our
research has shown that the Senior Policy Committee has met
infrequently. According to senior JPDO officials, they are
working with Senior Policy Committee Members to improve its
operations. JPDO is tasked with managing the partner agency's
day-to-day coordination and collaboration. It has several
mechanisms to support its efforts such as advisory boards,
working groups, and research transition teams. However, our
work has identified some issues which have limited JDPO's
effectiveness.
For example, JPDO's leadership and organizational position
has undergone frequent changes. JPDO now has its fourth
Director in 7 years and its placement within the NextGen
structure has changed several times. These changes have created
uncertainty about JPDO's role and authority among stakeholders.
Some other issues have affected FAA's coordination with the
partner agencies, including the limited funding and staffing
that some partner agencies dedicate to NextGen activities,
differences in agency mission priorities, particularly those of
FAA, DHS and DOD as well as a relative lack of specificity in
key NextGen planning documents as to how partner agencies will
be involved.
Provisions in both the House and Senate FAA reauthorization
bills could help address some of these challenges.
Turning to FAA's efforts to integrate near term and mid-
term implementation plans with the long-term NextGen vision,
currently FAA is modeling the potential impact on the NextGen
vision of a variety of scenarios which could be implemented in
the mid term and the long term. The relative cost benefits and
risks that are identified through these scenario modelings will
help to shape policy decisions about how programs, technologies
and capabilities can best be implemented in the mid term and
become stepping stones for the long term NextGen vision. These
policy decisions include developing a strategy for equipping
the Nation's aircraft fleet, expediting standards development,
certification, and environmental reviews.
And finally, realigning air traffic control facilities and
planning for new runways to help address problems with system
delays that NextGen technologies alone are not likely to fully
resolve. These efforts are very much works in progress and FAA
should continue to seek and include the input and buy-in of
stakeholders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Costello. The Chair recognizes the inspector general,
Mr. Scovel.
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on FAA's progress in implementing
the Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen. FAA is
developing NextGen to create a new air transportation system
that will handle three times more traffic than today. NextGen
involves a significant overhaul of the current national air
space system, to shift from a ground-based to a satellite-based
operation. Accomplishing this will require multibillion dollar
investments from both government and industry.
Since the effort began in 2005, we have testified before
this Subcommittee on the operational and management challenges
that must be addressed to successfully implement NextGen in the
near and midterm. Today I will discuss three areas that will
have a significant impact on advancing NextGen's long-term
goals. One, risks with ongoing FAA modernization projects that
form the platforms for NextGen; two, fundamental research and
development issues that will impact performance; and three,
actions needed to maximize the multi-agency approach.
FAA is making progress in its efforts to implement NextGen
but continues to face challenges in implementing ongoing
modernization project that provide platforms for new NextGen
capabilities. Key multibillion-dollar programs have experienced
problems, and FAA has yet to fully determine their NextGen-
specific requirements.
For example, FAA's $2.1 billion en route automation
modernization, or ERAM program, for managing high-altitude
traffic is experiencing software-related problems at its key
initial operating site in Salt Lake City. These include
problems in handing off traffic between controllers and
matching critical flight information to the right aircraft. FAA
is spending about $14 million a month to resolve these problems
and deploy ERAM at other sites. However, FAA officials
acknowledge that it is unlikely that all 20 systems will be
operational nationwide by December 2010 as originally planned.
FAA must take steps to ensure that problems with ERAM are
resolved and that they don't impact NextGen efforts now and in
the future.
Likewise, recent problems with FAA's telecommunications
infrastructure, FTI, raise questions about whether the system
can be relied on for NextGen initiatives and whether FAA is
adequately overseeing the FTI contractor. An FTI failure last
November delayed over 800 flights nationwide, and it took FAA
and the contractor over 5 hours to diagnose, correct, and
restore service. In response to the outage, FAA established
review teams to assess the overall system design and FAA's
oversight. However, it remains unclear if the planned FTI
network as designed or planned can support future NextGen
initiatives. Therefore, it will be important for FAA to follow
through on its plans to examine the broader implications of the
November outage with respect to NextGen and the agency's
management of FTI.
A critical step to avoid risks with NextGen's cost schedule
and capabilities is leveraging resources between FAA and
partner agencies. FAA and the JPDO have made important progress
in coordinating diverse research and multi-agency efforts. For
example, NASA is playing a major role in developing software
for NextGen capabilities. Overall, we found that NASA's work is
fairly well aligned with JPDO plans. However, FAA needs to
resolve issues with the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and
Homeland Security regarding integrating weather information,
determining joint surveillance needs, and determining how to
incorporate unmanned aircraft systems into the mix.
