[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE FAA'S
CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(112-93)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-148 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, United States
Department of Transportation................................... 3
Hon. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by
Hon. Julie Oettinger, Assistant Administrator for Policy,
International Affairs and Environment, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 3
Panel 2
Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E., Chair, Policy Board, United States
Contract Tower Association, an affiliated organization of the
American Association of Airport Executives..................... 20
Patricia Gilbert, Executive Vice President, National Air Traffic
Controllers Association........................................ 20
Melissa K. Rudinger, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association......................... 20
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Jerry F. Costello, of Illinois.............................. 32
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia......................... 35
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III........................................ 37
Hon. David Grizzle and Hon. Julie Oettinger, joint statement..... 51
Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E..................................... 56
Patricia Gilbert................................................. 68
Melissa K. Rudinger.............................................. 76
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E., Chair, Policy Board, United States
Contract Tower Association, an affiliated organization of the
American Association of Airport Executives, letter providing
additional information to his hearing remarks, sent to Hon.
Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, July 30,
2012........................................................... 83
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A REVIEW OF THE FAA'S CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Petri. The Subcommittee on Aviation session will come
to order. Today we will hear testimony on the Federal Aviation
Administration's Contract Tower Program. And I would like to
welcome the witnesses, and we all look forward to your
testimony. Thank you for the effort that you have made to
prepare that.
The Contract Tower Program has been in existence for some
30 years. This program allows Federal Government to contract
with private entities to provide air traffic safety services at
low-activity airports. Currently, 250 airports in over 45
States participate in the Contract Tower Program. Contract
Towers handle approximately 28 percent of all air traffic
control tower aircraft operations in the U.S., but account for
just 14 percent of FAA's overall tower operation's budget. The
safety and efficiency of the Contract Tower Program has been
validated numerous times by the inspector general, the FAA, and
the National Transportation Safety Board.
In 2003, the inspector general conducted a review of the
cost and safety record of the Contract Tower Program, and found
that the program was just as safe as and less costly than
comparable FAA-staffed towers. More recently, the inspector
general has updated this audit. And again, the inspector
general found little difference in the safety or quality of
services provided by similar FAA and contract towers.
The inspector general determined that contract towers had a
lower number and rate of reported safety instances than similar
FAA towers. The inspector general also found that the contract
towers provided air traffic services to low-activity airports
at lower costs than the FAA could otherwise provide.
The inspector general determined that the average contract
tower costs roughly $1.5 million less to operate than a
comparable FAA tower, due largely to lower staffing and salary
levels. I want to stress that we are talking about towers at
low-activity airports. Operations per hour of these towers
range from about 4 operations per hour to about 45 operations
per hour. But there are also airports with mixed use and other
operational conditions that make it essential they have a tower
to ensure safety.
Contract Tower Program is a key component of our Nation's
aviation system, and provides vital air traffic services to
communities, businesses, and travelers. After almost three
decades, this program remains highly popular with its users.
Without the program, many communities would not be able to
afford these critical services. Contract towers are manned by
highly experienced and highly trained professional controllers,
99 percent of whom are former military or FAA controllers, and
average 20 years of experience.
FAA retains safety oversight of the contract towers, and
the controllers who staff them. All contract controllers are
certified by the FAA. Contract facilities are monitored on a
regular basis by the agency, and staffing plans are approved by
the FAA. Contract controllers are subject to the same rules,
medical exam requirements, operational procedures, and training
as are FAA controllers. Contract Tower Program is cost-
effective, safe, and well-regulated. So I believe today's
testimony will confirm the importance of the Contract Tower
Program to the national aerospace system.
Before we turn to the 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 the hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Petri. And, without objection, so ordered.
And I now recognize Mr. Costello for any opening remarks he
would like to make.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I
thank you for calling this hearing today. I have a brief
opening statement which I will enter into the record, and yield
my time at this point to the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate that. And
I also appreciate Chairman Petri for calling the hearing today
on the Contract Tower Program at the FAA. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses about the role of the program for
airports in many smaller communities that might not otherwise
have control towers.
There can be little doubt that a control tower, whether
operated by the FAA or a contractor, enhances safety for
pilots. The FAA has implemented a nationwide voluntary safety
reporting program that actively encourages FAA controllers to
report errors without fear of punitive action. The program
shines a spotlight into the dark room of errors that may occur
in FAA facilities, revealing safety issues that otherwise may
have remained cloaked in the darkness.
However, the FAA's safety program does not apply in
contract towers. Peering into the dark room of errors that may
occur in contract facilities, we have just a flashlight, the
same flashlight that has always been used to find out about
operational errors. Comparatively speaking, we know more about
errors in FAA facilities because the FAA spotlight is bringing
them out of the darkness. Without an equally broad view of
errors in contract facilities, I think it is very difficult to
draw absolute comparisons about safety.
I would note that the Department of Transportation's
inspector general observes that applying the FAA's voluntary
reporting program to contract towers would ensure that errors
are thoroughly reported. I understand that the FAA is
encouraging its contractors to implement safety reporting
programs, and I look forward to hearing more about these
efforts.
The IG has also found that contract towers cost less to
operate than FAA facilities because, in part, they are staffed
with fewer controllers. However, the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, which actually represents controllers
at a quarter of all current contract towers, has raised safety
issues and concerns with lean staffing levels.
For example, controllers may have to stay on duty for
longer. They may have to multitask at a greater risk of
distraction. They may have to work alone with no backup. Past
accidents and incidents have taught us that there must be
enough controllers on duty in towers to do the job safely. I am
not suggesting that contract towers are not as safe as similar
FAA facilities. Rather, I am saying we lack sufficient
information to make a strong comparison, and contract towers
have not adopted the best practices that would allow us to
fully evaluate and improve safety at these facilities. Contract
towers should implement the same proactive reporting programs
that have been implemented at FAA towers, so that we can
collect the best safety information.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for these
hearings, and I look forward to the hearings today.
I yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Costello.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And we now turn to the first panel.
Again, thank you for being here. And let me just briefly
introduce the panel.
It consists of the Honorable Calvin Scovel, who is the
inspector general of the Department of Transportation, and a
frequent testifier before this and the general committee; David
Grizzle, chief operating officer of the Air Traffic
Organization of the FAA; and the Honorable Julie Oettinger,
assistant administrator of Policy, International Affairs and
Environment, of the FAA.
Again, thank you for being here. General Scovel.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JULIE OETTINGER,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND
ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify on FAA's Contract Tower Program, which has been in
place for 30 years, and now spans 250 towers nationwide. The
program has provided a valuable service to smaller cities and
airports that otherwise would not have air traffic control
services, and has increased the level of safety for pilots and
those communities.
Our prior reviews of the program have found that safety at
contract towers and similar FAA towers was comparable, and that
contract towers provided services at lower costs than the
agency could otherwise provide. My testimony today is based on
our current review of the program, requested by the House
Committee on Appropriations, and will focus on the safety and
cost efficiency of contract towers, as well as actions FAA can
take to improve program oversight.
