[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FAA'S NEXTGEN
PROGRAM: COSTS, BENEFITS, PROGRESS,
AND MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
(112-54)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 5, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-555 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
------ 7
Subcommittee on Aviation
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SAM GRAVES, Missouri PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BOB FILNER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
Chair MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BILLY LONG, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida Columbia
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel One
Bolen, Edward M., President and CEO, National Business Aviation
Association.................................................... 11
Captain, Tom, Vice Chairman, Principal, Aerospace and Defense
Sector Leader, Deloitte LLP.................................... 11
Huerta, Hon. Michael P., Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 11
Moak, Captain Lee, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International.................................................. 11
Panel Two
Dillingham, Gerald L., Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office....................... 34
Hendricks, Thomas L., Senior Vice President for Safety, Security,
and Operations, Air Transport Association of America, Inc...... 34
Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation.............................................. 34
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 47
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 53
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bolen, Edward M.................................................. 56
Captain, Tom..................................................... 64
Dillingham, Gerald L., Ph.D...................................... 67
Hendricks, Thomas L.............................................. 80
Huerta, Hon. Michael P........................................... 87
Moak, Captain Lee................................................ 108
Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III...................................... 127
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Huerta, Hon. Michael P., Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, responses to questions from the following
members of the Subcommittee on Aviation:
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 101
Lipinski, Hon. Daniel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 70555.010
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FAA'S NEXTGEN PROGRAM: COSTS, BENEFITS,
PROGRESS, AND MANAGEMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Petri. Well, the hearing will come to order.
And today we will hear from witnesses about the anticipated
benefits of NextGen and the Federal Aviation Administration's
effort to modernize our national airspace system.
But first I want to recognize Jerry Costello. As he
announced I think this weekend, he is not planning to seek
reelection, which has made almost all of us here in this town
unhappy, but probably there are a few people back in his
district who are running around and revising their aspirations
and plans as we speak.
It has been a pleasure to work with Jerry, and I look
forward to continuing to do that. He is a real gentleman and
has the best interest certainly of the country and the aviation
industry and transportation at heart and has contributed a very
great deal in many areas, including that which we are
discussing today, through a lot of roundtable discussions and
efforts to focus the executive branch on moving NextGen forward
more rapidly and efficiently.
So anyway, it has been a pleasure serving with you. And I
have a longer statement which I guess I better read. The
program known as NextGen touches every aspect of the agency's
mission. NextGen is an ambitious project currently costing
roughly $1 billion per year.
From the beginning, the case for NextGen has centered on
the FAA's ability to deliver operational benefits to airspace
users, to increase efficiency, decrease user and agency costs,
decrease environmental impacts and, most importantly, improve
safety. NextGen is also considered a job creator, allowing for
continued growth in this important industry.
Today's hearing will focus on the benefits the FAA has
delivered over the last year or so and the specific operational
benefits that they will deliver over the next 2 years. In
addition, we expect the FAA to present their long-term
milestones and targets for NextGen benefits. Key to the
realization of NextGen benefits is the planned transition from
the 1950s radar-based surveillance of aircraft to a modernized
satellite-based surveillance system dependent on GPS avionics.
As such, NextGen is capital-intensive and reliant on industry
investments into avionics.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for the FAA to present a
proper accounting of NextGen benefits, including when such
benefits will be realized in the near, mid and long terms. It
is also an opportunity to build confidence among users who will
need to invest substantial sums of money to realize the NextGen
benefits promised by this new system and among Members of
Congress who oversee and provide Federal money.
The subcommittee will also hear testimony from
representatives of the user committee on the benefits that are
of particular importance to them. Under the NextGen moniker,
this program has been underway for nearly 5 years, but airspace
modernization has its roots in the second term of the Reagan
administration. The idea of implementing dramatic improvements
to the safety and efficiency of the national airspace system is
not new. As efforts to produce these benefits have evolved, it
has always remained critical to demonstrate real progress year
over year. That includes delivery of benefits in the near term,
as well as making the policy decisions to guide the long-term
efforts.
In 2008, the NextGen program was pulled off the GAO's high-
risk list, a compilation of risky Government programs. From
today's second panel of witnesses, Members will hear an update
on FAA's current stewardship of the NextGen program and the
degree to which benefits are being realized.
I believe the testimony of these witnesses will be critical
to the NextGen authorization and funding decisions Congress
will make in the tight budgetary times.
Before we turn to Mr. Costello and witnesses for their
statements, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material for the record of this hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Now, I recognize my esteemed colleague, Mr. Costello, for
his opening.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And let me first thank you for your kind remarks. You are
correct; I announced over the weekend, actually yesterday
officially, that I would not seek re-election in the 2012
election. I said back in 1988, when I ran for my first term,
that I didn't intend to stay in Congress forever and that I had
other interests and other things that I wanted to pursue while
I was still healthy and could in fact pursue those interests.
So I decided to do that. It was not an easy decision, after
working here on the Hill for over 23 years with you and other
colleagues. It has been a great relationship working with the
chairman. I am going to be around for another 14 months until
the end of my term. So we will be working closely together.
And you are right, there are people back in my district
that, namely eight grandchildren, who are very happy with my
decision. And one of my granddaughters told me on the phone
last night that, you know, maybe next year, you will be able to
make grandparents' day at my school, which I haven't been able
to do in several years.
So I am looking forward to--not retiring--but looking
forward to turning the next page and spending time with my
grandchildren and also trying to make a contribution in other
areas other than elective office.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to
continuing to work with you over the next 14 months.
I also thank you for holding this hearing today, investing
in NextGen now will create a legacy of savings for the next
generation. The Government will save money by providing
services more efficiently. And the aviation industry users and
the flying public will be the beneficiaries of billions of
dollars in operating cost savings.
In the 111th Congress, we held four NextGen oversight
hearings. We examined NextGen midterm capabilities, discussed
area navigations and required navigation performance
procedures, reviewed the RTCA midterm implementation task force
report and analyzed the long-term planning and interagency
cooperation needed in order to keep NextGen on track.
Clearly, everyone in this room wants NextGen to succeed.
And I commend the FAA under the leadership of Randy Babbitt and
others for making progress in several key areas of NextGen,
such as efficiently using FAA resources to streamline
procedural approval process, which yields significant fuel
savings. Further important NextGen-related infrastructure
programs, such as ADS-B, are moving forward relatively on
schedule and within the FAA's budget requirements so far.
However, because many of the NextGen programs are dependent
on one or more systems, delays in one program mean delays in
other programs. For example, a holdup with the En Route
Automation Modernization program could have a domino effect on
the other key NextGen systems. Including ADS-B, data
communications and a systemwide application known as SWIM. My
concern is, what happens when we add severe budget constraints
on top of logistical program delays? If we are committed to our
shared goal of spending taxpayer dollars wisely and
efficiently, I am concerned that significantly cutting funding
levels for NextGen will move implementation dates back even
further and will result in increased costs and reduced benefits
for aviation users.
When this subcommittee held two hearings on the FAA
reauthorization bill in February, we had the opportunity to
hear from both the aviation stakeholders and the FAA. Our
witness panel concluded that cutting the agency's budget to
fiscal year 2008 levels, as proposed in the long-term
reauthorization bill that passed by a partisan vote in April,
that it would likely trigger drastic and dramatic budget cuts
and cutbacks and cancellations of core NextGen programs.
I want to be clear that simply providing more funding is
not the entire solution to successful NextGen implementation.
And in fact there are many factors that must come together in
order for NextGen to be successful now and in the future. But
when we are trying to implement the largest and most important
aviation modernization project of our time in a safe and cost-
effective manner, at what point is doing more with less just
adding to the problem and making it even more difficult for it
to succeed on time and on budget? Going forward, I believe that
it is important for us to have an open dialogue with labor and
industry stakeholders as well as the FAA and other Federal
agencies, such as NASA, the GAO and the Department of
Transportation IG, to ensure everyone is on the same page.
There needs to be realistic timelines, performance metrics and
a candid discussion of cost requirements to make sure NextGen
systems are not significantly delayed and end up costing the
taxpayers more in the long run.
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing to
delve into these details. And as a strong proponent of NextGen,
I want this modernization program to continue to make progress
and ultimately deliver the benefits that we have long discussed
for all of our users, operators and the economy. And because
the aviation industry supports millions of jobs and keeps our
economy moving, enactment of a comprehensive FAA
reauthorization bill that includes adequate funding levels for
NextGen, as well as a fiscal year 2012 appropriations measure
that makes investments in NextGen a priority, will create jobs
and improve aviation safety. It will also position us to create
a lasting transportation infrastructure investment for our
country.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman.
And let me just divert for a second to extend my very best
wishes to Jerry and to Georgia.
I was really shocked the other day because I was looking
for Mr. Costello, and usually I can find him pretty quickly.
And we have a great rapport, incredible working relationship
over the entire time I have been in Congress, 19 years, and he
preceded me. He served as ranking and chair and back and forth
together and worked to bring the Nation's aviation system back
to some sense of normalcy after 9/11 and to ensure the safety
and security of the flying public. I couldn't ask for a better
partner and better friends than both Jerry and Georgia. So we
will miss him.
But I knew there was something wrong when I couldn't get a
hold of him the other day. I was quite shocked, like everyone
else, to learn that he was going to hang it up. But we wish you
well.
I always thought you were at least as old as me, Jerry. I
looked it up, and I will be damned if you are not a lot
younger. So you have a chance for a full additional productive
career and spend time with your wonderful family.
So I know all of us on this side wish you well and thank
you for a working relationship. It has been great, but we will
miss you, and all of us at some time are going to have to join
Jerry, either willingly or unwillingly. So we will be with you.
And if you are like my brother, he is a big Democrat like
you, there is lots of money after Congress. So good luck. He
will hate me for saying that. But he just retired a third
retirement I think, so there is lots of potential out there at
your young age. But we wish you well.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. And I thank you both for convening this hearing
on the progress of NextGen. We have got two panels, and we will
hear the benefits, both short- and long-term, and they are
many. We can't continue to have an aviation system that relies
on 1950s and 1960s, even 1970s, technology, and we have got to
do a better job at making certain that our skies are, first of
all, safe and secondly that our system is efficient as
possible. And you can only do that with using next-generation
technology. So we have worked together as strong advocates to
move forward. We have made some progress.
Now, today, I don't particularly want to be critical with
FAA, but obviously, if you read the IG's report or GAO report,
you will see very specific criticism. The IG really strikes at
some of the management failures. Some of the RTC
recommendations from 2009 still have not been implemented. Only
a few have been addressed. FAA has succeeded somewhat in trying
to focus on some of the metroplexes and some of our congested
airspace areas. But unfortunately, the very basis of putting
NextGen in places, as far as programs and technology, ERAM is 4
to 6 years behind, according to the report. Some estimates are
it could be as much as half a billion dollars over budget.
We still have problems in developing our technology and
Next-Generation approach to tracking aircraft. And we see
problems with software programs and management programs in what
FAA has taken on to move Next Generation forward. And this
again is not my assessment. This is what the IG has said. And
this isn't necessarily a failure of money.
And I share Mr. Costello and others' concern that we
adequately fund our FAA operations. But this is not a question
of money. This is a question of failure of management and
getting a better handle on setting a timeframe, keeping these
programs, again, moving forward in some logical sequence and
you have to build on successes to get to where we want to be.
And unfortunately, there has been too many failures. The IG
also cited failure to use onboard equipment, come up with
solutions there. We are behind in that. It looks like also we
are sort of forced into a full-blown NEPA environmental study.
I question the need for that. Anyone with any commonsense or
logic that couldn't determine that this has to be vastly more
favorable to the environment, more direct routing, less
emissions, more efficient use of airspace, I am not sure where
they are coming from.
But again, we don't need rocket science or continued
extensive full-blown red tape, dotting I's and crossing T's
when even commonsense would tell us the environmental positive
impacts of Next-Generation technology and protocols. One of the
things that concern me, and I am a strong investigate of having
the private sector involved in this development and having
witnessed, oh, back before I became chairman and sitting in
this very room, and we would have hearings on bringing forth
new technology, and FAA was doing the developmental programs is
that they would go on and on. They just asked for another $1
billion or $2 billion, and they say that our success is right
around the corner. Well, we are seeing some of that,
unfortunately, repeated again. And also what concerns me is now
with the failure of making progress and also the milestones
that aren't met or properly identified, even baselines that are
missing, and FAA has not identified, that the private sector is
now running scared for participation and also not as willing to
come forward and provide some of the solutions.
So I am very concerned about our progress with the program.
We have got some good proposals in our pending legislation. I
hope to move forward with that in the next few weeks and
certainly in the next couple of months to finalize our FAA
reauthorization. We include provisions to set some standards,
some metrics, some baselines, some milestones and timeframes.
So, hopefully, that will encourage the private sector also to
become re-engaged. But we have got to get FAA off dead center
and get a handle on this very important project.