We have identified a number of actions that can strengthen
the multi-agency approach, better leverage resources, and
prevent duplicative efforts. These include clarifying the roles
and responsibilities of the JPDO, establishing research
priorities and developing an integrated NextGen budget document
that aligns with these priorities, completing an assessment of
partner agency research, making use of already developed
technology, and securing the skill sets necessary to execute
NextGen and oversee its contracts.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that FAA is
making progress in addressing NextGen's challenges. However, a
number of critical actions are still needed for successful
implementation of this multibillion-dollar effort, and these
issues must be effectively addressed in the near term in order
for NextGen to deliver the long-term benefits needed to meet
the expected demand for air travel.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to address any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Costello. Inspector General Scovel, thank you for your
testimony, and the Chair now recognizes Dr. Shin.
Mr. Shin. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member
Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity today to discuss how NASA works with the JPDO and
how NASA's research efforts support NextGen.
Advancements to aircraft and aircraft operations produced
dollars and jobs for the U.S. economy, improve the environment,
and supports energy and independence. Aviation is also a major
contributor to U.S. exports. However, the increase in air
traffic congestion and the noise and emissions generated by
aircraft is a significant issue facing our Nation and the
world. Current air traffic management processes and procedures
do not provide enough flexibility for innovative solutions to
address these growing demands. In order to meet the need for
increased capacity and efficiency, while improving safety, new
technologies and processes must be implemented. Addressing this
problem will require research and development in both efficient
air traffic operations and in new vehicle concepts.
The intricate cross-cutting nature of national air space
systems requires cooperation and coordination among Federal
agencies as well as the aerospace industry in order to achieve
both the near-term improvements and the NextGen vision.
From the earlier days of JPDO, NASA has made significant
contributions to the development of NextGen vision and key
planning documents. We have aligned our research programs to
address research needs identified by the JPDO's integrated work
plan, and continue to make vital science and technology
investments with the goals of realizing near-term improvements
and enabling the long-term NextGen vision. The need for
increased levers of cooperation is ever present if the U.S. is
to leverage each Federal agency's areas of expertise and ensure
close coordination of research programs and investment
decisions.
Among NASA's four aeronautic research programs, the air
space systems program most directly addresses one of NextGen's
goals to advance air traffic management. NASA's research in
this area is multifaceted from near-term improvements to
innovative concepts and technologies covering gate to gate
operations on the airport surface, on runways, in defense
terminal areas, and in the many unmarked sectors of the
national air space system.
However, achieving full benefits of NextGen will require
contributions from all four research programs to ensure
revolutionary new air traffic capabilities are introduced,
safety of the system is improved, and environmental impacts due
to aviation is mitigated.
The NASA aeronautics research program is not limited to
research activities at low technology resident levels. With the
start of the integrated systems research program in fiscal year
2010, and through a new structure of the air space systems
program, NASA is committed to develop advanced technologies and
applications that target NextGen needs and support maturity of
those applications for transition to implementing
organizations.
NASA has also been actively making close and collaborative
engagements with the FAA. For example, NASA and the FAA created
research transition teams in order to accelerate progress for
NextGen advancements and effectively transition advanced
capabilities to the FAA for certification and implementation.
The explicit intent of these cross-agency collaborations is to
help bridge the maturity gap between advanced concept
development and the validation of such concepts in relevant
operational environments enabling the FAA to make informed
investment and deployment decisions. Effective cross-agency
collaboration has resulted in several recent demonstrations of
advanced technology benefits.
Let me provide one example. NASA has been developing
concepts, technologies and procedures to support continuous
descent arrival for improved efficiency and reduced
environmental impact.
A complementary project, the inroads system adviser,
combines scheduling of high density flows in terminal area air
space with a concept known as tailored arrival and airborne
precise precision spacing. Tailored arrivals allow aircraft to
fly continuous rising/descents at low-engine power from cruise
altitude to the runway, thereby minimizing fuel consumption,
environmental emissions and noise pollution. NASA and the FAA
jointly conducted a successful field evaluation in the fall of
last year with the participation of airline operators.
NASA is committed to perform collaborative efforts with the
JDPO member agencies and industry partners necessary to improve
the level of safety, security, efficiency, quality, and
affordability of the NextGen. NASA believes interagency NextGen
activities continue to be a vital element for supporting U.S.
economic growth and environmental improvement.
Chairman Costello, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
Mr. Boswell. [presiding.] Thank you, Dr. Shin, and we now
would like to call on Mr. Pennington.
Mr. Pennington. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
invitation to testify today. Thank you, Ranking Member Petri
and the rest of the Subcommittee Members. We look forward to
this testimony.