Overall, contract towers continue to provide safe air
traffic services, and are supported strongly by their users. We
compared safety incidents reported in fiscal year 2010 at 240
contract towers and 92 comparable FAA towers, and found that
contract towers reported both a lower number and a lower rate
of operational errors, operational deviations, and runway
incursions.
FAA's periodic evaluations of air traffic facilities'
compliance with FAA directives also found fewer procedural,
training, and administrative deficiencies at contract towers.
Pilots, flight instructors, airport officials, and other
stakeholders with whom we spoke are satisfied with the quality
and safety of contract tower services. In several instances,
pilots describe the services provided by FAA and contract
towers as seamless.
Contract towers also continue to provide cost-efficient air
traffic control services, with the average contract tower
costing about $1.5 million less to operate annually than a
comparable FAA tower. The cost difference is primarily due to
the fact that contract towers have lower staffing levels than
FAA towers. The 30 contract towers in our sample had an average
of 6 air traffic personnel per facility, while the sample of 30
comparable FAA towers had an average of 16 air traffic
personnel.
Also, contract tower controller salaries, which are based
on Department of Labor wage rates, are lower than salaries paid
to FAA controllers.
While the Contract Tower Program continues to provide safe,
cost-efficient air traffic services that are supported by
users, there are opportunities for FAA to improve its oversight
and strengthen program controls.
First, FAA needs to implement a voluntary safety incident
reporting program at contract towers. Controllers at FAA towers
currently have the Air Traffic Safety Action Program, ATSAP, a
voluntary, nonpunitive safety reporting program that encourages
controllers to report operational errors and other safety
incidents. Implementing a similar program at contract towers
will help FAA's efforts to ensure one level of safety.
Second, FAA needs to review annual labor hours worked, to
determine if contractors provide the level of service stated in
the contract. This is important, because we found in the past
that some contract hours were not staffed according to
contractor staffing plans. In response, FAA required
contractors to comply with an approved staffing plan that
includes the total number of hours controllers will work
annually.
However, we found that the effectiveness of this control is
limited, because FAA only reviews the contractors' monthly
reports, not the actual annual hours worked by contractors. As
a result, FAA does not validate whether services paid for have
been delivered.
Finally, FAA needs to implement processes to regularly
evaluate contract towers, as required by the recently enacted
FAA Modernization and Reform Act. While FAA's new risk-based
oversight system allows the agency to target high-risk towers,
lower risk towers, such as contract towers, could go years
without being evaluated. In our opinion, periodic evaluations
of contract towers are an important factor to ensure the safe
and successful performance of this program.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to address
any questions from you, Mr. Chairman, or other members of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Grizzle.
Mr. Grizzle. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today about the status of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Contract Tower Program. At the outset, let me
introduce my colleague, Julie Oettinger, assistant
administrator for Policy, International Affairs and
Environment. Ms. Oettinger's office is responsible for using
the FAA's cost accounting data to refine the agency's cost-
benefit analysis, and she is happy to answer your questions
related to that topic.
Since its inception in 1982, this program has been part of
how the FAA delivers safe and cost-effective air traffic
control. There is a general consensus that the program has been
successful, and it has created measurable efficiencies in the
system for both commercial and general aviation operators,
while delivering safety benefits to the traveling public.
The program has grown significantly over the years. It
began as a pilot program to contract for air traffic control
services for five lower activity towers that were closed as a
result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization
strike in 1981. The program grew to 27 towers by 1993. In 1994,
Congress provided funding for a multiyear program to convert
additional FAA-operated lower activity towers to contract
operations. The program was further expanded by including
towers at airports that never had an FAA-operated tower. Today
there are 250 contract towers in the program across 49 States
and territories.
The NAS is currently going through some significant
changes. The economic downturn that hit the U.S. in 2008 had a
profound impact on aviation operations. There has been a
decline in commercial operations at contract towers of more
than 13 percent, and a decrease in overall operations at those
towers by just over 23 percent. Our forecasts do not see
operational levels returning to those seen prior to the
economic downturn in the near future. Consequently, we need to
make sure we are managing a program that delivers the safety
and efficiency benefits to deal with this changing pattern of
aviation activity.
We appreciate that Congress has spoken in consistent
support of this program. It has authorized a cost share program
so some communities with an airport that did not meet the
required cost-benefit ratio to qualify as a fully funded
contract tower could instead qualify for a contract tower where
the cost-benefit ratio was used as a determination regarding
how costs are shared between the FAA and the community.
Last year, however, Congress included a provision that
capped the amount any community could be required to pay toward
the operating costs of a contract tower in the cost-share
program at 20 percent of the total cost of the tower's
operation, regardless of the cost-benefit ratio. This will
certainly impact the cost associated with this program.
In light of the economic realities, the FAA's ability to
maximize its resources to benefit the overall needs of the NAS
is extremely important. While it is generally recognized that
the Contract Power Program is both cost-efficient and extremely
safe, the FAA is always investigating ways to operate the
towers it manages more cost-effectively by reviewing and
adjusting, as necessary, staffing levels, operating hours, and
deployment of system enhancements. For example, we welcome
opportunities to safely incorporate best practices from the
Contract Power Program into FAA tower operations.
Let me now turn to how the FAA plans to refine the cost-
benefit analysis that will be applied to the Contract Tower
Program. We continue to use the same basic model for our
current cost-benefit work, while updating model inputs
including traffic changes, revision to the Department of
Transportation's valuation for avoiding fatalities and
injuries, and data from the FAA's maturing cost accounting
system. We are discussing our approach to incorporating this
new information with the U.S. Contract Tower Association to
ensure that the FAA is considering all pertinent factors in its
calculations of individual towers. The FAA is determined not to
make any final decisions until we have had a full and informed
discussion with interested parties.
Finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a
well-grounded, longer term approach. The FAA's Aviation Safety
organization is currently conducting a study to compare safety
data between airports with staffed contract towers, whether
Federal or contract, and airports that are unstaffed. This will
provide the FAA with important information about future
investment in air traffic control facilities and risk
management.
We also need to make sure that the Contract Power Program
is well integrated into our NextGen endeavors. How we manage
air traffic, how we use technologies, and how we organize our
facilities and infrastructure will all change over time as we
bring NextGen technologies into the system. We understand that
taking a static view of equipment and services will not deliver
the system the traveling public requires in order to adapt to
dynamic circumstances. As new technologies emerge and are
integrated into the system, the needs of the NAS, including
those of contract towers, may change in order to take the best
advantage of safety and efficiency opportunities.
The FAA is the guardian of a system that has achieved a
safety level that is envied around the world. We remain
committed to the Contract Power Program as an important
component of how we deliver safety and efficiency in the NAS.