So, again, with my compliments to our Member who we are
going to lose next year and with the concern for the future of
NextGen, I will yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I do add my thanks to our Ranking Member Costello, and
of course, when he chaired this Aviation Subcommittee and the
leadership he provided and all of the issues confronting us,
including of course the many hearings we had on NextGen. And I
want to thank Chair Petri for convening this session to bring
us up to date on what is happening with NextGen. I am also glad
that Mr. Costello mentioned the importance of FAA working with
other partners, such as NASA, GAO and, in my view, particularly
with the labor unions, who are going to be very much impacted
by what we do with NextGen. And I will have a few questions for
our witnesses along those lines.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No opening statement, per se. I just want to reiterate what
you and Chairman Mica, your words, generous words, directed to
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. He will indeed be
sorely missed on Capitol Hill, and I look forward to the
hearing today as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Boswell, did you want to----
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
I would like to join with everybody else, Jerry, in my--
well, I am just going to say it like it is--my disappointment
because you have made a great contribution here, and I know you
will in the next 14 months. So we are really going to lean on
you a little bit. But, yeah. A lot has been said and more will
be said as we go along and you have done a great job. And you
will continue to do so, whatever you do. You are a patriot, a
great American and somebodywhose friendship I value very much.
Back to the business at hand, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you having this hearing.
I think there has been a little amnesia around here. But
setting that aside, we have got some real challenges across the
board. I know aviation has put a lot of jobs out there for
years, growing. And I hear this word uncertainty thrown around,
and I think we ought to stop and think, who is creating the
uncertainty, and be honest about it.
And I would hope that, for example, Mr. Bolen and some of
the rest of you, would tell us what that means, willingness to
take risks, whether it is in Wichita or wherever it might be,
as we think about general aviation and what it contributes to
our economy and the need. We keep throwing barriers in front of
them for different things and, you know, trying to make them
disclose where they are going to do business and so on, which
is wrong. And then to be willing to invest in risk and so on
and not knowing what is going to happen to NextGen.
And, Mr. Mica, you made excellent remarks, and I certainly
agree with those. It seems like we ought to move off center and
get to going. Some things are an investment with a known
return, and I think we are thinking about it. I think we have
just been thinking about it a long, long time, and we ought to
get off center.
So I appreciate what is happening here today. We have had a
number of hearings on the issue, and we ought to be moving
forward. Airlines and their willingness to--new equipment, new
avionics. Avionics costs so much money. General aviation.
Avionics costs so much money. And those of us who use the
system a little bit around here can have an appreciation for
it, but we all ought to appreciate it because we all use the
system one way or another, whether we are flying back and forth
to a district or going where we go or those of us that have the
privilege to participate in general aviation.
It is my hope that we can move forward and to pick up the
pace a little bit and realize that this will enhance the
economy. It is needed. We need to move forward into Next
Generation. That is a pretty good term. But it is here. It is
not over the hill. It is here now, and we ought to be into it.
And those of us who have gone up to the laboratory and done
other things realize there is lots that can be done to make it
safer, expedite, get manufacturers to invest and those users to
invest and do a lot of things. So I appreciate it, and I hope
we do actually move forward with a little bit expediency and
get it done now. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join with my colleagues in thanking you for calling a
hearing on this most important topic and also with my
colleagues on their comments about Mr. Costello.
Jerry, you are what this place should be about. I have
tremendously enjoyed your counsel, working with you. Almost
everybody knows or they should know that you are not a show
horse; you are a workhorse. You are about getting it done, you
are about getting results. This place needs more people like
you. So we thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, on the topic of NextGen, I am a huge,
huge proponent of the program. It is no secret that the Federal
Aviation Administration Technical Center, which is in my
district and I believe the premiere facility in the Nation, if
not the world, in this particular area, has done extraordinary
work.
I want to start by saluting the leadership of Secretary
LaHood and Administrator Babbitt, and Michael to you and your
whole team, for what you are doing. This is incredibly
complicated and incredibly difficult.
But I also want to make a word of comment. I have been into
the tech center on numerous occasions, and the men and women of
the tech center have a dedication to excellence and a passion
for success that makes it much more than a job for them. They
understand they are a part of history. They are putting their
heart and soul into this every day. And I think this is going
to yield great benefits as we move forward.
We have heard a little bit about the certainty or
uncertainty. I think one of the biggest things that we can do
to provide certainty is provide a long-term FAA bill. The FAA
itself needs to be able to plan. I cannot imagine how you can
plan 6 months at a time and have to spend so much time and
resources worrying about shutting down or not shutting down.
I was out at the conference, which is ongoing now, on
Monday. Most every private sector company that I talked to
mentioned the certainty and stability, which we don't have
right now, which is absolutely critical to our moving forward.
This partnership between the Government and the private sector
requires us to have a known quantity of what we are doing and
how we are doing it. We can't do that on these extensions, and
I hope we can get by it at this time.
I also believe that one of the things I have heard
repeatedly as the contracts--and we have had about $7.3 billion
worth of contracts under the structure known as SE2020 that
have been a big help on how we are moving forward. But I
certainly am concerned that this is not flowing as quickly as
it could be. I would like to see more task orders and more
funds being allocated on a faster basis than has been so far.
I think it would certainly send a very important message to
those who are paying attention. And with the big issues here in
Washington and the debt limit commission and continuing
resolutions, this is so important to the safety of our flying
public, to the dollars that we can benefit from with our
economy. It is one of the programs that we know is going to
produce results.
And I am thrilled we have the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to
listen to our panel and to find ways we can be a force
multiplier for the group that is here, and I thank you very
much.
Mr. Petri. Representative Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And let me associate myself with the remarks that have been
made in relationship to Mr. Costello. It was very disappointing
information to learn.
But I would like to thank both of you for this hearing
today to review the cost-benefits, progress and management of
FAA's NextGen program. I might add that no where I have been
talking about transportation has there not been emphasis on
NextGen and how important it is for the future of our aviation
industry. And coming from a congressional district that is a
major air transportation hub, that encompasses Dallas and the
Dallas Love Field airport that is very adjacent to the Dallas/
Fort Worth International Airport, the safety of our air traffic
system is of paramount importance.
And currently the Nation's transportation system supports
more than 74,000 flights every day and 730 million passengers
every year, with the FAA forecasting an increase of 53 percent
to 1.1 billion passengers per year by 2025. So we are very
concerned. We are a trade hub. Our airport is the economic
engine for the area. General aviation is expected to increase
to over 85,000 flights every day over the same period. So,
clearly, the demands placed on our national air traffic safety
programs will be far greater as time moves forward, and we must
prepare for the future.
While the most critical purpose of NextGen is to improve
public safety, there are also significant cost savings and
efficiencies to be derived from the proper implementation of
the program that will benefit airlines, airports and air
travelers. The FAA estimates that NextGen air traffic
management improvements will reduce delays in flight and on the
tarmac by approximately 35 percent by 2018, as compared to
doing nothing. That 35 percent improvement in efficiency will
equate to $23 billion in savings to aircraft operators, air
travelers and FAA over 8 years.
These cost savings and public safety improvements are far
too important for this Congress or this committee to ignore.
And I look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony
regarding the different programs of the NextGen system: the
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or the ADS-B; En
Route Automation Modernization, or the ERAM; the data
communications, or DataComm; or System Wide Information
Management, or SWIM; the NAS Voice Switch; NextGen Network
Enabled Weather, the NNEW; Collaborative Air Traffic Management
Technologies, the CATMT, and other expert opinions on what must
be done to modernize our air traffic transportation system.
And I thank you for sharing my passion for safe and
efficient national airspace and the recognition that the
Federal Government must play a partnering role in this effort.
I think the future is too important for us to play partisan
politics here and for us to talk about how much we have to save
and not spend. There are some things that we must spend on to
keep us on the world stage and in safety. I think this is one
of them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Representative Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Costello, for holding these important meetings.
And I am sorry that the ranking member is not here right
now.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to know--there he is. I
have just been able to get to know Representative Costello
somewhat well. But it being a freshman Congressman opposed to a
more senior Congressman, we haven't been able to run in the
same circles. But what I can tell you is that in dealing with
Representative Costello and now paying him the highest of
compliments is that he is a statesman, with that being the
highest compliment I think I could give to another fellow
Representative. So I am sorry for your departure, but--and your
wisdom for this great panel. So thank you very much, sir.
NextGen modernization is critically important in our
national airspace system and can meet the transportation
capacity for the 21st century. Moreover, implementing NextGen
technology will lead to improved aviation and a driver for
future airline productivity.
While I do not support the President's bill entirely, I was
glad to see the importance the President placed on NextGen
funding. I encourage President Obama and his administration to
think seriously about working together in both Houses of
Congress to enact NextGen-related legislation. I think this is
a commonsense issue that transcends the usual partisan
divisions, and the positive effects of implementing NextGen
technologies will benefit all Americans.
I would like to welcome the witnesses to our panel today
and thank you for advance for your testimony. I look forward to
hearing from you about ways to ensure the timely implementation
of NextGen, as well as eliminating the administrative barriers
preventing NextGen's progress. Quite frankly, I am ready to
kick the tires and light the fires on implementing NextGen.
As in the first Aviation Subcommittee hearing this year, I
will be specifically interested in hearing how the FAA's
contract management is impacting NextGen modernization. Again,
thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
And I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you all.
And Representative Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have to begin by saying what a stunning disappointment it
was for me to learn that we would be losing Jerry Costello, for
many, many reasons. First for professional reasons, his
unusually deep knowledge of this area will be hard to
replicate. He knows it backwards and forwards, shares it with
all of us, is hardly replaceable as we move by seniority in
this body.
His wonderful friendship and collegiality will be missed by
all of us. He is a model for how to serve the People of the
United States and this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing to have before
the end of the fiscal year. One is left to wonder where we
would be with NextGen if there had not been 22--or is it 23; I
have almost stopped counting--extensions of the FAA bill. It is
impossible to believe that the failure to pass this bill has
had no effect on NextGen. We are not only talking about
billions of dollars for those of us who want to see more money
in the economy and more savings in our budget; we are talking
about something even more important, And that is the safety of
our system. If we do not meet these deadlines, given the
increasing pressure on air traffic, I don't think any of us
with a straight face could say that the skies are safe.
I have no idea what cuts have had on this very critical
effort. But I believe we must find out where we are, how far
behind we are and whether there are enough funds for us to
continue to move ahead on this very critical long-term effort.
And I thank you very much, again, for this hearing, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
And we turn now to our first panel. And it consists of the
Honorable Michael Huerta, Deputy Administrator of the FAA;
Captain Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association,
International; Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the National
Business Aviation Association; and Mr. Tom Captain, who is the
vice chairman and principal, Aerospace and Defense Sector
Leader at Deloitte, a leading accounting and consulting firm
globally, I believe.
We will begin with the administrator, Mr. Huerta.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. HUERTA, DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CAPTAIN LEE
MOAK, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL;
EDWARD M. BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION
ASSOCIATION; AND TOM CAPTAIN, VICE CHAIRMAN, PRINCIPAL,
AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE SECTOR LEADER, DELOITTE LLP
Mr. Huerta. Good morning, Chairman Petri, Congressman
Costello, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the benefits of NextGen, and I am very
pleased to appear before you for the first time.
NextGen is a comprehensive overhaul of our aviation system
to make air travel more efficient and dependable while keeping
you safe in the skies. It is a continuous rollout of new
procedures and technology that will save fuel, reduce noise and
cut pollution.
NextGen is a better way of doing business, for the FAA, for
the airlines, for airports and for the traveling public. Civil
aviation contributes $1.3 trillion to our economy and generates
more than 10 million jobs. NextGen is vital to protecting these
contributions. The current systems simply cannot accommodate
anticipated growth.
President Obama recognizes the economic importance of
NextGen; the American Jobs Act includes $1 billion to continue
our research and development to advance this transformation.
The act also proposes $2 billion for airport improvements for
runways, taxiways, and terminals.
The United States has invested nearly $3 billion in
NextGen. Why? Because our latest estimates show that NextGen
will reduce delays by about 35 percent in the next 7 years. It
will bring $23 billion in cumulative benefits. We will save
about 1.4 billion gallons of jet fuel and cut carbon dioxide
emissions by 14 million tons.
Let me highlight some examples where NextGen is already
improving safety, helping the environment, and adding to the
bottom line. Helicopters equipped with GPS-based technology in
the Gulf of Mexico now have improved safety where there was no
radar coverage before. They are saving flight time and fuel.
In Colorado, NextGen enables controllers to track aircraft
through mountains that block radar, thereby enhancing safety.
Airlines are benefitting from NextGen routes and approaches
that allow for more direct flights. Southwest Airlines says it
could save $25 for every mile cut by using a shorter route. By
using precise NextGen procedures in Juneau, Alaska Airlines
estimates it avoided cancelling more than 700 flights last year
due to bad weather. And UPS estimates it will save as much as
30 percent on fuel during the arrival phase of flights into its
Louisville hub.
Environmental benefits are clear: Burning less fuel
produces less carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions.
Through the Greener Skies Over Seattle Initiative, airlines
using NextGen procedures will save several millions of dollars
per year. Aircraft will emit about 22,000 metric tons less
carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of taking more than
4,000 cars off the streets.
A true transformation takes planning, and it takes time. So
let me now describe some of the longer range benefits. NextGen
will make our aviation system safer. It will increase
controllers' and pilots' abilities to avoid potential danger.
Equipped aircraft will receive information about traffic,
weather, and flight restricted areas. On the ground, advances
in tracking will make runways safer. We are working in a
focused way to relieve congestion and tarmac delays in major
metropolitan areas, including right here in Washington,
Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, North Texas and California.
To fully achieve these benefits, we must do two things:
First, we need to make sure that the FAA is able to properly
manage the NextGen transformation. And second, we need to
continue working with our partners in the aviation community.
We appreciate congressional approval for the reprogramming
request we submitted this summer. A streamlined NextGen office
that reports to me in addition to other organizational changes
that improve efficiency will help the FAA meet the needs of our
Nation's air transportation system.