As you know, the national air transportation system is a
critical asset to our national security. The Department of
Defense places a high priority on being a valuable contributor
and responsive partner in operating that system today. And on
planning for it its transformation to meet the challenges of
tomorrow, the DOD has a strong partnership with the JPDO at
both the executive and the action officer levels. This
partnership extends across the many domains of NextGen, and is
aggressively working towards a future air transportation system
that integrates to the maximum extent possible while protecting
the safety of the public, manned and unmanned aircraft, point
to point and special-activity users, and the management of both
cooperative system participants and potential hostile actors
that threaten our Nation.
This interagency team is actively engaged on initiatives
such as sensing a void, adaptive air space, and integrated
surveillance in support of these goals.
Mr. Chairman, you wanted to know if the agencies
participating in NextGen are properly resourced. Let me
preference our answer for DOD to your question by saying that
we are unique in that we play several different roles related
to our national air space. Not only are we the largest single
user of our national air space system with over 14,000
aircraft, manned and unmanned in our fleet, we also are an air
space manager, and air navigation and airport service provider
to military and civilian users in the U.S. and abroad, and a
regulator of our aircraft aviators and service providers.
So with the diverse missions that we have related to the
national air space system, I can tell you that you won't find
in the DOD portfolio any one specific budget item labeled
NextGen. But what you will find are several capability areas
that support the NextGen transformation.
In the fiscal year 2011 President's budget, we requested
approximately $200 million to fund these NextGen capability
areas over the future year's defense program, and we are
building on that funding request in our input to the fiscal
year 2012 President's budget for the outyears.
As a user, the DOD shares the civil aviation community's
challenge with the setting aside of resources to equip our
aircraft with new technologies. With over 200 types of aircraft
in the DOD inventory and a 6-year budget planning cycle, this
is never a small task. We are currently investigating ways to
synchronize ADS-B avionics upgrades with aircraft equipment
upgrades that are already planned. But even with careful
planning, proposed ADS-B upgrades represent a significant new
investment for the Department of Defense in the near, mid, and
long term.
We greatly appreciate the efforts that the FAA has made to
coordinate with air space users, including DOD and other
Federal agencies, in developing proposed ADS-B requirements,
and we share the commercial aviation community's view that
aircraft equipage requirements should be closely aligned with
procedural changes that will yield the maximal operational
benefits and cost savings to the most users.
I would like to add one point to Dr. Toner's comments by
addressing the importance of GPS to the entire NextGen
transformation. To date, the Department has invested over $15
billion in GPS and the precise position, navigation and timing
information that it provides is a critical component of meeting
the performance-based construct of the NextGen transformation.
Maintaining that capability is essential to the effective
functioning of NextGen and its international counterparts, as
well as the ability of our civil and military aircraft to
operate around the globe. The interagency partnerships we have
on the NextGen team are essential. Together we can meet our
challenges head on and build an air transportation system that
is secure, adaptive, and responsive to the users of today and
tomorrow.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and also the
rest of the Subcommittee Members for the opportunity to provide
comments to the Committee. This concludes my prepared remarks,
and I am happy to address any questions you may have.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boswell. Ms. Bolsinger.
Ms. Bolsinger. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri and
Members of the Committee, I am currently president and CEO of
GE Aviation Systems. In 2005 and for 3 years, I was privileged
to lead GE's ecomagination initiative, an initiative which was
to grow our business while solving some of the world's most
difficult and challenging environmental problems. I mention
this because elements of these principles are evident in the
FAA's NextGen program; that is, to balance economic growth with
environmental responsibility.
We all recognize that the transformation of our air
transportation system has the potential to reduce carbon
emissions that threaten our planet, and it is clear that fuel
efficiencies brought about through NextGen can lessen our
dependence on foreign oil and help control rising energy costs.
It also will strengthen the U.S. aviation industry while
preserving existing jobs and creating new ones. However, today
as we arrive at the brink of NextGen implementation, Congress
must recognize that all of the decades of planning and work
that have brought us to this point will be for naught if we
cannot solve the problem that I am about to describe.
Forty years ago, Congress passed NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of legislation that
makes us stewards of the environment. It is ironic, though, 40
years after the passage of NEPA that FAA's well-intentioned
efforts to apply this law have instead become a major obstacle
to achieving NextGen environmental benefits. It is to address
this unfortunate and unforeseen circumstance that we seek your
leadership and your help.
Within our grasp are new technologies that can
significantly reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fuel consumption,
and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on our communities. One
of these technologies is required navigation performance or
RNP. RNP makes it possible to harness GPS and the advanced
flight management systems on today's aircraft to create
multiple environmental benefits through the design of extremely
precise, predictable aircraft paths.
The benefits of RNP are well understood, and as I speak,
are reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions and helping control
community noise in Australia, China, South America and Canada.
Studies show that in the U.S. alone at the 10 busiest airports,
RNP could cut CO2 emissions by 2 million metric tons per year.