While fiscal realities must play a role in aviation
investments, the FAA will not tolerate any degradation in
safety, and we recognize that Congress and the traveling public
share that view.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. I am
happy to answer any questions you might have at this time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you both. And I think we do
have a number of questions. I would like to ask a few.
Mr. Grizzle, you talk about it being a dynamic system. And,
clearly, with the switch to digital and NextGen-type
technology, that is going to provide more opportunities for
dynamism in the system.
There was a problem a few months ago that made it into the
national media about periods at FAA towers where people were
sleeping, and this sort of thing. And I think the solution was
to man up and maybe put two people in instead of one. Is that a
cost-effective way of dealing with the problem, or do you have
a system of monitoring movements at airports and which airports
could be switched to a virtual tower approach at certain low-
use periods, so that TRACON or something can handle the air
movements?
Sometimes staffing levels need to change when the number of
flights change. And if there are no flights for 6 or 8 hours,
and yet someone is on the job, you can't really blame them for
staying up the whole time if there are no scheduled flights in
that. Could you talk about that as a cost that might be
addressed?
Mr. Grizzle. Certainly, sir. First of all, we took each of
those incidents extremely seriously. Whether there might have
been a more cost-effective solution was not our first concern.
Our first concern was to do what we believed was absolutely
essential for safety. So, we staffed each tower which had a
level of operations that would have required us to keep it open
during the midshift with two people. The same change was made
with Federal contract towers that had a sufficient level of
operations that we would have kept them open during a midshift
if they had been federally operated towers.
We are looking at various NextGen technologies with a
possibility of changing fundamentally the way we do air traffic
control in all of our facilities, not just our smaller towers.
One of the beauties of NextGen technology is it is largely
geographic-indifferent. And so we have opportunities to do our
surveillance at locations that we previously wouldn't have been
able to employ. But we don't have those online yet, but we are
certainly looking at them for, again, small towers and all of
our facilities.
Mr. Petri. Because there are flights into airports where
there are no towers operating that are handled by TRACON now,
as I understand it, on a fairly common basis.
Mr. Grizzle. It is not extremely common, but it does occur,
yes.
Mr. Petri. Are you--you were talking about new technology
and changes and your analysis of it. Is the agency prepared to
work collaboratively with industry and airport stakeholders as
you analyze the opportunities and challenges of this new
technology?
Mr. Grizzle. Yes, very much so. Not only are we willing to
work collaboratively, but we really have to. This system is a
system of collaborative decisionmaking. Whether it is putting
in new technology, putting in new roots, or initiating new
procedures, we cannot do them without collaboration with
industry in the actual development of these innovations. We
certainly have to have industry's participation in the
development, and consequently, we will have their participation
in the utilization of these innovations.
Mr. Petri. OK, just two more questions. You mentioned in
your testimony about your new--the cost-benefit analysis. Are
you going to be applying that to FAA towers as well as contract
towers, or is that inappropriate? What are your thinking on
that?
Mr. Grizzle. We will be applying the same cost-benefit
analysis to FAA-managed towers. But, we are doing that without
any expectation that we will then convert any of those towers
to Federal contract towers. We want to apply the best cost
information we have to all of the facilities under our
responsibility.
Mr. Petri. Finally, Mr. Costello, I and other members of
the committee have been working with stakeholder advisory
groups and hopefully people in FAA on sort of bird-dogging and
encouraging the forward movement on deploying NextGen. And one
area that we have been hearing about is that a number of
airports have been training, airlines have been training pilots
as to new approach procedures and so on, but the manuals just
have not been approved.
And this is not directly air traffic control, but your
controllers are, I am sure, being trained as well. And yet, all
this money is being used, and it is not being effectively
utilized if there is a snag in the system. And I am eager to
ask you if you are willing to help work with the airlines and
the others who are investing in this new future to actually put
it into place in as many places as possible. It saves a lot of
fuel and a lot of cost for everyone concerned.
Mr. Grizzle. Chairman Petri, you have identified an
extremely critical issue, and one that we are very focused on
right now. I think what you are referencing is that we have a
set of procedures that is called the controllers handbook,
which very much governs the interplay between controllers and
airspace users.
That document is essentially 50 years old. We are in the
process now, at the urging and with the participation of the
airlines--and, obviously, with our controllers--of beginning to
update that document so that it will support the way we
currently do air traffic control, and especially the way we
will do it in the future. It has been an impediment, we are
aware of that, and we are fixing it.
Mr. Petri. Do you have a timeline on that, or are you
trying to update at particular airports, or overall, or exactly
how is that----
Mr. Grizzle. It has overall applicability to the entire
system. We are focused on those provisions of the controller
handbook that have historically produced the most waiver
requests from the individual facilities which we consequently
granted; i.e., they are provisions that could stand to be
changed. We are focusing on those first, and we are intending
to have all of those changed within 3 years.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. To follow up on the
chairman's comments, we had a meeting just yesterday in the
chairman's office with some of the stakeholders. And we were
told that at one particular airport the handbook wasn't even
available for the controller. I know that staff is--there is a
meeting that will take place this coming Friday at the staff
level, and then we intend to follow up with some questions for
the agency, where Chairman Petri and I will be present to talk
about those things, and to try and lay out a plan.
Mr. Grizzle, there is a difference between reporting safety
incidents at FAA-staffed towers versus the contract towers,
particularly with the use of the voluntary, nonpunitive
reporting system that is in place at the FAA. I wonder if you
might elaborate on the differences between the reporting system
used at FAA-staffed towers versus the contract towers.
Mr. Grizzle. Certainly, sir. We currently have a voluntary
reporting system that goes by the acronym ATSAP which has two
principal features to it that make it very effective. One is
that it is voluntary. Therefore, it eliminates some of the
stigma that would ordinarily be associated with an error.
Secondly, it provides for a nonpunitive feature, so that when a
controller reports appropriately under ATSAP, that controller
does not do so with fear that the disclosure that he or she has
made will then be used in a punitive fashion. That has resulted
in an abundant increase in the quality of information that we
have about incidents, and consequently, about the risks which
produce those incidents.
We do not have that system in place now at Federal contract
towers. We are working with our three contractors, who are, in
turn, in negotiations with their unions, because the
implementation of an ATSAP program is a multiparty investment.
But we expect that all of them will, in fact, implement ATSAP
in the Federal contract towers, because it is so important that
we have to have it in all of our facilities that are handling
traffic.
Mr. Costello. So, as I understand it, the agency is
concerned that the incidents at contract towers may not be
fully reported today, as they are at FAA-staffed towers,
because of the voluntary, nonpunitive program. So does the
agency have concerns that incidents that are taking place at
contract towers may not be fully reported, as they are at FAA-
staffed towers?
Mr. Grizzle. As I have testified before, we are unable to
differentiate between an increase in incidents, or a greater
number of incidents, and an increase in reporting. That applies
to our own system, and it certainly applies to the disparity in
Federal contract towers.