NextGen will only be successful if we work closely with the
aviation community. We established a broadbased panel, the
NextGen Advisory Committee, to provide guidance and
recommendations. We need their help to forge industry consensus
on how to equip for NextGen and how to measure our success.
There is a chicken-and-egg nature to the decisions that
will influence the extent and timing of NextGen benefits. The
future depends upon stakeholders' willingness to invest in
equipment, staffing, and training. NextGen is happening now.
If we delay investment, the long-term costs to our Nation,
to our passengers and to our environment will far exceed the
cost of going forward together at this time.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any questions that you and the members of
the subcommittee may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Captain Moak.
Mr. Moak. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Costello, and members of the subcommittee. I am Captain Lee
Moak. I am the president of the Air Line Pilots Association,
representing over 53,000 pilots who fly for 39 airlines and all
cargo carriers in the United States and Canada.
On behalf of our members, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to provide our perspectives on NextGen.
A few weeks ago, I was the captain of an aircraft operating
in the Reagan National Airport, an approach that all of you are
familiar with, and you probably experienced the rapid altitude
decline over the Potomac in the last few minutes of a flight
when you are arriving here from the South and the DCA, a
necessary drop because air traffic controllers keep airplanes
high, the air traffic high in the Reagan until the last few
minutes to avoid Andrews to the east and Dulles to the north
and west. Now, we are kept high to avoid the other traffic
because, as a Nation, we are operating our air traffic control
system largely with the same outdated and imprecise equipment
and, I stress, procedures that were used during the 1950s.
NextGen will bring precision approach capability to
locations and runways where precision approaches do not
currently exist, like at Reagan and some of the runways at
Chicago Midway, Boston Logan and Minneapolis. NextGen
technology gives pilots and controllers precise aircraft
location and altitude information relative to the landing
runway, improving safety and capacity, especially when
operating in adverse weather conditions.
There is no question, NextGen brings with it enhanced
safety and also increases airspace capacity and efficiency.
Now, what is it going to cost? The cost for NextGen, as
estimated by GAO, has been somewhere around $40 billion
initially and as high as $160 billion in some scenarios.
However, there is little debate over the urgent need to
modernize the system, but industry agrees; with a price tag
this high, we must get NextGen right the first time.
With a project of this magnitude and complexity, as well as
a well coordinated fully integrated plan known to and agreed
upon by all stakeholders, along with supporting equipment
standards is critical. Today we do not have a way forward on
NextGen. There is no coordinated plan.
Now, some of you know I am new to DC here, and I can give
you a couple of great examples of that in just a moment. But I
will give you an example of the point that aircraft
manufacturers are delivering aircraft that possess capabilities
that cannot be utilized either because of the current
infrastructure, the infrastructure not being prepared to use
the technology, or the operational procedures necessary have
not been approved.
In addition, Government has required the installation of
NextGen equipment, including ADS-B, that does not meet the end
state standard necessary to achieve the desired long-term
goals. The Government must step forward with greater financial
commitment and show real aviation leadership.
ALPA was pleased to see the President's inclusion of $1
billion for NextGen projects in the jobs package, and it is our
hope that it becomes law, and the $1 billion NextGen investment
will serve as the tipping point for investment in industry and
Government to move forward on the critical initiatives that we
are engaged in.
But again, on the total cost of NextGen, what will $1
billion get you? Being new, it is like putting a quarter into a
parking meter up here on Capitol Hill and expect to get 2 hours
in that meter. It is not going to happen. A quarter only has
gotten me 7.5 minutes, and if you don't plan it out quite
right, you are going to get a ticket or, worse yet, you are
going to get towed. And that is a penalty for a lack of
investment and an industry and consumers are being penalized
for not having an investment in NextGen with higher costs that
sacrifice safety.
You know, when we move forward on NextGen and we try to
motivate the industry to invest, it is only going to happen if
we see a path forward and return to--and a return on the
investment, and the Government needs to show that financial
leadership and make decisions moving forward on NextGen. In
Chicago, in 1945--1944, the International Civil Aviation
Conference was held in Chicago at that time, and they decided
that the U.S. was the leadership in the world, and they made a
fundamental decision to make English the language of aviation.
And right now, we need to move forward with NextGen so that we
don't lose that leadership role.
Now, I know I have gone over my 5 minutes, and I will leave
my other comments for the Q&A period. But NextGen is important
for our members. Our pilots are trained. There is equipment out
there. We need to figure out a way to work together to get this
timeline sped up.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Bolen.
Mr. Bolen. Thank you, Chairman Petri.
Thank you for convening this important hearing and thank
you for opening today's hearing by recognizing Mr. Costello. On
behalf of the business aviation community and all of the
general aviation community, we certainly appreciate the effort
that the Congressman has made to understand our industry and to
recognize the benefits and importance of general aviation to
our country and to be a leading advocate on the value of
allowing us to use per-gallon charges to fund the system,
rather than devastating per-flight fees. So I want to thank Mr.
Costello for all that he has done during his service in the
Congress.
This is an important hearing and an exciting one because I
think NextGen, as you will hear from all of us, is something
that we fully embrace. What we are trying to do is transition
from a ground-based, radar-based system to a satellite-based,
airplane-centric system of air traffic control.
The benefits are clear. We do believe we can reduce our
environmental footprint. We do believe we can enhance safety.
We are convinced we can reduce delays and increase capacity.
And for the business aviation community, it is the ability to
increase system capacity that is really exciting to us. What we
have seen over a period of years, is that as airports become
congested, general aviation gets pushed out. We are forced to
go to secondary airports. Some of you will recall back when
Chicago Midway was a great general aviation airport.
Manchester, Fort Lauderdale, San Jose, the list goes on and on.
But as those airports saw growth in scheduled commercial
operations, we began to get pushed from secondary airports to
tertiary airports. We need to expand the capacity of the system
to allow more safe, efficient operations out of all of our
Nation's airports and all of our airspace.
So business aviation and the entire general aviation
community has been very supportive of our move to NextGen. I
think over the course of the past several years, we have seen
reason to be excited about some of the things that are going
on. We see that Joint Planning and Development Office has put
forward a vision. We have seen the community come together in
Task Force 5 to work on implementation, and currently, we are
working very closely with the FAA and the NextGen Advisory
Council to develop ways that we can move forward in a coherent,
coordinated way and make some of the benefits a reality today.
I think the important thing about NextGen is that we all
understand NextGen is not just about technology. There are
important technology programs. But NextGen is also about
procedures and policies and a culture. And I think we can do
more. Part of the Task Force 5 recommendations and the early
NAC comments suggest that we have a lot of onboard technology
today that we are not using to the fullest extent possible. We
can do more with regard to satellite-based approaches and WAAS-
based approaches throughout the United States that can yield
some immediate benefits.
When people want to know how we move forward with NextGen
faster, we see room for improvement in these areas. That means
getting more approaches done and not just overlaying just the
approaches that we have in place today. Let's create new
approaches that provide real benefits. That does bring some
environmental challenges, but we think where there is a
commitment to working together, we can overcome those. So
getting more of those approaches out there, making sure that
they deliver benefits and streamlining the approval process so
that business aviation can participate in that is a fundamental
way that we can all work together to move forward.
Business aviation and the entire general aviation community
is committed to NextGen. We have never wavered in that
commitment. We participate in all of the advisory groups so
that we can have input into building a system that doesn't just
improve transportation for business aviation but for the entire
aviation community as well.
We appreciate the leadership that we have seen from this
committee and the commitment to work together with the aviation
community.
We are frustrated by recent proposals that distract us and
force us to spend time and effort on Capitol Hill working on
these funding proposals rather than on the important
communication and coordination that is necessary to make
NextGen a reality. We are grateful that this committee has
understood the need to move forward and kept our feet to the
fire. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Captain.
Mr. Captain. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation today
to testify, to provide input on the benefits of NextGen.
Deloitte published an extensive study this past May on the
business case, based on best commercial practices, for the
global implementation of air transportation system
transformation efforts, with particular attention to the U.S.
NextGen program. My name is Tom Captain. I am the lead author
of the study.
That study was funded and performed independently by
Deloitte and was intended to provide input to the ongoing
industry dialogue regarding the quantification of benefits and
costs, funding, scope, timing and potential merits of these
transformation and modernization initiatives. It also
identified the risks and the challenges associated with this
very complex undertaking, as has been mentioned before.
In our business case, we found that conversion to
satellite-based positioning, navigation and timing systems
enables better pilot situational awareness, point-to-point and
closely spaced aircraft operations, continuous descent
procedures, and all-weather air traffic operations, resulting
in significant reduction in weather and congestion related
delays as well as reduced flight times.
We found that the successful implementation of NextGen by
2025, using reasonably conservative assumptions about future
demand for travel, price increases in oil and other factors,
results in an estimated net present value of $281.3 billion and
an internal rate of return of 44.8 percent. By 2026, the first
year of full implementation, the study found $29 billion of
first year net benefits, which only would increase each year
there after, as the price of oil and air travel demand
increases. This is made up of 830 million gallons of jet fuel
savings per year again; 900,000 hours of time saved; and 6.8
million metric tons of carbon emissions avoided.
It should be noted that these did not include several
upside benefits potentially that could make this business case
more positive, including potentially inclusion of NextGen for
general aviation and for military aircraft operations, nor did
the scope contemplate potential consolidation, again,
potential, of the national airspace operation, more efficient
air traffic control procedures or reduction of legacy ground
radar systems, for example.
To provide additional insight about the business case, we
examined three NextGen schedule scenarios, number one
implementing as planned in 2025, acceleration to 2020, and then
delay by 5 years to 2030. We found that acceleration resulted
in an additional $19.8 billion of net present value and
increased that high internal rate of return by another 21.7
percent. Alternatively, delayed implementation still has a
positive business case of that $281 billion, but it would
result in a net present value reduction of about $47.6 billion
and reduces that internal rate of return by 13\1/2\ percent.
Additionally, the business case found that the net benefits
would accrue to constituents as follows: 35 percent to
airlines, 59 percent to passengers, 5 percent to Government and
airports, and 19 percent to the general economy. These savings
are not only in fuel costs, people's time, and emissions, but
in less airplane maintenance and labor costs, insurance,
reduction in noise, increased airspace capacity, and overall
economic benefit from a much more efficient air traffic system.
As outlined in our study, to achieve these benefits, there
are a number of challenges and risks that must be addressed to
successfully meet these implementation timetables. These
include, but are not limited to, funding, technology and
program risk, workforce transformation, regulatory reform,
legal, air traffic control procedures, technical and
certification standards and harmonization, and so forth. In
addition, the program continues to be impacted by program
management challenges of cost overruns and schedule delays due
to technical complexity, requirements creep and uncertainty, as
well as system verification and integration challenges. Due to
the integrated nature of these elements, success will be highly
dependent on the ability to manage requirements, cost and
schedule in a coordinated manner as a program. A key lag in one
of these elements could impact the ability of the entire
program to be on schedule, as has been mentioned before, and a
focus on interdependencies would necessarily be required.
Our study highlights considerations targeted at addressing
a number of these concerns, which include assessments of
potential funding to address NextGen equipage to close the gap,
to close the business case for airlines, as well as program
management to include oversight and governance programs to
better ensure overall programmatic performance and
accountability, as has been mentioned by the Administrator
early year this week.
In summary, the business case demonstrates that the return
on investment is significant for all scenarios considered. It
looks like it is an open-and-shut business case. As we have
said earlier, it is all about execution.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer your questions.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I was going to ask you, just to build on your concluding
statement, if you do a--your firm does a lot of consulting for
the multinationals of this world, and assume for a minute that
we are not talking about a Government, but we are talking
about, say, Exxon Mobil, which does billion-dollar projects all
the time all over the world. And if they could borrow at the
Government's costs--we are borrowing at 2 to 3 percent now--and
get a 65 percent return on their investment if they moved
things up a little bit faster--I think you indicated 44 percent
on the current timetable, and if we cut 5 years off it, we
would get 21 percent more--would you say that that is the kind
of thing that we would be yelling that they are robbing someone
because they are making such a huge profit, or is this a no-
brainer, or what--could you bring it to life a little bit for
us what we are talking about?
Mr. Captain. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think if you look at most
investment cases for property, plant, and equipment, most
companies would say that a return on investment of 44 percent
would be outstanding, and that is why we say this is an open-
and-shut business case. It is not about the investment return,
it is about how you do it and manage the risk.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
And, Mr. Huerta, you are kind of in charge of managing the
risks or helping to get this thing done. It is a big
assignment, and it is in a way out of the ordinary for the FAA
in that normally the FAA is a line agency that is trying to put
out fires every day and managing the--has responsibility for
managing the safe and efficient flow of air traffic, among
other things, in the United States. This is a different type of
an operation. It is managing a transformative process to
reconfigure the way it is doing business. Could you discuss
that a little bit, and the magnitude of the problem, and how we
can help you to do as effective and efficient a job as
possible?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think you
provided an excellent summary of the challenge that the FAA
faces. The FAA is, first and foremost, an operating agency with
a safety focus, and we never want to do anything that is going
to get in the way of our ability to maintain a safe system that
operates as efficiently as possible. And you are correct in
pointing out that our transformation to NextGen represents a
very significant difference in the way that we do business.