From real experience, we know that we can design RNP
procedures for an airport in about 40 days. And in Brisbane,
Australia, a medium-density airport about the size of San Diego
or Dallas Love Field, RNP procedures were designed, put through
environmental review and placed into service in about 4 months.
But in the U.S., bureaucracy and red tape stand in the way of
achieving environmental benefit. Perversely, it is the
bureaucracy and red tape surrounding the administration of NEPA
that is causing the problem. We now face a situation where
environmental process trumps environmental progress placing the
entire NextGen program at risk.
The FAA, like any government agency, must comply with NEPA
requirements. And currently, environmentally beneficial
navigational procedures are subjected to the same expensive and
time-consuming review process as procedures that adversely
affect the environment. That review process can last many years
and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. So multiply this by
1,200 or so new procedures that will be required to modernize
our air space at our 100 largest airports and you can begin to
see the magnitude of this problem.
The problem I am describing today does not just affect GE.
FAA's own efforts to design and deploy new, environmentally
beneficial navigational procedures also are impinged. So what
is the answer?
We should apply a new, expedited environmental approval
process when a new navigation procedure meets the following
simple three-part test: One, if it reduces an aircraft's CO2
emissions; two, if it reduces fuel burn; and three, it results
in a reduction or at least a no-net increase in the noise-
affected area on the ground.
Congress has the opportunity to take action now to require
FAA to develop its expedited environmental approval process as
it conferences the FAA reauthorization bill. Section 314 of the
Senate bill calls for expedited environmental review of RNP
procedures. We support the concept but believe that further
language is required. We look forward to working with you,
others in Congress and the FAA, the Council on Environmental
Quality and other interested stakeholders to accelerate the
delivery of environmental benefits in the national air space
through NextGen.
Thank you. I am happy to take your questions.
Mr. Costello. [presiding.] Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Let me ask General Scovel, you state in both
your written and verbal testimony today that under the
technical problems with ERAM, both cost and schedule risk for
NextGen. Can you talk about those technical problems and are
they problems that exist because of technology or is it
personnel problems? Explain to us what the problem is.
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ERAM has been
experiencing a significant number of software-related problems.
So to answer one of your questions, I would say that they
appear to be technical problems rather than people problems at
this point.
As the Committee will remember, ERAM has been installed at
Salt Lake City, its initial operating site. It is also being
installed at a number of other en route traffic control centers
across the Nation. However, at Salt Lake City and also in
Seattle, the software-related problems have popped up, and they
became serious last year. FAA realized this and has been making
efforts to try to correct those.
The technical problems, as I mentioned in my statement,
involve radar processing failures, difficulties with passing
traffic from controller to controller, and erroneous
identification information being assigned to various aircraft.
The FAA is spending about $14 million a month right now to
further deploy ERAM and also to try to fix the problems.
Unfortunately, on the problem-fixing side, it has been unable
to properly diagnose the problem and to generate a solution
that doesn't in turn cause even more problems. It has been a
serious enough problem that FAA has seen the need to delay
certain key decisions that had been slated for resolution in
December 2009. These were the operational readiness decision
and the in-service decision. Those have slipped by another 6
months. So June 2010 we hope, and FAA hopes, those will be
ready for resolution.
Across the NAS among all 20 en route control centers, ERAM
was to have been in service and up and running by the end of
this year. It is now apparent to us and to FAA that those dates
will probably slip, too.
Looking long term across NextGen, the implementation is
this, Mr. Chairman. ERAM is essential for ADS-B and data
communications. As final dates, installation dates, and
operational decision dates slip further down the calendar, the
ability for controllers at en route centers to make the most
effective use of data communications and ADS-B will also move
down the calendar, and that has a ripple effect across the NAS
and NextGen implementation projects.
Mr. Costello. What are the top three or four things that
you believe need to be done to move NextGen forward?
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, we would ask FAA, the Secretary,
who has been assigned by the executive order as having top
responsibility for NextGen, FAA and the JPDO, to consider these
three items. First, completing an integrated budget document.
Once requirements have been developed, and I know from
discussions with DOD that that is a prime concern of theirs, it
has been a continuing effort on the part of FAA who realizes
the significance of that as well, so it is an iterative
process. It is a continuous work in progress to try to develop
this integrated budget document, but it does have the benefit
of pulling together requirements, projects, helping FAA and
partner agencies identify research gaps, identify funding
streams, and trying to close those research gaps.
We would also assign or ask the FAA to assign as a top
priority to JPDO this, a focus on technology transfer. Both
NASA and DOD have recognized the importance of this. It has
been done on previous occasions, especially between NASA and
DOD on one side and the FAA on the other. The research
transition teams that Dr. Shin has identified would be
essential to this. Entrance and exit criteria and well defined
hand off points will be key for FAA to receive the benefits of
the transfer of technology from the other two agencies.