But, as the IG has reported, since we don't have at
staffed--there may very well be a lower level of reporting in
the Federal contract towers. And so that is one of the reasons
that we need to have that data going into our system.
Mr. Costello. And so the goal is to put one system in place
for contract towers and for the FAA-staffed towers?
Mr. Grizzle. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Costello. And the negotiations with the three
contractors now, how are they going? Is there a deadline to try
and implement a system?
Mr. Grizzle. There is not a deadline. It is my
understanding that the discussions are going well. The
principal work to be done is actually between the contractors
and the bargaining unit for their employees. The principal
negotiation is not between the FAA and the contractors. But we
have told the contractors that this is very important, and it
will become a contract requirement.
Mr. Costello. Can you go beyond the contractors that it is
very important, and put it in as a part of the contract that
you are awarding to a contractor to provide the services?
Mr. Grizzle. We will come to that, sir.
Mr. Costello. And how soon will you come to that?
Mr. Grizzle. I do not have an answer for you.
Mr. Costello. The contracts that are let to the three
primary contractors, how often are they let? Is it an open-
ended contract, or do they have specific terms when they
expire?
Mr. Grizzle. They have terms, but I do not recall the
expiration date of the current set of contracts.
Mr. Costello. And the reason I ask the question is if you
are going to modify an existing contract, or if you are going
to put additional requirements in a contract, can you do that
now, or do you have to wait until it terminates?
Mr. Grizzle. I would need to review the contract to give
you a confident answer.
Mr. Costello. Well, I would ask that you would do that and
get back to us.
Mr. Grizzle. We will do that, sir.
Mr. Costello. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony you
indicate that additional oversight could help ensure accurate
and comprehensive reporting of safety incidents at contract
towers. Would you elaborate on that statement?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Costello. Yes, we believe that
increased and more comprehensive reporting would shed more
light on the safety aspects of contract towers. We have noted
that, while ATSAP was in place for FAA control towers for
several years now, it was not made part of the current
contract, which was initiated in 2010 and will expire in
September 2014, sir. It certainly would have been appropriate
at that time to build it into the current set of contracts,
because the Congress and my office have long been supporters of
voluntary safety disclosure reporting programs, both for air
carriers and in the air traffic control world.
I fully concur with Mr. Grizzle when he says that ATSAP
data should be reviewed, and we trust that the data will
ultimately provide a strong boost to the visibility that we
have into the operational error world. Currently we don't have
that at contract towers.
I would note also that as we have testified before the
House and the Senate in the past, not only the advent of ATSAP,
but also the initiation of automated traffic analysis and
review programs to catch all those errors automatically have
been a significant impetus to better reporting and better
safety analysis. We also don't have that in the tower world,
either.
Mr. Costello. And you have recommended to the FAA that they
incorporate those provisions in the contract?
Mr. Scovel. It is part of our testimony today. And our
testimony today, sir, as you know, is based on an ongoing
review we are doing for the House Appropriations Committee.
That will be one of our recommendations; ATSAP should be
included for contract towers.
Mr. Costello. Has your--has the IG's office recommended
that in the past? Have you brought this up to the FAA prior to
them letting the last contract in 2010?
Mr. Scovel. I don't believe we did. Our most recent review
prior to the one now underway was finished in 2003. So I doubt
that we had picked up on ATSAP and had had a chance to evaluate
the merits of that program.
Mr. Costello. And the reason that I am directing this line
of questioning is that, you know, we ought to be on the same
system here with FAA-staffed towers and contract towers. We
shouldn't have apples and oranges here when we are reporting
safety incidents. We ought to have the same system in place.
And I would encourage you, Mr. Grizzle, to go back, take a look
at when the contracts expire, if you have the ability in
existing contracts to modify those contracts, and report back
to the committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank----
Mr. Grizzle. We will do that, sir.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, I want to pick up
right there on that same line of questioning.
Is it your perception--because I know you mentioned earlier
there is a lower error rate in the contract towers--is it your
perception that it is just a statistical anomaly that the
reporting is different there, so it is not an apples-to-apples
comparison? Or is it your thought that there is an actual lower
error rate in the contract towers?
Mr. Scovel. We don't know. What we need is better data.
Obviously, that will drive our conclusions. Page 3 of the
statement that we submitted to the committee for today's
hearing has a table in it that notes both the absolute number
of safety incidents, and the rate per 1 million operations,
contrasting contract towers with FAA towers. And it appears,
from the data in that table, sir, that contract towers may be
safer, to use that term.
I would not advance that conclusion, based on the data,
primarily because what we have learned in looking at the
enroute world and at the TRACON world, is that once ATSAP is in
place, and once automated traffic analysis and reporting
programs are in place, too, the number of reported operational
errors increases. Whether that is simply better reporting or
more errors being committed, we don't know. FAA does not yet
have a solid base line on which to make that judgement. But we
are going to get there. We can't get there right now in the
tower world, because, at least when it comes to contract
towers, we don't even have ATSAP in place.
Mr. Lankford. A million and a half dollars cheaper to do a
contract tower. Right now we don't know on safety issue. It
looks like there is a lower error rate. We will have to see if
that is just a statistical anomaly, based on the reporting side
of it at this point. Are there other areas that we have talked
about, or that you have discovered--Mr. Grizzle also mentioned
this, as well--are things that FAA can learn from the
functioning of the contract towers? Whether it be staffing,
functionality, operation, whatever it may be, what can be
learned in the other direction, as well?
Mr. Scovel. Safety, we would conclude, is comparable
between the two types of towers. When it comes to cost, there
is, as our statement notes, almost a $1.5 million cost
difference between contract and FAA towers. The primary drivers
of that are the staffing levels and the pay that contract
controllers get. The staffing levels are determined for
contractors by virtue of their staffing plan that they submit
to the agency for approval and if those staffing plans can be
structured so as to avoid some of the cost drivers that may
apply in the FAA world. For instance, the requirement that
controllers not spend longer than 2 hours on position, the
requirement that--or the practice that managers and supervisors
not be used in an FAA tower to control traffic. They can be
used in a contract tower to control traffic. Benefits for an
FAA controller may be more generous, in terms of annual and
medical leave, than they are in the contract world, too. And so
that permits contract controllers to stay on the job perhaps a
little bit longer. Those are the kinds of things that permit
the contract towers to have lower staffing levels.
Mr. Lankford. Ideas on efficiency. Can they move the other
direction, or do you think structurally it is not possible for
them to move the other direction? Can ideas move from contract
towers to FAA towers to say this is working, they are at a
correct level, their error rates, all the safety issues--or do
you think there is a structural issue there to say, really,
there is no way for ideas to move that direction?