One of the things that Administrator Babbitt identified
early on when he came to the FAA was the importance of
separating the program management functions associated with
NextGen from the day-to-day operational functions of the FAA,
and that was with a very deliberate intent, to ensure that we
had the appropriate level of focus and oversight on delivering
NextGen programs as effectively as possible, and at the same
time not allowing people that are delivering those programs to
be distracted by the day-to-day operation that is always there.
We appreciate the support that has been shown by the
Congress in reorganizing the functions of the FAA to create a
new program management office and to elevate the profile of the
NextGen organization, and we are very focused on putting the
tools in place to ensure that we are able to deliver these
programs so that we can maximize the benefit.
We also recognize the need to accelerate, and make very
visible to everyone, the benefits from delivering NextGen. You
have heard from the other witnesses the importance of advanced
navigation procedures, and you have also heard that, in fact,
most aircraft are equipped to take advantage of those
procedures today. That has become an area of very significant
focus for us, and in the year ahead what we really want to do
is focus on how can we improve the quality of these procedures,
how can we accelerate their deployment, and how can we see the
very real benefits associated with reduced fuel consumption,
reduced time, and corresponding environmental benefits as well.
But it starts with how we manage and how we oversee the
programs, and we put changes in place in the last few months
that I think maximize our ability to do that.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huerta, let me ask a question, but before I do, I think
we all recognize that everyone in the room, both on this
subcommittee and everyone here today, supports NextGen and
wants to see it successfully implemented. We also, all of us,
as Members of Congress, and you as taxpayers, want to see us do
the responsible thing in reining in spending, trying to balance
the Federal budget, and that is a challenge, trying to make
investments that, in fact, pay off in the end, while at the
same time trying to figure out in the Federal budget what can
be reduced, what can be cut.
What I am trying to do here is to get a handle on how cuts
will affect the implementation of NextGen. So my question is,
your people at the FAA, surely they have done an analysis
concerning the various proposals in Congress. There are
proposals in Congress that would cut FAA anywhere from 5 to 10
percent in the capital and operating budgets, including
accounts for NextGen. So regardless of where we are and how
much should be cut and how much shouldn't be cut, I think we
have a responsibility and the agency has a responsibility to
tell us how various proposals will affect the implementation of
NextGen.
I said in my opening statement that throwing money at this
issue or any issue is not the only answer, that there are other
things that have to be done in order to make sure that it is--
NextGen is implemented in an efficient, effective way, but
obviously you have to have the funding to move forward.
So my question to you is there are proposals in the
Congress now to reduce your operating budget, which will, in
fact, affect NextGen. Have you done an analysis from a
budgetary standpoint as to what a 1-percent, what a 5-percent,
what a 10-percent cut would do as far as the progress that the
agency is making with the implementation of NextGen?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
President Obama has put forward in his budget for fiscal
year 2012 the Administration's view on what we think are the
resources that are necessary to keep the program on track and
to ensure that the benefits that we would like to achieve are
there.
The question that you are also raising, which is in tight
budgetary times, what can we do to maximize the investments
that we make, and how do we ensure that we keep NextGen on
track. I think, first and foremost, what the President has put
forward is what we believe to be the appropriate balance of
maintaining the operation and ensuring that we are able to
deliver the goals of NextGen. If we are looking at less than
that, first and foremost, what we need to be concerned about is
maintaining a safe system, and that puts us in the position of
needing to consider are there future investments that we would
need to delay? If we delay the investment, we delay the
realization of the benefit, and the challenge of that is that
the aviation industry continues to grow, and a lot of what we
are investing in is to enable us to manage that ever-increasing
share of traffic.
We have done an analysis, and we have been engaging in
discussions with industry of how we should look at it, and I
think the tension that we have in a reduced funding scenario
is: do we cut everything across the board--what is called the
famous peanut butter spread--or do we really focus on a couple
of key programs and try to maximize their benefit? And we don't
have an answer to that because we want to consult with industry
in terms of where do they want to see the maximum benefit. You
have heard from them that in the near term, the focus needs to
be on advanced procedures.
I would also like to point out that the investment we have
made as of today, about half of that has been in the deployment
of the ADS-B ground stations throughout the country, and we
need to remain on track to deliver that by 2013 because that is
a foundational program that enables us to build on the rest of
the NextGen technologies.
To keep the program to meet our timetables that industry
has asked for, Task Force 5 has laid out a series of things
they would like to see us accomplish between now and 2018. To
be able to meet that, though, the President's budget really
provides the template to get us there.
Mr. Costello. One more question regarding funding. I asked
Administrator Babbitt when he testified before the subcommittee
a similar question, and I asked him what effect the proposed
cuts at the time would have on the implementation of NextGen,
and he said--I have a transcript of his testimony here, and he
said that, So I don't think that we should be penny wise and
pound foolish. Yes, we could save the penny, but in the end it
is going to cost more money over time to delay a lot of what we
are proposing.
And what I am trying to do is get a handle on what that
means. So I hear you say that, you know, we would take a couple
of programs and prioritize, but, you know, I think for those of
us who are making decisions on the budget and funding levels
for the agency, it would be good for us to know that if you
rollback to 2008 or 2009 funding levels, that that is going to
delay the implementation by a year, 2 or 3 years, 4 years,
whatever it may be, so that when we are making these decisions
to vote on budget levels, we know exactly what the effect of
that vote will be, that we know that we are delaying NextGen by
a specific amount of time. And I don't think I have heard that
from the agency yet, and I think it would be helpful for
everyone to know that.
Mr. Huerta. There is no question that civil aviation is a
major economic contributor, and, yes, any delay would result in
delays in benefits to that industry and would significantly
impact the job potential of that industry.
In terms of if we cut here, if we reduce by this, what does
it translate to in years? I think it is dependent on a number
of factors, paramount among them which is, how does it affect
various funding categories within the FAA? But there is no
question that reduced funding will result in delays, and delays
will cost us more in the future in lost benefit as well as the
cost of deploying the program.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have the
panelists with us today. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to another
meeting, but I want to put a question to Mr. Huerta, if I may.
Mr. Huerta, very elementary definition, tell us what ERAM
is, and more specifically why is the program $500 million, I am
told, over budget and 3 to 5 years delayed? Is there a plan to
get it back on track? And let me put a two-part question to you
to tie on to that.
In your testimony you say that ERAM delays are attributable
to not having enough stockholder inclusion. If you would, sir,
elaborate in more detail, is that to say that there were no air
traffic controllers involved in the development of ERAM? And if
you will respond to that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
ERAM represents the new platform for handling high-altitude
traffic at air traffic control centers all across the country,
and it is a foundational program to NextGen. The original
contract was awarded to our primary contractor, Lockheed
Martin, in July of 2003.
The challenges that we encountered in the deployment of
ERAM related to what you pointed out as stakeholder or
shareholder involvement, and that is the air traffic
controllers that actually have to use this program to safely
separate aircraft every day. What we found a couple of years
ago was as we started to roll the system out into our first
test sites, that there were difficulties in the human
interface, the controllers' ability to work with the program as
compared with the program that they were migrating off of, an
older system known as HOST. And so we elected at that time, a
couple of years ago, to stop where we were and really focus on
how could we address the controllers' concerns and to ensure
that challenges and difficulties we were seeing in the software
could be addressed such that the controllers would feel
confident that they would be able to operate on this program.
That has been very successful, and we now have the program
up and running at two of our air traffic control centers, Salt
Lake Center and Seattle Center. On October 19th, we will pass
the 1-year mark when we will be operating on ERAM at Salt Lake
Center, and later in the year we will pass the 1-year mark at
Seattle. And we are very confident that we are going to roll
out ERAM and operate traffic-operating capability at another
six sites between now and the end of this calendar year.
The delaying challenges have resulted in a rebaselining of
the program, though, in terms of its schedule for rollout. I
indicated that we expect to be at a total of seven sites by the
end of this year, and the next 2 years it is our expectation
that we will complete the rollout of ERAM at the remaining
sites throughout the country.
There are a lot of lessons learned associated with ERAM,
and the one that you pointed out is really the key: the
importance of the involvement of the operators of the system
early on in the development. And that is something that we have
really focused on as we have looked at standing up the program
management operation within the FAA: How do we adopt those best
practices and ensure that, as we develop further technology
programs, that we have the right connection between the
operators and the users of the system with those that are
developing it?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I am still having
difficulty in embracing the delay and the monetary, the
budgetary problem, but I will try to do better as I plow
through it.
Thank you all for being with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I noted in my brief opening comments, and you mentioned
the importance of involving the operators of the system early
on, and so you said in your testimony that there will be a new
committee to address the various issues that confront FAA as we
seek to implement the NextGen. And so I wanted to know, this
committee that you referred to, the coordinating committee, who
is on it? Are the air traffic controllers sitting at the table
with you? Because they are the ones who are going to have to
really move to, you know, implement and be a part of this whole
system.
Mr. Huerta. The NextGen Advisory Committee was created by
the Administrator about a year ago, and it is a broad-based
committee of industry representatives, all the users of the
system, and the question put before them is really how do we
look at the business of NextGen, how do we advance the benefits
and ensure that NextGen is responding to the needs of the
aviation industry?
The members include, yes, labor as well as air carriers. It
involves all segments of the industry. In fact, two of my
fellow witnesses on this panel are members of the NextGen
Advisory Committee. The committee itself meets quarterly, and
there are a series of working groups that deal with very
specific taskings and questions that are provided to them by
the FAA. Examples of recent taskings that we provided to the
NextGen Advisory Committee are to do some work so that we could
reach industry agreement on what are appropriate metrics for
measuring benefits, and then how do we ensure that we are able
to actually realize those benefits on a timely fashion. We have
asked for input from them on questions such as ``how do we
address equipage of the fleet?''
The aviation industry has always been founded as a
partnership between Government and industry, and in creating
the NextGen Advisory Committee, it is really to further that
partnership for this very important initiative to transform
our----
Ms. Hirono. Who are the two other people on the panel?
Raise your hands.
Thank you very much.
To go on, one of the testifiers talked about how important
it is to get the airlines on board, because they are going to
need to put forth the funds to make sure that their planes have
the proper equipment, and I believe, Mr. Huerta, you said that
most--maybe I heard this wrong--that most of them are already
equipped to be able to use the NextGen procedures. That seemed
to be at variance with some of the other testimony that we need
to figure out a way to incentivize and have the aviation, the
airlines have the confidence that FAA is actually going to be
able to move forward with NextGen. Would you like to comment?
Mr. Huerta. Yeah, thank you.
There are two distinct levels of equipage. Many aircraft
are currently equipped to handle advanced navigation procedures
known as area navigation or required navigation performance,
RNAV and RNP, respectively. That is a type of approach to
airports that enables you to operate with reduced fuel burn and
operate shorter distances coming into airports, and so that is
one level of equipage.
Longer term, there will be other benefits associated with
other equipage; for example, advanced data-communications
technologies that will minimize opportunities that might exist
in the system for error associated with radio transmissions.
Instead, by providing secured data transmissions, you have a
higher level of confidence that there wouldn't be errors in the
system.
What the industry is telling us is many of them are
equipped for RNAV and RNP, and they would like to maximize the
benefits of those things, and they want to ensure that the FAA
is doing what it needs to do to enable them to maximize those
benefits, and they are right. That is an important confidence-
building step that is needed in order for them to have the
confidence to do investments in the future.
Ms. Hirono. So for any of the other testifiers, do you
think that things are moving along; for the equipment that the
airlines already have, that you have the confidence that FAA
will be able to allow the airlines to use, utilize those
equipments currently?
Mr. Bolen. Well, I think at this point it is closer to a
``trust but verify'' type situation. As the Deputy
Administrator stated, and I thought it was a very accurate
portrayal of where we are today. A number of groups in the
aviation community, not just the airlines, but also general
aviation and even the military, have put GPS equipment on board
their airplane at their own cost. We have also worked to be
trained to use this, so investment in NextGen has already been
made by the private sector.
Our frustration at this point is that we don't feel we are
freely, consistently, and ubiquitously operating with those
types of approaches, thus I earlier spoke about the need to get
more approaches, have them be beneficial approaches, and make
sure that we are using them to the greatest extent possible. We
are committed, we are investing in it today, and when we do get
to that second level of equipage, whether it is ultimately
purchased by the Government or by industry, there will be
additional costs. Not just in buying the box, but installation
costs, training costs, the keeping everybody current and
proficient on the system. These will be significant for
industry, but we shall bear those costs, just as we did with
RVSM and GPS.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you. My time is up, but I do--I will
submit one question to you, Mr. Huerta, that has to do with
FAA's plans for the NextGen upgrades in Hawaii, which has a
vast area to cover, our Honolulu air traffic control system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huerta, I have expressed some concerns about the SE2020
pipeline not flowing as quickly as it could be. I have got a
couple parts of the question surrounding SE2020. I have heard
and I would like you to comment on whether right now it is not
new work that is being assigned, but existing work that is
simply being brought under SE2020 from other contracts, and can
you shed some light on when we can expect more dollars and
tasks to be flowing through the pipeline? Any reasons for the
slow start, and what you are doing to help address this?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo.
Yes, as you know, SE2020 is a contract vehicle that enables
the FAA to contract with the private sector on specific task
orders associated with the deployment and delivery of NextGen.
Over the past year, since the award of SE2020, we have
processed about 144 task orders, and that totals close to $400
million in investment that has been run through that task
vehicle. That is about half of our fiscal year 2011 enacted
capital budget, and as I talked about in my testimony, this
partnership with the private sector is very important. I think
that we would all like to maximize the level of private
participation in the development of this because it is a force
multiplier for us. It enables us to move things as quickly as
we possibly can.