Mr. Costello. Dr. Toner, would you agree with General
Scovel's assessment that we will see at least a 6-month delay
because of the technical problems that have developed with
ERAM?
Ms. Toner. So I am aware of the problems that have been
developed with ERAM in the Salt Lake City installation. I would
need to confirm that it is indeed a 6 month delay; but yes, I
understand that it is delayed. From my perspective that the
JDPO, working with NextGen, and ERAM not being a NextGen
program--however, it is an underpinning to NextGen-- we are
concerned with the linkages from the near and mid-term
implementation onto the long-term path, and that is where I
will be most closely monitoring.
Mr. Costello. You state in your testimony that JPDO needs
to have a more flexible approach to long-term NextGen planning.
Tell me what you mean by that.
Ms. Toner. So I think when we look at the vision that was
established beginning 6 years ago and we laid out a very bold
vision, and from a researcher's perspective, at that time we
laid out a vision that we needed to carefully test and identify
which elements of that vision we needed to meet up with the
national needs.
I think we have got a clear view of that long term and
where we are going, but I think we have to take evolutionary
steps. So in the next 5 years, we are much more certain on what
we can do. And the 5 years after that, we are a little less
certain. I think we can begin to do a better job. I think it
all ties back to the technology transfer piece. How are we
making sure that when the FAA has a 2018 implementation path,
that we have something to move over in 2019? I think we need to
carefully build out the vision in that fashion.
Mr. Costello. You heard Dr. Dillingham testify about the
participation with the partner agencies, and it seems to run
from a significant amount of participation to not very much
participation. I know you have only been on the job about 60
days, but what is your assessment?
Ms. Toner. So each of our partners is unique and brings
unique aspects to the table. In terms of NASA research, FAA is
really the customer who is going to be receiving that research.
DOD has an abundance of knowledge that we really need to
understand and see where it benefits circulation, so it is a
different type of relationship.
We have also had a very good relationship with NOAA and the
Department of Commerce on the weather integration. I think
there are some issues in the integration in the near term, but
really when we look at the NextGen piece, we are making
progress toward an integrated picture of the weather. And I
think as everyone here knows, and weather accounts for 70
percent of the delays in our system.
DHS participates in other ways. They participate as working
group members and leads. They participate in the JPDO board
which advises me, and they participate in one key strategic
area for us which is integrated surveillance. DOD and FAA
participate there as well.
Mr. Costello. How about the participation by the air
traffic controllers and technicians, have they been
participating in meetings since you have been on the job?
Ms. Toner. So I actually just last week met a gentleman
named Mel Davis, who is the new NATCA rep for NextGen, and he
and I are going to be meeting. And he actually is going to be
sitting in on some of our meetings. So we are starting down
that path, yes.
Mr. Costello. I have expressed and I think other Members of
the Subcommittee have expressed the importance of involving all
of the stakeholders here. The people who design the system
should be the people who are going to run the system, that they
should not be left out. That has happened in the past, and we
hope you recognize that and make certain that the technicians,
controllers and others are involved in the planning process.
With that, I will ask my final question and then I will
turn it over to the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. Who are you
reporting to in the Secretary's office?
Ms. Toner. In the Secretary's office, I report to Secretary
LaHood. I directly report to the deputy administrator of the
FAA and it is a matrix reporting to the Secretary.
Mr. Costello. And the deputy administrator's appointment is
being held up in the other body right now?
Ms. Toner. That is correct, so I am reporting to the Acting
Deputy Administrator.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of
questions. I will try to get as many in in the time allocated
as possible.
The first question is for Dr. Dillingham. There is concern
that the FAA will not be able to increase efficiencies, reduce
costs and at the same time transition to NextGen while it
continues to maintain and operate World War II era facilities,
many of which may be redundant. Are you aware of any plans of
the FAA to right-size FAA facilities as part of the NextGen
process? Or is it going to be overlaid over the existing
structure that we have in place even though it may not be
necessary once the new equipment is out there?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you for the question, Mr. Petri.
Based on our work, we understand that FAA would like to do
realigning and right size the facilities. I think there are
provisions within the reauthorization that speak to that.
I would like to add that it is very important in terms of
achieving the cost effectiveness that is associated with
NextGen if you, in fact, are going to take advantage of the
technologies that would allow you to realign or right size. It
is a very, very difficult nut to crack, though. It takes sort
of the cooperation of a lot of different parties involved in
this. But we are aware that they have in fact begun to think
about and want to move toward right sizing ATC facilities
across the NAS.