Mr. Scovel. I do want to say there is a way for good ideas
to move where properly motivated people are involved. I will
note that there are factors that must be considered--collective
bargaining agreements and so forth, different traffic
densities, FAA's training requirements for their controllers,
and the requirement for on-the-job training that some of their
controllers must engage in. All of that drives FAA's staffing
levels, and we acknowledge the validity of those concerns.
Mr. Lankford. Right. Inherently there are different types
of towers, different quantity of takeoffs and landings. I
understand that.
Mr. Scovel. Right.
Mr. Lankford. There are some inherent differences. But if
there are some areas that we can go the other direction,
process wise, how would that occur? Who would carry the water
to say, ``Let's look seriously at this, and try to figure out
how to do that''?
Mr. Scovel. Right.
Mr. Lankford. Is there is a certain office that you would
know of that would make that evaluation to say, ``This is
efficient.'' How do we get some of these efficiencies over
here?
Mr. Scovel. I would defer to Mr. Grizzle on that. I know
that within the Air Traffic Organization he has resources whose
mission it is to make those comparisons and recommendations.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Mr. Grizzle, my time has expired. Would
the chairman allow me an additional 30 seconds for Mr. Grizzle
to respond?
Mr. Grizzle. It is my responsibility to glean efficiencies
from whatever source, including Federal contract towers.
I will say that the opportunity for more efficient air
traffic management in our larger facilities absolutely dwarfs
our ability to move Federal contract tower practices into our
comparably sized facilities. But, we are looking at all of
them, because there is an opportunity.
Mr. Lankford. OK, thank you. With that I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the expense of
beating a dead horse, Mr. Scovel, let me ask you. When
comparing error rates between contract towers and FAA towers,
you refer to reported--reported, that is the key word--errors.
Would you agree that there is a difference between the reported
errors and actual errors that occur, particularly given that
FAA's reporting program does not apply in contract towers?
I mean I have one contract tower in the district I
represent, Lewisburg, West Virginia. With the exception of some
higher income people flying in to go to the Greenbrier, there
is not many--not much activity at that airport.
Mr. Scovel. There may be a difference. We don't know. I do
have to couch the information that we have presented to the
committee in terms of an inference that I can make, based on
the experience of my office in looking at trends in operational
errors as reported in the enroute and TRACON worlds. When
automated programs were put in place, and when ATSAP came
online, operational error numbers increased. And we have
focused on that. We are trying to determine, as is FAA, whether
it is an increase in reported numbers, or an increase in errors
committed? We don't know, because there is not a good baseline.
With time, we will get to that baseline, and then we will
be able to determine an answer. In the tower world, sir, we
don't have that yet, either. ATSAP is fairly new at the FAA
towers, and it is not even in place at contract towers. So I
can't say.
Mr. Rahall. What is the basis for your recommendation in
your written testimony, where you state that adoption of
voluntary safety reporting program among contract towers would
improve FAA safety oversight of those facilities?
Mr. Scovel. We agree with FAA, and we have reached the
conclusion independently that the nonpunitive nature of ATSAP,
as it is in the air carrier safety action program, is a strong
inducement to better reporting. We would strongly recommend to
FAA that this be included for contract towers, if not by
modifying the contract, then certainly when contracts come up
for renewal in 2014.
Mr. Rahall. OK. Mr. Grizzle, I know you have been asked
this question before, but it is in regard to your testimony
back in April, when you stated that you are confident that the
reporting of incidents has increased, thanks to the FAA's new
safety reporting program for air traffic controllers.
My followup would be what is the FAA doing to ensure that
contract towers adopt a voluntary reporting requirement or
program?
Mr. Grizzle. We are going to utilize the contractual
opportunities that we have. If we have the ability in our
current contract to require one, we will do so. Otherwise, when
we come to a contractual renewal, we will require that our
contractors effectuate an ATSAP program because, as the
inspector general has said, it has unquestioned value in terms
of providing us a greater amount of data about events that
occur.
Mr. Rahall. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Ribble.
Mr. Ribble. Well, good morning, everybody. Thank you for
your testimony today. I have got just a couple brief questions.
But I would like to say one thing. I would like to commend
you. I would like to commend the U.S. airline industry and the
National Transportation Safety Board. I get on an airplane
every single week. And you know what? I never think about
safety. I just get on the airplane, and I usually work, and I
land, and I go home, and I turn around a few days later, and do
it again. And that is a real testament to what has been going
on in this country and how safe air travel has become.
With all that said, as I look through Mr. Scovel's
testimony, I just want to read just the headlines, or the
titles of the various sections. Contract towers continue to
provide safe services and are supported by users. Contract
towers have a lower number of reported safety incidents and
deficiencies than comparable FAA towers. Users are satisfied
with the level and quality of services provided by contract
towers. Contract towers continue to provide cost-efficient
services. FAA oversight of the Contract Power Program could be
improved. Accurate incident reporting at contract towers is
critical to maintaining safety. New oversight system does not
ensure that contract towers receive regular safety evaluations
required by Congress. FAA can improve its contractual oversight
of the program.
As I look and read those titles and then listen to the
testimony, it almost seems as if the inspector general is more
critical of FAA than contract tower operations. Why do you
suppose that is, Mr. Grizzle?
Mr. Grizzle. We rely very heavily upon the insights of the
inspector general. Whenever the inspector general observes
deficiencies in our operation, we immediately discern how we
can make improvements that will address the deficiencies that
he has noted, because that organization has, in every case,
spent a lot of time looking very carefully at each situation.
I think that the inspector general makes those comments
because they entirely conform with what he has observed, and we
intend to take those observations extremely seriously.
Mr. Ribble. Well, I appreciate that. I most often fly out
of Appleton, Wisconsin, which, as you are aware, is a contract
tower. And I know how important that airport is to the economic
development of northeast Wisconsin. It is critically important.
And I just want to make sure that you are going to provide us
some type of assurance that you are willing to work with the
industry in a balanced approach to ensure that safety continues
to happen, economic development continues to happen, and that
the FAA doesn't unfairly just shift additional cost to the
operation of that tower onto Appleton and other communities
like it.
Mr. Grizzle. We believe that each of our Federal contract
towers provides an extremely safe operation. We are committed
to maintaining that, and we are working to develop an ever more
accurate cost accounting system to accomplish the other purpose
that you requested of us.
Mr. Ribble. Well, I want to thank you for that. And again,
I want to thank you for taking the time to come in here today.
And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that even though
there was criticism here, and criticism this morning, that I
don't recognize how great a job the U.S. air industry, in its
totality, is actually doing. So, thank you for that work.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. I just have a few questions, as well. First, to Ms.
Oettinger. I am wondering. Will the FAA commit today to work
collaboratively with industry and airport stakeholders to reach
consensus on any revisions to the benefit cost analysis for
contract towers?
Ms. Oettinger. Absolutely. We have committed to doing that,
and we are, in fact, in the process of doing just that. We most
recently met with the Contract Tower Association a couple of
months ago to share with them the latest information that we
had, and the analysis that we are doing. We are awaiting some
feedback from them, and we have plans to meet with them again
later this month.