I think that there is concern that is expressed on the part
of some contractors that we need to be doing more, that there
are important things that can be done. I think it is important
to balance that, though, against the overall challenge that we
have to ensure that all of the work is fully integrated as we
are developing various parts of an extremely complex system,
and what we are doing is ensuring that that level of
integration is there so as to maximize the benefit and to
ensure that we don't have disconnects as programs get developed
by different contractors. Would we like to do more, and would
we like to do it more quickly? Absolutely. But our overriding
challenge is to ensure that we do it right.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. You mentioned that the FAA just
accomplished the realignment, which is supposed to help NextGen
along. Could you elaborate a little bit on how specifically
these changes will help the FAA deliver NextGen?
Mr. Huerta. Two major things that we did associated with
our realignment relate to the NextGen program office itself,
and then the second relates to a program management function,
how we deliver complex technology programs.
Taking first the NextGen program office. Previously, it was
housed within the Air Traffic Organization, which reflects the
fact that fundamentally what we are redeveloping is an air
traffic system. But, concern had been expressed by members and
industry, and, in fact, by this committee, that that
organizational relationship did not fully reflect the
transformational nature of NextGen. It is more than developing
a computer system; it is also how procedures get certified, it
is how we integrate procedures into airports. It involves the
full scope of all aspects of the FAA, and there are interagency
components. You and others have touched on the importance of
relationships with the Department of Defense, with NASA, and a
host of other external stakeholders.
What we have done as part of our restructuring is to
elevate the NextGen program office into a new Assistant
Administrator for NextGen that reports directly to me, and I am
pleased to be joined by my colleague, Vicki Cox, who is the
Assistant Administrator for NextGen. She has broader agencywide
responsibility that we think will be very effective in
leveraging the full Resource of the FAA against this agencywide
transformation. That is the first thing.
The second thing is program management. Under our old
structure, new programs such as ERAM were housed within the
operating unit that they were ultimately going to support. So
in the case of ERAM, it was housed in our En Route Organization
within Air Traffic. The En Route Organization is fundamentally
an operating organization, and it is very difficult to ensure
consistency across all programs if they are managed by distinct
operational units in the FAA. And the second thing is operating
units are consumed with operations. Deployment of a new program
is a long-term management program that must be kept on track,
and we felt it was important to elevate the profile of the
programs to give them dedicated oversight and ensure that they
are appropriately linked to the operation to keep them on
track. And so the two elements were elevating the NextGen
program itself and then creating within the ATO a program
management office to oversee large technology development
programs.
Mr. LoBiondo. Once again, thank you and your team for what
you are doing.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Boswell.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My time is running out, but I want to compliment all four
of you. This has been a great panel. You have said the things
we need to hear. Some of it we have heard before. Just keep
saying it.
I especially want to associate myself with Captain Moak and
Mr. Bolen. Thanks for hanging in there. You have said it
clearly, Captain Moak, you are going to be OK on Capitol Hill,
you did a good job, so thanks for making yourself available to
do what you are doing because we appreciate it very much.
It is investment with a known return, Mr. Chairman. This is
investment, and I think for our--call it fiduciary
responsibility, whatever. If we know this is an investment with
known return, and also it adds all of the capabilities to
safety and so on, let us get on with it. Let us get on with it.
I have to go, so I would like to yield the remainder of my
time to my good friend and colleague--and I think we are on the
same frequency--Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. I appreciate it, Leonard, I really
do.
I actually have a couple of different questions. I don't
even know where to start. The first one is--and I am going to
direct it to Mr. Huerta, and we touched just briefly on the
budget, and you said that the President's bill provides us with
the tools to get there. And I think we are all concerned about
implementation of NextGen and getting there, but what I worry
about is--and the administration has proposed a $100 user fee
on commercial and general aviation operations in controlled
airspace, and I worry about that hampering us considerably when
it comes to implementation of NextGen, and for that matter even
the general aviation industry altogether. But out of curiosity,
are you all worried about that proposal?
Mr. Huerta. Clearly, we are in a time of significant fiscal
challenge in the country, and I think what the President has
put forward is a proposal to try to attempt to address that
challenge that we have. Establishment of the fee would address
what are regarded as current inequities in the cost of
operating the air traffic control system. And we recognize that
the GA community currently pays a fuel tax, but these revenues
are far less than the cost of the air traffic control services
that are provided to that community of users. It is a
relatively small cost in relation to the total operating cost
of a flight, and I think that what we heard from the President
is that everyone needs to do their part to address the fiscal
challenges that we face as a country.
Mr. Graves. Does the FAA support the $100 fee?
Mr. Huerta. I support the President.
Mr. Graves. Do you support the $100 fee?
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Moak, do you want to----
Mr. Moak. I would like to comment on the $100 fee is
clearly a tax. The Air Line Pilots Association is against that
tax. That is a job killer for our members, for the airlines.
You put another tax on the airlines, you couple that with the
tripling of the TSA tax, and you are going to have a capacity
reduction in the system. It is a fact that airline tickets are
market based. You put those taxes on there, we won't need to
have NextGen hearings because you won't need to modernize the
system because there won't be enough people flying. Enough is
enough on these fees that are taxes in disguise. That is how we
feel about it.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Bolen?
Mr. Bolen. Congressman, the $100-per-flight fee proposal is
at best a distraction at a time when our industry cannot afford
to be distracted, and at worst it is a very destructive force.
A couple of comments. First of all, the idea of a per-
flight charge is not a new idea. It is an idea that this
committee and several other committees on Capitol Hill have
thoroughly studied, analyzed. It has been the subject of
numerous hearings and a great deal of input, and after 4 years
of considering this question at the deepest level, on both
sides of this Hill, in four different committees, a decision
was made to reject a per-flight fee. It is not in the House
reauthorization bill, it is not in the Senate reauthorization
bill. A per-flight fee is just a bad idea. Congress has
rejected it in the past, and it needs to reject it again.
Let me add a couple of other points. Deputy Administrator
Huerta talked about cost allocation. As we know from previous
hearings, the last time the FAA did a cost allocation study, it
was a flawed study. It did not use sound economic principles.
The last time the FAA did a cost allocation study that relied
on proven and established economic principles, it found that
general aviation imposes maybe 7 to 9 percent of the cost of
operating the system. Our contribution is currently 8.6 percent
to the system. We are paying our fair share. That does not mean
we have not been willing to work with the committee to find
ways to fund and support NextGen. In fact, we have. But we have
been very clear. A per-flight fee is not just a tax, it is the
most destructive tax possible, and not only would it create
administrative burdens for the general aviation industry, but
it would distract the FAA from its core focus.
We want the FAA to be focused on promoting safety and
making NextGen a reality. We don't want the FAA to become the
Sky IRS, a collection bureaucracy that is focused on billing
agents, collection agents, and auditors. It is time to move
forward on NextGen. Serious proposals are on the table. This
approach is destructive, and it should be rejected.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim my time. I
think I have got 4 minutes left.
Real quick, and I apologize, Mr. Huerta, if I mispronounce
your name, but you said that the $100 fee is going to be used
to pay for inequities in the air traffic control system. I
thought it was going to be used to pay for the Jobs Act. Which
is the case?
Mr. Huerta. Right now the current funding profile of the
FAA is about half and half user fees associated with fuel taxes
and other fees that go into the Aviation Trust Fund and General
Funds. I think what the President is proposing is a larger
share of the latter would be based on fees.
Mr. Graves. All right. We will move on.
When it comes to NextGen, and my question is--and I am
going to have a hearing on this issue in my own committee, the
Small Business Committee, coming up here pretty quick--but
being as NextGen is a GPS-based system, and we have got the
LightSquared issue that is out there--and I would like to
direct the question to Mr. Moak and Mr. Bolen. Please
elaborate. Give me your concerns, because I am concerned about
it, the bleed-over, and particularly when we have got this
elaborate system going into place, and all of a sudden, you
know, we have got equipment that maybe may not even work under
the new system.
Mr. Moak. So the bottom line on equipage in an aircraft as
we go into NextGen and the money that has been spent since
early 2000, it depends on GPS. So if GPS has any erosion in
capability, all this will be for naught. We are against that
LightSquared issue. We spoke publicly on it, we have been up on
the Hill on it. The bottom line is we need to protect GPS as a
fundamental tenet of the future of the national airspace, and
so I would be happy to attend your hearing on that, by the way.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Bolen?
Mr. Bolen. Well, the GPS satellite system was obviously
created by the military, but provided to the civilian
community, and the benefits to our country have been
immeasurable. Whether it is agriculture, transportation, or
commerce, it has just been tremendous. And for aviation it has
not just been the technology that has helped make us safer and
made so much of today's avionics advancements possible, but as
Captain Moak just said, it is the cornerstone of where we want
to go, and it is incomprehensible that we are at a point where
we are talking about interference with the GPS signal. The
military is against it, the Department of Transportation is
against it, the aviation community is against it.
This is about safe navigation. It is about the
transportation system that is so fundamental to our economy, to
our jobs, to our way of life. I am not sure how we got here,
but we need to make sure that going forward the GPS signal is
clear and reliable. We are all depending on it, and in the
general aviation community we have invested heavily in its
equipment.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back, and I
appreciate everybody being here today. I think this is a good
hearing. But I do want to associate myself with the comments of
Captain Moak and Mr. Bolen when it comes to the $100 fee and
how I think it is going to affect the implementation of
NextGen, and particularly what Captain Moak had to say, I don't
know if there will be any GA left after a $100 fee is imposed,
and then I would like to invite everybody to my hearing on
LightSquared. But this user fee is something that concerns me
in a big way, and I think it is going to hinder us, hinder us
considerably.
And with that I will yield back, and I appreciate very much
Mr. Boswell yielding me his time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, I want to thank
you for holding this hearing, and very briefly, Jerry, I want
to echo my colleagues' comments about how much we will miss you
here on the committee and in Congress, but most importantly I
want to congratulate you on making--everything that you have
done and making this decision. I always think about the fact
that my predecessor, my father, who retired from here 7 years
ago, people still say today that he looks younger now than he
did 7 years ago when he was still here, so you have that to
look forward to certainly.
We all know that NextGen is vital for the future of
aviation in our Nation, and I want to commend the chairman and
ranking member's efforts to ensure that we see some real near-
term benefits from the program. For northeastern Illinois,
realizing these near-term benefits is especially important
because our airports lie at the heart of the regional,
national, and international aviation system. Midway and O'Hare
handle over 40 million passengers every year. That number is
expected to jump by almost 20 percent within the next 5 years,
15 percent for each 5 years after that. So given the large
increase that is expected to happen in the near term, it is
clear we need to emphasize the results today.
I am happy that we are taking a look at that, while at the
same time working to invest in more long-term efforts, like
equipping aircraft with ADS-B out. In particular, I am proud to
have worked with the chairman and ranking member to include
language in the draft FAA reauthorization that aims to boost
NextGen equipage like ADS-B out with the use of public-private
partnerships.
So I want to start my questioning with Mr. Huerta. Several
Federal Aviation commissions recommended that the Federal
Government consider a variety of financial and operational
incentives to commercial and GA operators for NextGen equipage.
Can you explain what types of incentives, if any, are currently
under consideration by the FAA, and do you think that operators
will be able to meet the 2020 mandates based on where we stand
today?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
One of the things we have heard loud and clear in our
discussions with industry about any level of incentive is that
there needs to be a clear linkage between equipage and benefit,
and that there need to be mechanisms that would ensure that
benefits are delivered, and that the FAA actually signs up for
doing its part so that people are able to take advantage
associated with equipage.
We asked the NextGen Advisory Committee to provide us a
framework to look at future equipage incentives. I think Mr.
Bolen led that activity, but I think that I can share with you
on a summary level that they looked across the whole scope of
the industry and suggested that if you are looking at
incentives, while they would like to see some direct Federal
support, they feel that there is a great deal of promise
through credit programs that would enable them to take
advantage of lower cost of borrowing, but those credit programs
would need to be linked to specific performance targets that
the FAA would need to hit.
They also go on to say that they think we need to look
across the whole scope of the industry, and that is not only
air carrier, but also general aviation, because we operate in a
mixed environment that everyone uses.
Getting back to the point of linking together any sort of a
credit program with commitments on the part of the FAA, I think
that is entirely fair. I think it is appropriate that the FAA
be required to step up for delivery of benefits because it is
consistent with the philosophy I talked about before. Our whole
aviation system is founded on partnership, and if we are
depending on the private sector to make certain investments,
they need to be assured that the benefits will be there.
Mr. Lipinski. Captain Moak, briefly?
Mr. Moak. If you don't mind, I want to just give you a
little more on that view on the why. The why behind this
problem that we are talking about here is that in the airlines
they have invested in equipage that is on the airplane right
now, they have trained the crews to use the equipment that they
have, and they are not currently able to use it because of the
process and procedures of the FAA. So that is why this
incentive discussion continues and continues, because we have
that equipment there, we are not able to use it, and they are
not believing that they will be able to deliver when you don't
have a work plan and a timeline-based project management
delivered, with a deliverable at the end. And that is why they
are going with the idea in the airline business that we have
already invested in training the pilots, we have bought
equipment that we can't use, and we don't know when the FAA
will ever be up to speed so we can use it. So they are making
the argument on a return on investment, and it is because of
the past.
So, again, pilots are ready, and we are trained on RNP, on
RNAV, on CPDLC, which we can't currently use in the continental
U.S. We have to use CPDLC over the North Atlantic when we leave
the continental U.S. So that is what the argument is about.