Mr. Petri. The sooner that process starts, the less
disruptive it will be for people and their lives because you
can just go through attrition and give reassignment
opportunities and all of the rest of it. It will save money if
it is done sooner, and it would also save inconvenience.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Petri. I have a question for Ms. Bolsinger. I wonder if
you can expand on your discussion of RNP. You indicated that
this process has tremendous environmental efficiencies and
savings and that some of these new procedures and efficient
flight paths and all the rest, and GE makes the technology,
among others, is already deployed. Americans are flying on
planes that land in Brisbane as we speak under the new
procedures. FAA's job is to protect American flyers.
It hasn't approved these procedures here in the United
States, shouldn't it be banning them from flying in Brisbane?
Or speeding up the procedures so we can realize the
environmental efficiencies? Maybe we should be putting in a
procedure to find best practices all around the world and
implementing them rather than not invent it here as our
approach. I don't know how you operate at General Electric but
you are global corporation. I suspect you probably take the
latter rather than the former approach. Can you comment on any
of that?
Ms. Bolsinger. Yes. You couldn't be more right. We do steal
best practices everywhere around the world. Very frankly, it is
disheartening to me as an American to be implementing these
procedures not in the United States first.
However, we are a global company, and we do have to respond
to these customers around the world. Probably the most advanced
is Australia where in Brisbane they have been able to complete
all of the procedures and their environmental impact studies in
about 4 months time. It is not a large airport, it is a medium-
sized airport. Their plan is to role that out across the entire
country of Australia through their Air Australia services,
their national air space service provider, within 5 years. So
it is certainly very doable.
I don't think there is any sentiment anywhere in the United
States to preclude these procedures from being done. I think
again it is the perverse nature of the NEPA regulations which
forces us to go through environmental impact studies which
actually can have deleterious effects and certainly slow down
the process by years.
Mr. Petri. I wonder if, Dr. Toner, you would care to
respond on any of that? I know you are under some
administrative handicaps right now and are still relatively new
on the job, but will you be taking a look at trying to speed up
the procedure so as to realize the environmental savings? And
if something is, in fact, already in place in another country
and Americans are allowed to fly on it, and it is the same kind
of things that we ask the Europeans when it comes to
genetically engineered foods, do they get sick at a restaurant
in New York?
They are banning the food over in Europe supposedly, and we
kind of wonder whether there is a hypocrisy level there. Here
there is just a waste issue because we are missing the
opportunity to save on energy and all of the rest.
Ms. Toner. With NextGen, when we look at efficiency and
capacity, we know they are directly related. We want to be
flying the most efficient routes. What I can tell you is that
we want aviation to first be a good steward of the environment.
We are fully aware of how tough it is getting some of these
environmental impacts done.
That said, we actually are implementing some on RNP routes
in the U.S. under NextGen, those where the benefit is very
clear. Of course noise is the issue. And the FAA really
supports streamlining the processes as long as we still are
protecting the environment. So I think it is an issue that is
right up front.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
recognizes Mr. Perriello.
Mr. Perriello. I have no questions at this time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the
Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you all for your contributions, for
your thoughtful and well-presented papers.
Inspector General Scovel, we have been around this now for
many years. The en route system from the 9020s to display
system replacement after going through several iterations of
AAS and so on; STARS, standard terminal automation replacement
system for the TRACONs; terminal Doppler weather radar and then
terminal Doppler color radar for towers and also for TRACONs
and DSCS, one of the most successful of all of these high-
dollar technical systems installed which was done over one
weekend without shutting down the system for 20 seconds, but
all of these had delays, cost overruns, costs in the sense not
of overruns but of escalating costs because of program
mismanagement. And now you are saying well, we have a slippage
here by 2 months and then we have ERAM and that will affect the
other downstream systems. What has FAA learned from the past?
I remember some years ago when the new administrator of FAA
brought in the Navy procurement office and had them review all
of these multi-billion-dollar systems, and they came back and
said at our Committee hearing in this room, they said they
don't now how to manage multi-billion-dollar systems. They have
never done anything this big, and this is what we propose to
do. And it is not just a problem of the FAA, it is also the
industry side because in those days, you couldn't tell where
IBM left of and the FAA began. And they were hand in hand,
partners in failure.
And now we have this movement to NextGen. So have they
learned something about managing multi-billion-dollar
contracts, engaging industry and the air traffic controllers in
the design of the systems, engaging the airlines and also
participating in the design of the systems, not over promising
and not over designing, not over rating things?
Mr. Oberstar. And now we have a joint program, development
office. You have got a director and an institute, an institute
management counsel, and we don't seem to be getting any further
ahead. Now it is true that in two Congresses, three Congresses,
the 108th 109th and the 110th, we didn't pass the
appropriations necessary to provide the dependable flow of
funds out into the future, but that is not an impediment to the
planning and the thinking and the process that I think has been
a failure here. I am just stressed with it. I want you to
respond and I want to see what the others think.