Mr. Hultgren. I wonder if I can ask you, and also Mr.
Grizzle, if you could please talk about any effects that
sequestration could have on the national air service, and what
steps the FAA is taking to plan for these cuts. And also on
that, I just wanted to see if you have begun communicating this
plan in a coordinated action with our Nation's air traffic
controllers.
Mr. Grizzle. Although we have received no specific
direction as to the impact of a sequestration on the FAA, we
have done a great deal of internal planning, looking at
different scenarios and how we would be required to shift our
priorities in the event that different sequestration scenarios
came into place.
We have not begun sharing those with anyone yet, because we
are not far enough along in designing those priorities. But
suffice it to say that it would require a significant
reprioritization of what we currently do.
Mr. Hultgren. Is it your sense that there will be a big
impact with sequestration, or is that uncertain right now?
Mr. Grizzle. It could be. The answer is that we do not
know, but it could be large.
Mr. Hultgren. When will you know?
Mr. Grizzle. We are in communication with various parts of
the Administration. Our perceptions are developing as we are in
these communications.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, you know, I echo what my colleague from
Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble, said. I am so grateful for the safety
that we enjoy, and the confidence of getting on an airplane.
But I think this is very important. And we haven't gotten a
real sense from the Administration of what is the plan with
sequestration. We see it impact the Department of Defense. But
it very well, I think, could impact the safety of our skies.
And so, we are asking you to reach out as well to the
Administration to clarify this, of what is the intention here.
We better get these plans in place now, I believe. Am I wrong?
Tell me, you know, what your thoughts are. If there is any
question that this could have an impact, we better know about
that now and start making those plans, and I think start
communicating with our air traffic controllers on what those
plans are.
Mr. Grizzle. We are committed to maintaining the highest
level of safety. We will not undertake any change that would
diminish that.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I appreciate that. I just--my fear is
with sequestration. It is a meat ax approach, basically, of--
that could address and impact many departments. And it is just
very unclear of what the Administration and the White House's
plan is to deal with this.
So, I would just ask for your help together to get some
clarity here, get communicating for the sake of continuing that
safety that we enjoy, that we really expect and I think have a
right to expect to continue.
So, just as my time is winding down, I just--getting back
to contract towers, just wonder if each of you could just
briefly touch on if you feel like if contract towers--is there
any lack of redundancies resulting in safety issues in contract
towers, or do they have any inferior equipment or facilities,
or do you see, in your opinion, that contract towers have
deficient training programs? What is your sense on those three
issues? And I would ask each of you to comment quickly.
Mr. Grizzle. We believe that the staffing, equipping, and
the condition of the facilities in the contract towers are
adequate for a very high level of safety, and we constantly
monitor all of those.
Mr. Scovel. Sir, we believe staffing and training are
sufficient. The agency gives close attention to those measures.
We know that the agency is stressed, at all air traffic
facilities, when it comes to aging facilities and making sure
that they are maintained in the best condition possible.
Contract towers are no exception. The FAA's own facilities
would also fall into that group.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I do
appreciate it. I do think is an important issue that we are
going to have to continue to talk about, and get some real
answers as far as sequestration and potential impact on safety
of our skies. We can't--as you have said, we can't allow any
compromise in this, and we have got to make sure we work
together to get some real answers of how this is going to
impact.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Costello, you had a comment.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to follow up
on my friend from Illinois, his comments about sequestration
and what may happen to the FAA in this particular case.
While you may not have a plan in place, you do have a
dollar figure. You know that when sequestration, if in fact it
goes forward, you know how much money will be cut out of the
agency. We had testimony either earlier this year, but I know
that we had the former administrator, Marion Blakey, who
testified before this subcommittee about NextGen, and what
effect sequestration would have on NextGen. In fact, we had a
meeting, as I referred to, yesterday, with some stakeholders in
Chairman Petri's office. And the issue of sequestration was
brought up again on how it would affect NextGen.
Do you have a dollar figure, that if sequestration is--if,
in fact, it takes place, how much money the agency would lose
under sequestration?
Mr. Grizzle. We have looked at various scenarios, we have
done planning for a number that is larger than what we think is
likely, and we have done planning for smaller numbers. I am not
prepared to offer a number that is my prediction as to what
would be the exact number.
Mr. Costello. Well, the figure that I have heard used is--
on the bottom figure is $1 billion.
Mr. Grizzle. We have done internal planning involving cuts
that were smaller than that, and cuts that would be larger than
that.
Mr. Costello. Would--is it reasonable for one to assume
that if there is a $1 billion cut to the FAA, that it would
impact safety? If the delay of implementing NextGen--if it is
pushed off for several years, NextGen is, of course--one of the
assets of NextGen will be to improve safety.
Mr. Grizzle. It will be our challenge to effect a----
Mr. Costello. In other words, you are not going to answer
the question.
Mr. Grizzle [continuing]. A cut of that magnitude safely.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
On that line of questioning from my good friend, if you
were going to face $1 billion in cuts due to sequestration--and
I hear your hesitancy about confirming that--I don't think it
is an unfair question to assume that if we then were going to
turn around and cut DOD by $350 billion, that that too might
have a very similar cause regarding safety to our war fighters
and to the protection of this great Nation. So I mean, if we
are going to use that rationale, then I think we need to
examine, you know, all of the possibilities of sequestration.
First of all, thank you all for being here. That was just a
statement. I wanted--I am curious about the--Mr. Scovel, you
had mentioned that today you were not here prepared to advance
the theory that contract towers are safer. However, you--let me
ask you a couple of questions. You know, you--are you of the
opinion that the--are the contract towers--do they have equal
equipment, equal facilities?
Because I have heard general comments by both of you that
said that we have aging towers, and that--so is it safe, then,
to say that the towers that--the contract towers are equivalent
in quality and--in the quality and the excellence of the
equipment? Is that fair?
Mr. Scovel. Yes, generally. They are comparable. They are
comparable, in terms of safety, as well. And my point with
regard to the safety data was simply if you were to look at the
data presented in our statement, you might conclude that
contract towers are safer. I attached a caveat to that because,
based on our prior experience, we know that operational
errors--and thanks to FAA's good work on the runway incursion
side, as well--we know that those come up with better training
and reporting methods. So that is the caveat that I would issue
there.
I will also note, sir, that FAA is responsible, in most
cases, for the equipment and maintenance of that equipment at
contract towers.
Mr. Southerland. As far as the towers--as far as the
staffing of the towers, are they equivalently staffed? And I am
talking about the contract towers to the FAA towers. I mean
would they be--and I know the volume is different, obviously.
But based on the volume, are they staffed properly, as compared
to the FAA towers?
Mr. Scovel. We believe they are. And we believe that FAA
towers, given the structure in which they must operate and
their staffing requirements, are properly staffed.