Mr. Lipinski. If the chairman will indulge me for 30
seconds, I am going to submit for the record some questions on
performance-based navigation as something that I think we need
to expedite the implementation of that, and I am interested in
what is going on, what the FAA is currently doing on that, but
I will leave that for the question for the record. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the distinguished panel for being here today.
Lots of questions, little time.
The first question of Mr. Huerta. Reading the most recent
IG report, we keep on hearing the term ``investment,'' we have
got to keep on investing in this, but how can we invest in
something when the report of the IG says the FAA has not
approved total cost, schedule or performance baselines for any
of NextGen's transformational programs nor developed an
integrated master schedule for managing and executing NextGen?
How can we invest in something, sir, we don't even know what
the parameters are?
Mr. Huerta. I think a couple of things on that. First of
all, what the FAA has adopted as a philosophy is: in order to
minimize program risk is break the program into short and
longer term investment decisions, and what we would like to see
is that there is a pairing of costs and benefits with shorter
term investments so that we minimize the risk, for example, of
investing over many, many years and waiting for some big payoff
at the end. We are trying to match costs and benefits over a
consistent period of time.
The IG had also suggested that there were certain aspects
of the program, two in particular, where they identified that
the FAA has not established baselines for even the first phase.
We are expecting that in 2012, the next year, that we will be
at a point where we will have the initial stage for one program
in terms of baselining, and that we will have a contract award
for the other, and so we are moving forward to identify program
baselines.
On your question related to integration, we have, over the
last couple of years, developed two guiding frameworks that I
think go a long way toward addressing that question. The first
is the NextGen Implementation Plan, which we publish annually.
We will be publishing again next spring, and in which we make
every effort to match up specific investments with things that
have come out of industry in terms of specific proposals that
they would like to see the FAA adopt against specific
timetables.
Within that and on a more detailed level, we have developed
the NextGen Segment Implementation Plan that then deals with
the first segment of those and the highly detailed project
decision to identify dependencies among the programs and to
ensure that they are fully synchronized.
I think that what we have tried--it has certainly been my
mission since I joined the FAA a year and a half ago--to focus
on much better integration, much better program management, and
I think that we have made significant progress in that area.
Mr. Cravaack. I appreciate that comment, sir, but in the
end that doesn't really help us trying to put a price tag on
this overall and when we are actually going to have it
implemented. So I appreciate it, and hopefully it will be more
clear in the future.
Captain Moak, I read your testimony, and I found something
interesting in your testimony, your written testimony, is that
in regards to unmanned aircraft systems. I found that to be
kind of intriguing, international airspace. In your written
testimony you actually mentioned that there has been no
extensive study to the potential hazards, and the ways to
mitigate those hazards must be undertaken before we can really
implement this program.
What a lot of people aren't aware is that we have a lot of
DOD missions that actually originate here in the United States,
flying CONUS, continental airspace, and head on out to overseas
missions. How much work do you know has been done thus far
about the Federal Government in studying these potential
hazards?
Mr. Moak. We have been interacting and identifying to the
FAA, they have been very cooperative on this matter, but
currently there is no transparency and there is no clarity on
linkage problems, certification of pilots. And I believe until
we have those type of studies where we are working together, it
would be tough to integrate them into the national airspace,
especially in close proximity to passenger or cargo aircraft.
Mr. Cravaack. That is something that definitely we have to
look forward in the future, because as UAVs become more
prevalent, we are going to definitely be having them in the
same airspace as we have passengers and cargo.
Mr. Bolen, real quickly, I have got 50 seconds, in regards
to LightSquared, Representative Graves brought that up as well,
what would be the cost to the GA community on having to
implement any type of equipage that would have to try to make
sure that they were able to maintain the proper signal?
Mr. Bolen. Well, first of all, right now we don't know that
a filter is possible. Tests have been run. I think what we are
sensing from the manufacturers of GPS equipment is they are not
comfortable that a filter can be effective.
Certainly having gone to the effort of investing in GPS,
having gone to the effort at making that the cornerstone going
forward, to try to do a retrofit is going to be enormously
costly, and it comes in a backdrop when our industry is
struggling. Over the last 3 years we have seen employment at
some of our companies drop by 50 percent. Aircraft operations
are down, the inventory of used airplanes are up, the prices
for some models have fallen 30, 40, 50 percent.
So this is a tough time for us, and the idea that we are
going to simply go buy new GPS equipment or a new filter for
GPS equipment because somehow we have given away spectrum that
was vital to the future of GPS is just incomprehensible. I urge
this Congress to do all it can to preserve the integrity of
GPS. We have all invested in it, and its benefits are enjoyed
by all Americans.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, sir. Indulgence for 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that a user tax would be absolutely
detrimental to our community. As a pilot I have been laid off
before for 2 years because of the tenuous operations, what the
dollar value is in the aviation community. I have gone through
a bankruptcy with my company as well because of the troubling
effects what has happened in our economy. I think adding this
is just--as Captain Moak said, we are not going to need this
because there won't be any need for it because our skies will
be clear.
So thank you very much, sir, and I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huerta, Captain Moak raised a kind of ``emperor has no
clothes on'' issue, although I want to focus on safety, not
funds. He in his own way, ever respectful way, mocked the
billion dollars, I guess it is, in the President's budget,
calling it like a quarter in a meter, and it will get you, you
know, 7 minutes. I think that was fair. I don't know about you,
but I think that was fair, and I understand that we are under
tremendous pressure, so I am not asking this question out of
criticism. I just think that it was an important point to raise
because there is a big elephant in this room.
The elephant is that we are sitting here as if this is
going to happen. You can ask, are we on track? Let me tell you
something, we are on track if we are going at the slowest
possible pace, and we are on track if we are trying to meet
some deadline, so on track tells us nothing. And whether or not
we are on track matters to me for one critical reason, and that
is the increase in air traffic.
Captain Moak spoke about Reagan, which is right here, where
for years they have to use special procedures just to get into
the airport closest to the Nation's Capital. These safety
concerns are, for me, paramount.
Now, you are going to have a situation where, according to
all the figures we have, by 2025 you will have a 53 percent
increase in passengers riding planes. Well, I will tell you
what, in this country what you are going to do is you are going
to keep airplanes going, you know. The airlines are going to
keep it happening, and nobody is going to say we are grounding
airplanes because we haven't finished our GPS, and everybody is
going to say it is safe to fly.
So let me ask you questions that are very specific. On the
surveillance broadcast aspect, that is supposed to be done by
2015--2013; on the data communication segment of it should be
done between 2015 and 2018; on the systemwide information that
we are all depending upon, well, segment 2 has not been
baselined, and I think segment 1 was baselined in 2009.
I have got to ask you, Mr. Huerta, in terms of the safety
of the skies, if GPS stays on--I am sorry--if-- yes, if GPS
stays on the track it is going, are we prepared to limit air
travel in the United States because we cannot guarantee its
safety, or do you think we will be able to guarantee the safety
going at this pace with a 3-percent--53-percent increase in air
travel in just a few years, by 2025?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mrs. Norton.
The FAA will never do anything that would compromise the
safety of the system.
Ms. Norton. Please don't give me your stock answer.
Mr. Huerta. No, but to respect your question, you have
asked are we on track for the delivery of the benefits.
Ms. Norton. Or the systems that I have just named.
Mr. Huerta. Let me talk first about ADS-B, surveillance
broadcast, by 2013. The FAA is very confident that we will meet
our deadline for delivery of the ground infrastructure for ADS-
B by 2013. And as I said, we have made significant progress in
that deployment, and we have----
Ms. Norton. OK, go on to Data--I have limited time.
Mr. Huerta. DataComm, we are expecting to receive proposals
from bidders in the next few days, and based on what we see
from proposals, I will have a better sense of where we will
look relative to 2015, 2018. But we have identified those
deliveries as required under the procurement, and I am looking
forward to seeing what we get there.
System Wide Information Management, yes, you are correct
that on the first segment of that, I think that that was
baselined back in 2009. There are some benefits that we have
seen associated with SWIM. That program is one that we continue
to focus on in order to improve its overall delivery.
Overall, managing these programs in a very complex and
synchronized fashion is our highest priority, but I think, I am
confident that we will be able to meet our timetables.
Ms. Norton. One further question for you, Mr. Huerta, and
for Captain Moak. Assuming experienced personnel and the kinds
of regulations that helicopters use all over the country, do
you think helicopters should be able to come back and forth
into the Nation's Capital 10 years after 9/11?
Mr. Moak. I will speak to that. I believe they can. I was
out at Potomac TRACON on Monday in anticipating this hearing,
and they have an excellent system set up out there that is
probably better talked about privately. But I think they are
running a great operation out there, the FAA does, with their
DIN network, so I believe it is very safe.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Bolen.
Mr. Bolen. Congresswoman Norton, the idea of simply closing
down airspace or closing down airports is really an inadequate
and inappropriate response to our Nation's security needs, and
you have been a terrific advocate. The reality is we need to
find a way to facilitate mobility in the United States and do
it in a secure manner, and that takes attention, it takes
commitment, but it has to be done. The idea that we resolve
aviation security issues by not allowing any aviation is self-
defeating. We have got to find a way----
Ms. Norton. Of course, this is the only place where you say
``not have any aviation.'' In New York, which was the main, the
major part of our country hit on 9/11, helicopters were up
within a few days. Helicopters are up all over the United
States of America. It is a terrible comment on the aviation
system in this country, even as it now stands, that even in the
Capital of the United States, you cannot fly back and forth.
Mr. Huerta, do you think that given the requisites I
indicated, the tightest kind of regulations, experienced
personnel, helicopters should be able to fly into the Nation's
Capital the way they fly into cities with skyscrapers like
Chicago and New York?
Mr. Huerta. There are two dimensions to that. From an
operational standpoint, yes, we can certainly find a way to
accommodate helicopter traffic, but the security aspect of
that, which is, of course, of great interest to other agencies
and the executive branch, is also something that we need to
coordinate as well, and I can't really speak on their behalf.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask you to do this, Mr. Huerta? This
was not done in this administration, it was done before, and,
of course, there were some reasons why it was done before.
Could I ask you when you return to take it upon yourself to sit
down with the other agencies involved to see if some revision
of this policy is not in order a decade after 9/11?
Mr. Huerta. Certainly.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I would like to thank the full panel for the statements
that you submitted and for your testimony, your answering
questions. The committee, as you have heard from Mr. Costello
and myself and other Members, is very interested and supportive
of trying to help any way we can to advance the date when we
will recognize the benefits of the transformation of our air
traffic space, and as Mr. Captain testified, based on his
study, the returns are so enormous of this investment that even
if the Government lags in doing it, we are seeing increasing
signs of individuals in general aviation and other aspects of
air travel in other countries moving forward more rapidly on
this new technology. And so it behooves us to not linger
unnecessarily because the world is going to go on, and we are
going to be left behind if we don't get our Government sector
up as efficiently as possible accommodating growth in the
private sector with all the advantages that this new technology
offers.
So thank you again, and we will continue to work with you
in monitoring this situation and hopefully do our part through
a reauthorization of giving you more tools and greater focus
going forward. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. The second panel consists of the Honorable
Calvin Scovel, who is the inspector general of the U.S.
Department of Transportation; Gerald Dillingham, Director of
Physical Infrastructure Issues of the GAO, Government
Accountability Office, both of whom have been before this
Congress and committee on many occasions; and Mr. Thomas L.
Hendricks, who is senior vice president for safety, security,
and operations of the Air Transport Association of America.
We thank all of you for your patience and for being here
today, and we will begin with Calvin Scovel.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D.,
DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND THOMAS L. HENDRICKS, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT FOR SAFETY, SECURITY, AND OPERATIONS, AIR TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify on FAA's progress in implementing NextGen.
NextGen is FAA's most complex effort to date and requires
multibillion-dollar investments from both Government and
airspace users to overhaul the national airspace system. Since
the effort began, we have reported on cost and schedule risks
as well as challenges FAA must resolve to successfully
transition to NextGen. FAA has taken action to adjust its
NextGen plans and budgets in response to our concerns as well
as RTCA's September 2009 recommendations.
Pressing challenges remain, however. Today I will highlight
three challenges that significantly impact FAA's ability to
manage NextGen's implementation and realize benefits.
The first challenge concerns FAA's Metroplex Initiative, a
7-year effort intended to reduce delays at congested airports
in 21 major metropolitan areas. Initial studies at 5 of the 21
metroplex locations have been completed, and 2 more are
underway; however, FAA has not established key milestones or
capitalized on more advanced procedures, as RTCA recommended,
raising concerns among airspace users about the pace,
execution, and viability of the effort.
The Metroplex Initiative depends on the timely deployment
of more efficient flight procedures. However, as we have
previously reported, FAA's new procedures are mostly overlays
of existing routes, which provide few benefits to users. While
FAA completed a study that identified initiatives for
streamlining the process for deploying new flight procedures,
it may take as long as 5 years to implement them.
The second challenge involves ERAM, a $2.1 billion system
for processing flight data. Testing revealed significant
software problems with ERAM's core capabilities for safely
managing and separating aircraft. To compensate for ERAM's
deficiencies, controllers at the key sites have had to rely on
cumbersome workarounds. For sites with complex and congested
airspace, such as Chicago and Los Angeles, risks will increase.