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Oberstar, let me take one of your
minor points and then I would like to address your major theme,
if I could. In one of his questions, Chairman Costello asked
Dr. Toner about the involvement of controllers in the design of
a number of the systems that will be necessary for NextGen, and
Dr. Toner responded that controllers are now involved. I think
Chairman Costello's point was specifically with regard to the
STARS program, where controllers had not been involved, and
human factors, problems, being what they were, they cropped up
when the systems began to be installed. Controllers were unable
to use them effectively, which contributed to the delay and the
escalating cost in the STARS program. It should be a lesson for
all of us, and I know that lesson is still repeated today over
at FAA. I think your larger point, sir, is this, and this is
one that we have debated in my office in response to our
questions back and forth about what makes some programs
effective and efficient within FAA and what makes others not
so. We have come down to this, stable requirements, whether
those, the input in determining those requirements come from
controllers, from industry, from engineers and specialists
within NASA and FAA. Once those requirements are set, the
program can be designed and engineered and bought, the chances
of staying on time and on budget increase dramatically.
Mr. Oberstar. I have to interrupt you at that point because
that was a problem in 1990 with FAA and IBM in the evolution of
what became DSR, display system replacement. And at a hearing
up at the IBM facility up in Germantown where--it was actually
Mr. Mica's first year on the Committee and he was a little
astonished at my anger with the way things were proceeding. And
I said to Mr. Ebcur, I am going to nail your shoes to the
floor. He said why? I said so you can't move. We need to freeze
those requirements. Every time we have a meeting on this or a
hearing, you are changing the requirements. Stay put. Fix,
freeze the program, and then go forward with it. And it was
thanks to Mr. Costello and his persistence and also the
participation of Mr. Petri, the persistence with the FAA that
engaged the controllers.
We learned that with STARS. They had the track ball
embedded in the console in the upper right-hand corner. What
about the left-hand controllers? You have to turn your body
around and spin around? No. Why couldn't they move? They said,
We asked for a movable track ball. Oh, no, we can't do that.
Well, they did after a couple million dollars of wasted effort.
So let's engage them. Go on. You hit on a sore point of mine.
Go ahead.
Mr. Scovel. I was going to simply make a point, Mr.
Chairman, that among the programs that we have discussed in our
testimony today of course is ERAM. For years now, ERAM has
enjoyed the distinction at FAA of having fairly stable
requirements, and it appeared to the specialists in my office
who have been working with FAA and ERAM for all this time that
ERAM was well managed, it enjoyed stable requirements and until
very recently was on time and on budget. Now anytime we are
dealing with software, any of us in the real world know today
that things happen, and that is what has happened with ERAM and
FAA now is trying to make corrections. But in comparison to
other programs--and of course STARS would be one, the
distinction between ERAM and others like STARS would be
manifest.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, it seems to me that NextGen is
envisioning a much more complicated structure than DSR, than
TDWR, than STARS, of all of those together with VSCS. I was
going to ask also for comparison of the NVS with the VSCS and
what improvement there is. But you can submit that in writing.
I want to ask Dr. Dillingham whether FAA has created here
another headache, an overload of management within management,
with the JPDO, the director and the NextGen Institute and the
Institute Management Council, what is all that achieving?
Mr. Dillingham. To be determined, Mr. Oberstar. Clearly
there is a need that all of these plans and councils be
synchronized so that all the things that come together for a
complicated undertaking like NextGen you clearly have to have
lots of streams going into it. At this point since things are
so new in the sense of Dr. Toner's appointment and the movement
that this Committee was instrumental in getting a more direct
reporting to the Deputy Administrator and the Secretary, it is
still to be determined if this is going to work and if this is
going to just become sort of become sort of moving the Chairs
around at this point in time. So we are optimistic that this is
going to make a change, but we are watching it as well.
Mr. Oberstar. Good. That is not a very inspiring response,
I must say. It is an honest response, and I appreciate it. And
Dr. Toner, I hope you can wrap arms around it and do some mud
wrestling with this organization. But it damn well better start
doing something. We are going to, by the way--I would say for
all Members and others of interest--that we are progressing
toward an authorization bill. The Senate has acted. Senator
Rockefeller and I have had conversations. Our staffs are
meeting and ironing out the differences between our two bills
and I am confident that within a couple of weeks, we are going
to have first aviation authorization bill in 4 years.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the distinguished Chairman
of the Full Committee. And let me say that that is one of the
reasons why in the reauthorization bill that passed this
Committee and passed the House not only in 2007 but again in
2009, we had the head of the JPDO reporting directly to the
administrator as opposed to the system under the previous
administration and the current system announced by this
administration.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs.
Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you and I will be brief. My questions
are for Ms. Bolsinger. Ms. Bolsinger, in your written
testimony--I don't believe you said it in your oral--but in
your written testimony, you mentioned that Southwest Airlines
and the investment they have made in RNP and my question to you
is: How are they able to implement RNP with these environmental
hurdles that you have testified about today?
Ms. Bolsinger. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately,
Southwest is not able--despite the fact that they have spent
tens of millions of dollars are, I would say, a maverick
airline, one of the few that makes money, one that has made our
industry very viable and a strong employer of U.S. citizens.
But unfortunately, they are not able to get their RNP
procedures finished. So they have done the equipage. They have
spent the money. And I think they will stand as a terrible
example to other airlines of what not to do, not to get ready.
So unfortunately, without the procedures being approved, all of
the investments that they have made will be for naught.
Mrs. Schmidt. Well, thank you for clearing that up for me,
ma'am. And you also testified that "GE is rolling out our RNP
in locations around the world." Do these other nations have the
same environmental hurdles that we have?
Ms. Bolsinger. They all have an environmental impact study
that is done, and they all go through their own procedures.
They aren't identical to the United States, and of course they
don't necessarily have the same regulatory--let me say the NEPA
sort of oversight that we have. In some ways, newer
infrastructures are easier. So China will probably be much more
advanced than we are because they don't have any infrastructure
today. So that is part of our issue. But again, if we were to
put our minds to it, we could expedite. And what we are asking
for is an expedited process not to lift NEPA but in fact to
have a different implementation that says if, in fact, a
procedure meets three criteria, less noise or equal noise, less
emissions, and less fuel burn, that it would be considered a no
impact and be able to be on an expedited path which should be
determined by experts.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Scovel, the
Joint Planning Development Office states that one of their
goals is to identify existing research and development in
technologies within each partner agency that benefits the
NextGen effort. However, the GAO has said that questions still
remain over which entities are going to fund and conduct some
of the necessary R&D and demonstration projects to achieve
certain NextGen capabilities. So I know that you have testified
that disagreements among partner agencies have delayed the
decisions of implementing certain technologies. Could you
summarize those disagreements and delays?
Mr. Scovel. I could mention one, sir. It is addressed in
our statement and it has to do with the weather capabilities
that FAA seeks to obtain from the Department of Commerce and
NOAA specifically. There have been technical disagreements
about the 4D Weather Cube that the Department of Commerce and
NOAA are in the process of establishing nationwide, which of
those capabilities will be made available to FAA. Commerce is
proceeding with its own requirements but looks to FAA to define
its requirements and also to fund those appropriately. The
Agency and the Department have established the executive
weather panel in an attempt to iron out those disagreements
that ease the funding concerns, and we look forward to having
that happen.
Mr. Boccieri. Do you sense, at least from NASA's
perspective, that the shift back towards research and
development from the previous administration's focus on deep
space exploration is going to augment and help this?
Mr. Scovel. Most definitely. It is a very positive
development. Frankly, sir, my office is greatly encouraged to
have NASA's statement that it is now moving beyond simply
fundamental research and moving even into development and
perhaps even a prototype development on behalf of FAA.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you. And I would add just for the
record that we hope that NASA Glenn Research Center in
northeast Ohio plays an integral role in that as well. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And the Chair
would ask any other Members--votes have been called on the
floor. We have 5 minutes to get to the floor. The Chair would
ask if any other Member has any questions of these witnesses.
Mr. Oberstar. I would like to express my appreciation to
the Chair, to Mr. Petri and Mr. Ehlers, thank you for being
here, our resident scientist on the Committee, for keeping the
sharp spotlight of attention focused on this multibillion-
dollar program. With your continued work, we are going to keep
them on course and get this program off on the right course and
achieve these initial interim objectives. But if we don't,
aviation suffers. It won't be shut down worldwide like the
volcano did. But that ought to be a reminder to us again of
what can happen if we don't advance the state of the art of
technology in air navigation guidance.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar and thanks
our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. As
Chairman Oberstar indicated and Mr. Petri have indicated many
times that we intend to continue aggressive oversight on this
massive project and undertaking and to make certain that not
only the administration, but all of the agencies and
stakeholders are in fact engaged and working together to move
the process forward.
Let me, in addition to thanking the witnesses, let me thank
some of the family members from the Colgan tragedy who are here
today. We deeply appreciate you being here and you continuing
to work with us to provide oversight and to hopefully move an
FAA reauthorization bill to the President's desk in the not too
distant future. As Chairman Oberstar indicated, we are
negotiating at the current time, and we hope to bring that to a
successful conclusion. But we deeply appreciate you being here
today and we have less than 2 minutes to get to the floor to
vote. So that concludes the hearing today. We thank our
witnesses for being here. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]