However, for contract towers, they are free of some of the
restrictions that apply to FAA towers. And contractors have
taken advantage of that by preparing their staffing plans
accordingly. And the FAA has approved them after appropriate
review.
Mr. Southerland. Define for me a restriction.
Mr. Scovel. For instance, a restriction in an FAA tower is
that, by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement, a
controller may not spend longer than 2 hours on position, on
scope, before he or she takes a break or moves to another
place. In other words, gets off that place and maybe gets out
of that rut. That is not a requirement in the contract tower
world.
Mr. Southerland. So in that requirement that they be--that
2-hour requirement, they will be there for 2 hours and then
they will leave and do whatever. So their focus might be
interrupted because they have to leave in 2 hours.
Mr. Scovel. Or, as some controllers would say, their focus
can be renewed.
Mr. Southerland. Right. But we all know that great running
backs run better when they get the ball 25 times a game, as
opposed to 5.
Mr. Scovel. Right.
Mr. Southerland. So there is a belief that you get in a
zone that you are so good, you are so proficient, you are so
excellent that you are left alone because of the restrictions
of, in your words, collective bargaining. And A players do what
they were created to do by God. They are excellent at what they
do. So when they have the law of momentum providing safety,
providing efficiencies, to yank them out of that, I could make
an argument that those that I have employed do best when I
leave them alone and don't micromanage them and restrict them
as compared to maybe some of the contract towers, where those
same restrictions do not apply. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Scovel. Sir----
Mr. Southerland. Based on self-evident truths?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scovel. As an inspector general, I am sworn not to
indulge in self-evident truths, sir.
Mr. Southerland. Yes, yes.
Mr. Scovel. I must have data.
Mr. Southerland. I am amazed at how this place up here
continues to disregard common sense.
Mr. Scovel. I know.
Mr. Southerland. As if we know better, or know more than
our founding fathers.
But--well, thank you very much. I know I am over my time.
Thank you both, all three, for testifying here today. I yield
back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to
thank the panel for being here. Most of my questions have
already been answered.
But, Mr. Grizzle, does the FAA approve staffing plans for
each contract tower?
Mr. Grizzle. Yes, we do.
Mr. LoBiondo. And do you think or believe that contract
towers are understaffed?
Mr. Grizzle. I do not believe they are understaffed.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. And are there plans to have contract
tower controllers participate in the FAA's voluntary reporting
program?
Mr. Grizzle. Yes, there are.
Mr. LoBiondo. When might that happen?
Mr. Grizzle. Well, as we discussed earlier, we need to
inject some deadlines into our contract structure with our
contractors, which we have not done, but we will do.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Long, did you have any questions,
or--very good.
Well, we would like to thank the panel for your testimony.
And I note, Mr. Grizzle, you will be submitting some
information----
Mr. Grizzle. Yes.
Mr. Petri [continuing]. In response to Mr. Costello's
questions. And we will now turn to the second panel. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Petri, if I may take simply 15 seconds. We
have had a lot of talk earlier this morning, and some of it by
me, concerning the ATSAP program. We are strong endorsers of
ATSAP. However, I would be remiss if I did not note that we
will be issuing a report, hopefully by the end of this week,
addressing the merits of ATSAP and areas where we believe the
agency has strong opportunities for significant improvement.
ATSAP is not yet a silver bullet. It is a step in a long
series of steps to get us to better safety. FAA should be
commended for embarking on the trail. And hopefully, our
recommendations, which the Congress and the agency will receive
this week, will advance that effort. Thanks.
Mr. Petri. Thank you for that update. And thank you all.
The second panel is assembling. And I would like to ask our
colleague, Mr. Lankford, to introduce the first person on the
panel who will testify, Mr. Strong.
Mr. Lankford. Yes. Pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman. Walter
Strong is the chairman of the United States Contract Tower
Association Policy Board. And so, obviously, he brings a
tremendous amount of expertise as far as interaction with his
colleagues about contract towers. He also is extremely
important in contract towers in Oklahoma. The Norman airport,
Max Westheimer Airport in Norman, Oklahoma, is a contract tower
location, and is vital to both the University of Oklahoma, and
to a lot of business in the southern part of Oklahoma City and
in the southern part of Oklahoma, itself. So, honored that he
is here, and has given his time to be able to be a part of
this, as well.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And Mr. Strong will be joined by Ms.
Trish Gilbert, who is the executive vice president of the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Ms. Melissa
Rudinger, the senior vice president of government affairs,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
And we thank you all for the effort that went into
preparing your testimony. We invite you to summarize it in
about 5 minutes. And we will follow that with questions, and
begin with Mr. Strong.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. STRONG, JR., A.A.E., CHAIR, POLICY
BOARD, UNITED STATES CONTRACT TOWER ASSOCIATION, AN AFFILIATED
ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES;
PATRICIA GILBERT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; AND MELISSA K. RUDINGER,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AIRCRAFT OWNERS
AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Costello, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
discuss FAA's Contract Tower Program. I would also like to
thank Mr. Lankford for that kind introduction.
Our partnership with the FAA program on this program is
exemplified by our mission statement, the government-industry
partnership dedicated to air traffic safety. And in today's
challenging economic environment, I might also add the
partnership dedicated to jobs and economic growth.
Before we offer our thoughts on the many benefits of the
program, I would like to raise a flag of caution about one
current issue, that issue being the airport community's concern
about potential changes to FAA's cost-benefit analysis, which
determines participation in the program.
While we are encouraged by FAA's stated desire to work with
the industry in a collaborative, balanced, and transparent
manner, we hope FAA stays on that path to avoid changes to the
program that would jeopardize air traffic safety, economic
growth, and jobs. FAA should ensure that the process full
accounts for the broad array of significant benefits that the
program provides to individual communities, to the Nation as a
whole.
This program should not simply be about black and white
numbers. It must be about the best interests of advancing
aviation safety. Additionally, these potential changes could
result in FAA shifting costs to local communities that have
little, if any, ability to absorb additional costs in these
challenging economic times. The end result could be the closure
of many contract towers, nationwide.
As do most airports in the program, Westheimer Airport in
Norman, we support our tower operations with local funds for
utility cost, equipment costs, both installation, maintenance,
and repair. So even though the FAA pays for the cost to staff
the tower, we provide significant local funding in partnership
with the FAA to provide first-class air traffic services to our
aviation community.
Mr. Chairman, FAA's Contract Power Program has a proven
successful track record. Benefits include enhanced safety,
improved air traffic services, significant cost savings to FAA
and taxpayers, economic growth and job creation. The DOT
inspector general has repeatedly validated those facts, and the
program enjoys strong bipartisan support in Congress.
All contract controllers are FAA-certified and meet the
same training standards as FAA controllers. Additionally, FAA
controls and oversees all aspects of the program, including
operating procedures and staffing plans.