ERAM's problems are the direct result of poor program and
contract management. For example, FAA and its contractor were
overly optimistic that ERAM could be fielded within 1 year and
ignored early warning signs of trouble during initial site
deployment. FAA did not begin to detect and mitigate
significant risks until almost 3 years after software problems
surfaced at Salt Lake Center, a key implementation site.
Despite ERAM software deficiencies and cost and schedule
overruns, FAA continues to pay incentives to the contractor.
Given that FAA and its contractor continue to add new
capabilities while attempting to resolve problems, challenges
are likely to remain and will add to costs and delays. A MITRE
study and our analysis estimate that total cost growth could be
as much as $500 million, with potential delays stretching to
2016, 6 years beyond FAA's planned date for implementing ERAM.
Prolonged problems with ERAM will affect FAA's capital
budget and could crowd out other critical programs. For
example, delays in fielding ERAM have required FAA to maintain
aging systems longer, reprogram funds from other projects, and
retrain controllers and maintenance technicians, who must
operate and maintain two different systems.
Despite the significant program risks and unresolved issues
associated with ERAM, FAA has not conducted a detailed
assessment of ERAM's interdependencies or impact on other
programs, costs, and schedules. To date, FAA plans to allocate
nearly $600 million to integrate and align NextGen
transformational systems with ERAM.
The third challenge FAA must address concerns the costs,
schedules, and benefits of its transformational systems. FAA
plans to spend almost $2 billion over the next 5 years on three
transformational systems, but it remains uncertain what the
programs will deliver and how much they will cost. For example,
FAA has already delayed plans to deploy key capabilities of
DataComm, a wireless system for sharing data between
controllers and pilots, from 2016 to 2018. Total program costs
for DataComm are uncertain, but FAA estimates that they could
be as much as $3 billion. Like DataComm, ADS-B, a satellite-
based surveillance technology, must integrate with multiple FAA
automation systems, but FAA has not fully addressed
requirements and system risks for ADS-B.
Unstable requirements for SWIM, a system expected to
provide a secure network for NextGen, have already added $100
million to SWIM's first of three segments and delayed
completion by at least 2 years. A lack of clear lines of
accountability for overseeing SWIM's development and management
largely underlies SWIM's problems.
Finally, FAA has yet to develop an integrated master
schedule to manage NextGen. FAA's approach of baselining
smaller segments of larger programs, such as DataComm, ADS-B,
and SWIM, may reduce some risks in the short term; however, as
requirements continue to evolve, programs are left with no
clear end state, and decisionmakers in the Congress and
Department lack sufficient information to assess progress.
Moreover, delays with one program can significantly slow
another, since the programs have complex interdependencies with
each other and with FAA's existing automation and communication
systems.
While FAA recognizes the need for an integrated master
schedule to manage the implementation of these NextGen
capabilities, it has not yet developed one. Without a master
schedule, FAA cannot fully mitigate operational, technical, and
programmatic risks and prioritize trade-offs among its NextGen
programs. Much work remains for FAA to implement RTCA's
recommendations and achieve promised near-term benefits.
Regardless of the funding levels Congress provides for
NextGen, FAA must focus on establishing NextGen budget
priorities, detailed milestones, and performance goals and
metrics; it must focus on resolving program management and
contract problems with ERAM; and it must focus on developing an
integrated master schedule for all NextGen programs. FAA needs
to take these actions now to advance NextGen and protect
taxpayers' interests.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to address any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority
Member Costello, and members of the subcommittee.
You have heard a lot about the benefits of NextGen from the
previous panel, and we are all aware of those benefits. I would
like to take my time this morning and identify with my
colleague, the DOT IG, and focus on some of the challenges that
FAA faces going forward.
The first and arguably the most important challenge for FAA
is to establish and maintain credibility with NextGen
stakeholders. This is especially true for airlines, since
several NextGen benefits depend on having a critical mass of
properly equipped aircraft flying in the NAS. Program
cancellations, cost overruns, and schedule breaches in prior
ATC modernization programs have given stakeholders cause for
concern about whether FAA can and will deliver desired NextGen
capabilities on time and on budget.
According to the airline representatives with whom we
spoke, two developments would give them the type of
reassurances that they are seeking. The first is the
opportunity to make greater use of aircraft technology that is
currently available in the fleet, such as you have heard
earlier, RNAV and RNP. The second is on-time delivery of
NextGen systems with defined benefits and an acceptable return
on investment. We are optimistic that the recent reorganization
at FAA, which is partly intended to provide greater and more
focused accountability for NextGen implementation, will also
raise the stakeholders' confidence.
A second challenge for FAA is to deliver NextGen
capabilities on time and on budget. Delays in implementing key
programs can have significant implications, given the
integrated nature of NextGen. For example, the scheduled delays
associated with the ERAM program affect the delivery of several
other systems, including ADS-B, SWIM, and DataComm, each of
which requires the use of some ERAM functions. Additionally,
program delays could have a negative impact on the plans for
harmonization with Europe's ATC modernization effort as well as
the U.S. avionics industry. Thus the implementation of NextGen,
both in the midterm and the long term, will depend on how well
FAA manages program implementation and program
interdependencies.
A third challenge for FAA is to integrate human factors
research into NextGen system development and training for those
who will be responsible for operating and operating within the
system. FAA and its partners will have to identify and develop
training for controllers and pilots to carry out their changing
role and have this training in place before NextGen can be
fully implemented. Meeting these training requirements may be
particularly difficult during the transition period when some
aircraft will be equipped with NextGen systems, and others will
not.
A fourth challenge for FAA is to expedite environmental
reviews and develop strategies to address the environmental
impacts of NextGen. With the changes in aircraft flight paths
that will accompany NextGen efforts, some communities that were
previously unaffected or minimally affected by aircraft noise
and emissions could be exposed to increased levels of both.
Obtaining the environmental clearances, including community
buy-in, can sometimes take several years.
The last challenge is to manage NextGen implementation and
current operations with potentially constrained resources.
Largely because of governmentwide budget constraints, and
perhaps project implementation delays, FAA has reduced its
capital budget by a total of $2.8 billion, or 20 percent, for
fiscal year 2012 through 2015. This proposed reduction could
affect NextGen and NextGen-related spending. We note that
significant reduction in FAA's program funding or its
operations budgets could contribute to delays in establishing
NextGen capabilities, increase total cost for implementation,
and postpone benefits. In the final analysis, FAA would have to
balance its priorities to keep NextGen implementation on
course, while also sustaining the current system's
infrastructure, level of safety, and operational efficiency.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Hendricks.
Mr. Hendricks. Thank you, Chairman Petri, and Ranking
Member Costello and other members of the subcommittee. Good
afternoon. My name is Tom Hendricks. I am the senior vice
president of safety, security, and operations for the Air
Transport Association. We are committed to evolving the
national airspace system into the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, or NextGen. To enable this evolution, we
believe that Congress and the administration should be guided
by a national airline policy that recognizes America's airlines
as the global businesses they are and enables them to operate
as such. An indispensable element of such a policy is NextGen.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our views today about
the progress of that modernization.
Airlines understand the importance of NextGen. They are
deeply engaged in it. Airlines also recognize that we cannot
wait for what is over the horizon. Improvements are within our
reach and are needed now. We believe that tangible, near-term
benefits that improve customer satisfaction, with better on-
time performance and that save fuel and reduce emissions can be
achieved. The FAA should therefore focus on ensuring that
needed policies, procedures, and training are implemented to
ensure that the benefits of existing navigation technologies
are maximized without delay.
Our priorities for this modernization are to accelerate the
development and approval process of performance-based
navigation procedures, the RNAV and RNP approaches that were
previously referred to; streamline the National Environmental
Policy Act review process to expedite the development and
implementation of PBN and other NextGen procedures; and to
develop metrics that gauge the performance of NextGen.
We appreciate that each of these objectives was addressed
in the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, H.R. 658,
which this committee and the full House approved earlier this
year. We also commend the House and Senate for resisting any
increases in commercial aviation taxes in their respective FAA
bills. Airlines and passengers are already subject to 17
Federal taxes and fees which totaled nearly $17 billion last
year in our industry. As a result, Federal taxes now constitute
$61 of every $300 domestic round-trip ticket, putting
commercial aviation at a higher Federal tax rate than so-called
sin taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
We urge House and Senate transportation leaders to resolve
their differences and send a final multiyear FAA bill to the
President's desk as soon as possible. We also ask that Congress
reject aviation taxes included in the White House's debt
reduction plan, a new $100-per-flight departure tax, and a
tripling of the passenger security tax from $2.50 to $7.50.
These taxes would cost passengers and airlines an additional
$3\1/2\ billion annually, a 21-percent increase in our annual
Federal tax bill, the results of which would be devastating to
our industry, our passengers, and the U.S. economy.
U.S. airlines have lost $55 billion and cut 160,000 jobs
since 2001. The new taxes would result in another 10,000
airline job cuts next year and permanent reductions in service
to less profitable small and medium-sized communities.
In addition to holding the line on the tax burden of our
passengers and airlines, enactment of a long-term FAA bill will
help advance NextGen. NextGen offers the potential to further
improve aviation safety and deliver substantial efficiency and
environmental improvements.
The national airspace system, despite being the most
complex aviation system in the world, is extraordinarily safe.
That remarkable safety record reflects the determined efforts
of the FAA, airlines and its employees, as well as other
stakeholders, and we appreciate the support and oversight
provided by this committee, which has played a key role in
helping shape that success. However, as the committee knows all
too well, the national airspace system relies on safe but
outdated technology.
An FAA-commissioned study published last November estimated
that the total cost of U.S. air transportation delays was over
$31 billion in 2007. Without significant modernization of the
system, congestion and delays will worsen as traffic increases,
thereby undermining not only the viability and global
competitiveness of U.S. aviation industry, but the economy as a
whole.
Concern about the future of airspace management, as these
data show, is not a parochial consideration. Aviation is one of
the principal drivers of the U.S. economy. Commercial aviation
drives $1.3 trillion in annual economic activity, or 5 percent
of U.S. gross domestic product, and 10 million good-paying
jobs. In this context, the need to improve airspace management
is immediate and pressing. We cannot wait for all the pieces of
NextGen to come together. We must get the most out of the
technology investments already made in our aircraft. This means
that the FAA should focus resources on expediting the
introduction of the most cost-beneficial elements of NextGen
that are available, most notably PBN procedures. These will pay
immediate dividends for all stakeholders, including passengers
and shippers, by reducing delays, lowering fuel burn, and
decreasing emissions.
We commend the FAA for launching its so-called NAV Lean
program to expedite the deployment of PBN procedures.
Unfortunately implementation is scheduled to occur over 5
years. We need a leaner NAV Lean program, and we need it now.
Airline fuel costs have spiked by nearly one-third this year,
which will cost the industry an additional $15 billion. U.S.
airlines have already invested billions of dollars in new
equipment, infrastructure, and technology to maximize fuel
efficiency. We are doing our part, and we want to work with the
FAA to ensure that procedures, policy, and training are updated
so that we realize the benefits from this investment.
I will be happy to take any questions from the
subcommittee. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony.
One thing that I think has been done more formally in the
last year was the appointment of a fairly senior stakeholder,
if you wish, or industry and other involved people, advisory
group, to work with the FAA to try to help move NextGen forward
more efficiently. Is that process working, Mr. Scovel, or is
there--are there ways we could strengthen that? And I guess
also I wonder if--it is a complex process, and it involves
decisions by the private sector, but the Government sector is
in the catbird seat, at least in the short run, because if they
don't provide the infrastructure, the industry has stranded
investment, and that is a great deterrent if they don't--if the
Government doesn't meet its guidelines, or the FAA, with
NextGen.
So you talk about trying to set better benchmarks or ways
not just for Congress, or other, or your agency, but for the
private sector to calculate their own lead times and
investments they need to make. How can we strengthen that
process? Is that committee helping with that and doing it
effectively?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Petri.
Let me preface my answer to your question by noting that
despite the hard-hitting nature of our testimony this morning,
my staff and I are firm believers in the concept of NextGen. We
should not be mistaken as being naysayers before the committee
today. We are certainly not.
The benefits are indisputable, and, as Mr. Captain
testified from the first panel, the business case is open and
shut. It is all about execution, and that is where our office
comes into play.
Our statutory mission, of course, as you well know, is to
keep the Congress fully and currently informed on the
efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of the Department's
programs, and that is what brings us to NextGen. We have been
looking at it now for a number of years, and I would be remiss
in my duties if I did not point out areas where the Department
has been successful as well as those areas where its efforts at
execution have been less than fully successful. So that is what
our objective has been with this testimony and every other
appearance of my office before the committee.
Your specific question goes to our views of the
effectiveness of what is now called the NextGen Advisory
Committee. I would relate our assessment of that back to the
RTCA Task Force 5, which met in 2009 and made 32
recommendations across a number of cross-cutting areas,
including one that FAA has chosen to focus on first as being
most beneficial to users and, therefore, to the American flying
public; that is, the Metroplex Initiative. FAA adopted,
recognized, and approved those recommendations in January 2010
and has been proceeding with Metroplex ever since. To its great
credit, the agency recognized that it needed a vehicle
primarily in order to continue to solicit input from the
industry, but also to provide labor and other stakeholders with
a voice in the development process. So it established the
NextGen Advisory Committee.
We have not examined the Advisory Committee in great
detail, but our preliminary assessment is that it has been
helpful to the agency in driving the process forward. The
agency has referred specific questions to the NextGen Advisory
Committee, hoping to get more detailed input so that the agency
can formulate its approach.
You asked, Mr. Chairman, specifically about metrics. That
has been a matter of great dispute, frankly, between FAA and
the industry. As a case study, we can use what has been
discussed at length this morning: the development of required
navigation procedures, RNAV and RNP procedures. FAA has worked
on RNAV and RNP procedures, but only to the extent of trying to
develop quantity over quality, in the views of the industry. It
has developed RNP procedures to overlay existing routes;
however, those aren't the routes that the industry assesses as
most valuable to their needs. The industry has repeatedly asked
FAA not to simply shoot for a quota, but to consider metrics
such as were cited in a statement by a senior industry official
last week where he spoke of the percent of an airline's total
operations that could be governed by RNP, the number of
approaches, and the clearance rate by air traffic controllers.
And that brings into play the need for FAA to train its air
traffic controllers in handling aircraft that have RNP and
aircraft that don't have RNP, in the mixed equipage
environment, so that they can safely maintain separation and
accommodate the industry's needs as well.
That is the kind of detailed discussion that has to take
place now between industry and FAA as far as developing a
common language on metrics so that they can together act to
bring NextGen to reality, and it is going to take both, as we
have heard this morning, with significant investments and
effort from both Government and the industry.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I just would be remiss if I didn't follow up with Mr.
Hendricks on one. You have been here before, and I think the
last time you were before this committee, we were talking about
kind of a cloud out there having to do with all this depends
on--a lot of it depends on communication and using part of the
spectrum, and we were looking at the impacts that the
aspirations of LightSquared would be on GPS-based
communications. They have come out with a--and they at the
testimony indicated that they were thinking about using only a
part of the spectrum, and then they have come out with now some
proposals about reequipage or whatever. Do you have any
evaluation of how realistic any of that is or----
Mr. Hendricks. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy to report that the laws of physics have not
changed since my last testimony in June. LightSquared's
proposals have been studied very carefully by a special
committee of the RTCA. As you recall from the testimony, there
are two 10-megahertz bands both above and below the current GPS
spectrum that are affected by this. LightSquared has stipulated
they will not utilize the upper 10-megahertz band.
The lower band still causes some concern to the industry,
and that was validated in the RTCA special committee report. We
currently believe that the upper 5 megahertz of that lower band
causes problems for aviation GPS users and precision GPS users
like farmers. The lower 10-megahertz band may be available to
us, but these so-called filters that LightSquared is referring
to have not been certified; to my knowledge, they have not been
manufactured, and the certification standards to put any
avionics system on an aircraft are extremely high. That is one
of the reasons we have an incredibly safe system in the United
States.
So while theoretically there may be solutions out there, we
know from experience that the path to those solutions is very
rigorous, and we need to maintain the highest levels of safety
possible as we transform to NextGen. So unless we can guarantee
that, we see very little opportunity for the current proposal
to be successful.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Dillingham, I wonder if you might give us a brief
assessment as to the progress that the FAA is making concerning
NextGen.
Mr. Dillingham. That is a big question, Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. It is.
Mr. Dillingham. I think in the first few years there was a
lot of starts and stops and false starts. Over the last couple
of years--and some of this is understandable. This is one of
the most complicated undertakings that we have done across the
U.S. Government.
I think we are beginning to turn the corner. We are at
least guardedly optimistic, and it is because what you have
heard this morning, that, for example, the RTCA Task Force 5,
which brought together for the first time all the players, even
the industry, and everybody agreed if you do these kinds of
things, then everybody is on board. Another first for the FAA
is the NAC, which is a--to help them implement the
recommendations.
So, I mean, again, we are guardedly optimistic, but, you
know, it is the implementation where it all falls down, and we
are watching this for the committee, this committee and other
committees.
Mr. Costello. One of the problems that, I think, everyone
identified in the past was that the FAA had a tendency not to
include all of the stakeholders, not only labor, but also the
private sector and so on, bringing them to the table to get
their benefit of their knowledge and their input on a system
that they will all be using and benefit by. It appears to me
that that is in the past, and the cooperation now is working
pretty well; is that correct?
Mr. Dillingham. I would agree with that, Mr. Costello, and
it is because of the work of this committee and the willingness
to cooperate between the two parties.
Mr. Costello. Well--and I appreciate that, and I appreciate
your comments, because Chairman Petri and I, when I was
chairman and now since I am ranking member and he is chair, I
think we both agree that it was the responsibility of this
committee to continue to hold the FAA responsible, and that the
more pressure that we put on them, the more they would respond.
And hopefully that is one of the reasons why we are seeing some
progress as well as a number of other things.
Final question. You heard me ask--I believe you were in the
room--you heard me ask earlier, we all know that we have a
budget problem, we all know that all of us want to address the
deficit spending issue and get to a balanced budget at some
time. We also know that there is things that should be cut
maybe deeper than others, and we also know that some of the
money that we invest, in fact, will reap benefits, and NextGen
obviously is one of those investments.
My concern is trying to figure out, both in talking
informally and at hearings, as we go forward, and there are
cuts that are proposed, some 5 percent, some 10 percent,
operation maintenance, also in NextGen, how that is going to
affect NextGen. As you heard me say earlier, it is not all
about money. There is a lot of other things that have to come
about, but you have to have the money in order to bring the
private sector and the private contractors in.
What is your assessment of where we are from a fiscal
standpoint, I mean, as far as the budget is concerned and what,
for instance, a 5-percent cut would do as far as delaying
NextGen as to where we are now?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
We did some preliminary look when the discussion was taking
place about moving back to 20O6 and 2008 and 2011 and that kind
of thing. Basically I think everyone would agree a shortage of
funding almost automatically means a delay in the
implementation of the programs, and as delays increase, so do
costs for various and sundry reasons. We have seen it in the
past, and we are seeing it now. You heard the discussion of
ERAM and the $300 million and $10 million a month to maintain
the old system.
So delays are costly, and I guess as important as delays is
confidence. As we said, the credibility for FAA is beginning to
rise, but when you see situations, it brings back the thought
that maybe they can't do this.
Mr. Costello. Thank you very much, Dr. Dillingham, and,
General Scovel, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Cravaack.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again for being here today and all the
information you are providing us, and in particular I would
like to thank Mr. Scovel. I thank you very much, you and your
team, for all the work that you do. The information you gave us
today was very thorough, very informative, and I just want to
thank you and your team for all that you do.
One of the things I could ask you, sir, if you don't mind,
is the NextGen has never really suffered a lack of funding;
would that be a correct statement?
Mr. Scovel. Historically, sir, the Congress has taken good
care of NextGen.
Mr. Cravaack. OK.
Mr. Scovel. We have looked at the Congress' funding of FAA
programs across the board for many years now, dating all the
way back to the ground-based radars. The Congress has been
generous, and appropriately so, in taking care of FAA and its
capital needs.
Mr. Cravaack. OK, thank you.
So is it a funding insufficiency, or is it management
issues that are basically leading to the delay of NextGen's
implementation?
Mr. Scovel. As it currently stands, sir, to date--and I am
not looking ahead to whatever budget cuts for FAA may lie in
the future, but I am looking at the agency's posture today
fiscalwise and executionwise--I would have to say that it
relates to the Department's inabilities along three lines, if
you will. First, when it comes down to program execution, it is
unstable requirements, or requirements that change along the
way during the development process, that increase costs and
incur delays. Second, poor program and contracting management
and decisionmaking also contribute to delays.
The third area that I would have to cite would be the
inability of FAA to bring to bear all of the sources of
information that it may need in order to make proper decisions
along the line. Whether that is industry, stakeholders, or
labor, all of those voices need to be heard for FAA to make the
proper decisions.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you for that. It is interesting you
bring that up. Because in your written testimony you spoke of
the FAA continued contract management problems. Could you
elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Scovel. Yes, I could. Let me use ERAM as a case study,
because ERAM was referred to by a senior FAA official last week
as the chassis on which all NextGen functionalities must be
bolted, and that is an arresting image. I would say that the
vehicle, that chassis, is not right now up on blocks, but it is
certainly not running. It is at idle. It may be at park, in
fact.
FAA has recognized problems, and it has been attempting at
great speed to try to fix those, but as we dug deeper into ERAM
over the last couple of years, we had to come to the conclusion
that this was a program that was hobbled from the start. It
never had a clean start out of the gate.
We looked at the contract structure, and we saw
undefinitized contract elements, and that means that basically
FAA was going to be billed down the line for work that it
couldn't identify that it had required in the first place.
We also saw that this is essentially an IT contract, sir,
and best practices for IT contracts call for rather small
segmented divisions so that the agency letting the contract can
quickly identify where problems may arise and direct the
contractor to make corrections. With ERAM, however, FAA
contracted in very large segments so that when the problems
ultimately did arise later, FAA had to engage in very lengthy
troubleshooting in order to try to pin down the sources.
The testing process is another one that is mentioned in our
written testimony today. FAA sent ERAM to the tech center in
Mr. LoBiondo's district--and it is a state-of-the-art
facility--but the contractor sent an incomplete software
package. It turned out that the tech center's capabilities were
not up to testing this offering along all the functions that
would be required to replicate the field. But the program was
approved, it was accepted by the Government, and it was sent to
the 20 en route centers, and that is when the problems began to
be identified as they arose as the controllers began to work
with the new system.
That testing process needs to be fixed. FAA cannot go ahead
with another program along the lines of ERAM, send it to the
tech center, whether it is an incomplete version of the package
or that may require capabilities that are simply not resident
in the tech center, and expect the tech center to do its level
best on the mission, because that can't happen.
Once ERAM got out to the field, sir, the controllers
identified problems. They identified workarounds that they
needed to take. Those were able to be made at the Seattle and
Salt Lake Centers, but as the project rolls out to far more
complex en route centers, and I am thinking now of Chicago and
L.A., which are supposed to pick up the ERAM program in the
next several months, as Mr. Huerta testified, those very busy
centers where the sectors are quite small and the traffic is
quite dense, controllers are not going to be able to engage the
same workarounds that they used successfully at Salt Lake.
For all of those reasons, this was a very troubled program
from the beginning, and it dates all the way back to the
contract structure and management decisions along the line.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, sir. I appreciate all that.
If I could just have a little bit of indulgence. First off,
outstanding controllers that we have, the boots on the ground
that actually make this stuff work, our hats have to be off to
those controllers that do an exceptional job on a daily basis.
None of us know the challenges that they go through on a daily
basis.
With that said, Mr. Hendricks, you kind of commented early
in your written testimony and also the testimony you brought
out today that we actually have capabilities within a lot of
the aircraft already to go ahead and execute RNAV and RNP; is
that correct?
Mr. Hendricks. Yes, both in our flight management systems
and with the navigation capability on the aircraft itself.So
about 45 percent of the U.S. fleet is capable of RNP approaches
right now, about 90-plus percent can do area navigation, and
most of the aircraft have advanced flight management computers
that allow very optimized cruise altitude and descent planning,
as you are well aware, and we are not able to take advantage of
that, and that technology has been around for a couple of
decades.
I have flown RNP approaches myself. One of the ones we have
gained great benefit from is in Quito, Ecuador, where we
improved the safety and the reliability of the operation in
Quito. We need to do the same thing at Chicago Midway, where we
could fly an RNP approach to runway 22 after flying straight in
to runway 31. These are things that we can do now. We need to
streamline our processes for environmental reviews, we need to
put the internal FAA processes that give us approvals to do
these on steroids and crank out some of the benefit to the
industry. We will all benefit.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you for that. That is the point I
wanted to bring out.
Mr. Chairman, as a pilot, I know, I have aircraft that I
have flown that have the capability of doing the exact same
things that we are talking about, that have the capability of
having the efficiencies already in there, and yet because of
rules, regulations and restrictions, we are not able to
capitalize on that. As Mr. Hendricks said, that is something we
need to streamline, because we have the capability of doing
that right now.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence, and I
yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I
do want to clarify a point that my friend asked the questions,
I think, to Mr. Scovel, and you said that based upon where we
are now, that it is not budget issues or funding issues, it is
management issues and going forward. And I just wanted to point
out for the record, because I asked that question at a previous
hearing, and it was addressed in a GAO report. Actually it is--
GAO report is ``FAA Has Made Progress But Continues to Face
Challenges in Acquiring Major Air Traffic Control Systems.'' It
is GAO Report 05-331 in June of 2005 at our request.
And then the GAO said some key factors cited by the
Government Accountability Office as contributing to cost
scheduling and performance shortfalls include, and the number
one thing that was listed was budget cuts led to cost overruns
and schedule delays. Now, that was a 2005 report that the GAO--
so I just wanted to put that on the record. And again, you
know, money is not the only issue here. There are other issues.
There are management issues and monitoring contracts, and I
understand that.
What I want to do is just get out in the open and on the
record for Members and the stakeholders to understand, as we go
forward to making decisions about budget issues, the decisions
that we make, how it will affect NextGen. And if you came in
here and said, hey, for the next 2 years it is not a money
issue, it is a management issue, then that is fine; but if you
said that, you know, if you cut 1 percent or 5 percent, it is
going to delay it 2 or 3 years, then we just need to know that
upfront so that when we cast our vote and when we make
decisions, we know what the consequences are going to be.
So that is the only point that I wanted to make for the
record, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank our witnesses for
being here, and I thank you for holding our hearing.
Mr. Petri. I join in thanking you, and we look forward to
continue working with you as we do our best to oversee and to
accelerate this vital national program.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]