I recently read the National Transportation Safety Board
had added general aviation safety to its most wanted list of
transportation safety improvements. In a national air
transportation system that needs to stay vigilant to reduce
accident rates, we believe that the safety benefits provided by
the program are not optional, but mandatory.
Let me be clear. Without this program, hundreds of
communities across our Nation would not receive the critical
safety benefits that these controllers provide.
To illustrate cost-effectiveness of the program to
taxpayers, FAA contract towers in fiscal year 2011, handled
approximately 28 percent of all tower operations, but accounted
for just 14 percent of FAA's overall tower budget. Now, that is
a good deal for taxpayers. Also, of the 250 towers in the
program, 136 were previously FAA-staffed low-activity towers
that were converted to the contract operations in the 1990s.
Based on anticipated cost information from the DOT IG, if FAA
were still staffing those 136 towers, the additional annual
cost to taxpayers would be approximately $200 million, which is
$50 million more than the current budget to operate all 250
towers.
Also, many contract towers are represented by the National
Air Traffic Controllers Association. The U.S. Contract Tower
Association continues to have an open dialogue with NATCA, and
cooperates on ways to work together effectively as part of a
unified national air traffic control system. There is a clear
role for both FAA and contract towers.
In closing, airports deserve the safety and economic
development benefits the FAA contract towers provide. We are
encouraged by the highly effective partnership that airports,
contract controllers, ATC contractors, and FAA have developed,
and we urge Congress to continue its support of this critical
program.
Thank you very much for your time, and I would be happy to
answer any questions at this time.
Mr. Petri. Well, thank you. Ms. Gilbert.
Ms. Gilbert. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello,
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing
me to testify today. NATCA is in a very unique position to
offer an objective assessment of the Federal Contract Tower
Program, and to evaluate the difference between FAA and
contract towers, because we represent controllers that work in
both.
NATCA proudly represents air traffic controllers at 63
contract towers, as well as controllers in the FAA and in some
DOD facilities. As a controller myself, I can tell you that our
priority is simple. And, regardless of employer, and regardless
of the challenges we face, our job every day is to ensure the
safety of the flying public, and continue to operate the
world's best air traffic control system.
With that, NATCA does support the cost share component of
the Federal Contract Tower Program. We believe it enables local
communities that couldn't otherwise support a tower to reap the
economic benefits aviation brings to them. NATCA also supports
building new towers where ones do not currently exist. But we
are opposed to the transfer or conversion of FAA towers into
the Federal Contract Tower Program.
First and foremost, it is NATCA's position that there is a
fundamental flaw in comparing contract towers to FAA towers, in
terms of safety, as defined by the number of incidents
reported. The flaw derives from the fact that safety incidents,
which include operational errors, deviations, and runway
incursions, are unevenly reported. The GAO noted in 2003 that
``comparisons of operational error rates alone are not
sufficient to draw conclusions about the relative safety
records of air traffic control facilities.'' NATCA believes
that a comparison of this type does the program a disservice,
because safety at contract towers and FAA towers cannot be
accurately compared through safety incident data at this time.
That data is incomplete, and the baseline is different.
Additionally, the FAA has moved to a true safety culture,
where all controllers and employees are encouraged to report
every safety issue, including errors. Contract towers are often
driven by a punitive culture that discourages this reporting.
As far as comparing costs, the FAA model was built on the
premise of necessary redundancy to prioritize safety above all,
whereas contract towers have incentive to prioritize to the
bottom line. NATCA is not criticizing the fact that profit
margins matter and are a factor. But our review of contract
towers finds them to be understaffed with less support of their
facilities and equipment, and also insufficient training for
their controllers. These factors contribute to the contract
tower's bottom line when it comes to cost.
Staffing amounts to the bulk of the operating cost in these
facilities. This motivates contractors to reduce staff in order
to lower costs when competing for a contract. That said, the
contract towers can lack necessary redundancy, especially when
it comes to staffing. The FAA requires two controllers on
shift, while contract towers are not bound by that, and
frequently staff with only one controller for extended links of
time.
In terms of equipment, some towers still use radios that
are so old they cannot accommodate a headset, and controllers
must use the hand-held devices to communicate. This can be
problematic in a profession where clear two-way communication
is key to safety. Additionally, due to cost sharing arrangement
between the tower, the sponsor, and the FAA, all three entities
often disagree on who is responsible for the cost to maintain
and/or repair facilities and equipment.
The temporary tower at Opa-locka, Florida, in southern
Florida, is a prime example of the funding battle that results
in unsafe working situations for controllers. Six years ago the
old tower failed county fire suppression requirements and was
deemed unsafe to occupy. When both the FAA and the county
refused to correct the problem, the FAA provided a temporary
tower located on a closed runway in an old RV on top of eight
large shipping containers. It still remains in that facility, 6
years later. Such a facility would not have been tolerated, had
it been staffed by FAA personnel. It is only due to the
exceptional dedication and skill of the controllers at Opa-
locka that the facility has been able to provide the services
that they do.
Finally, NATCA believes that the 30-day training period
that contract towers provide is insufficient, regardless of the
controllers' experience. FAA towers are trained under a much
more specialized training program that includes training teams,
on-the-job training, classroom instruction, and simulations.
NATCA made five recommendations in our written testimony.
We believe that implementing these recommendations will shift
contract towers toward a true safety-based model. We recognize
that implementation of these recommendations would come at a
financial cost. But we believe the benefits far outweigh the
cost savings contract towers currently have, when you compare
them to the cost of FAA towers.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today, and I will take
any questions when appropriate. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Ms. Rudinger.
Ms. Rudinger. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and
members of the committee, good morning. My name is Melissa
Rudinger, and I am with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
testify and give the user's perspective and the aircraft
owner's perspective on contract control towers.
The Contract Control Tower Program has provided cost-
effective and essential air traffic services to general
aviation airports since 1982. Of the 250 contract towers in the
program, 89 serve general aviation airports exclusively. Your
continued support of this critical program is important to
aviation safety, economic development, and efficiency at
airports and communities in this great Nation.
My testimony today addresses three overarching points:
first, contract towers enhance safety; second, contract towers
are cost-effective; and third, contract towers help local
economies.
The Contract Power Program greatly enhances safety by
providing vital air traffic service to communities that would
not otherwise qualify for a federally funded tower. They
enhance the safety of flight for all aircraft operating at an
airport and in the surrounding airspace. For example, at a
towered airport, all aircraft are required to establish and
maintain two-way radio communication with the tower, unlike
nontowered airports.
Controllers also bring situational awareness and ensure the
safe, efficient, and orderly flow of traffic. Additionally,
airspace around airports with towers have higher weather
minimums, which greatly increases the safety margin for all
operators.
As others have testified here, contract towers have
consistently achieved good scores in every metric that you can
measure a contract tower on. They are critical to the safety of
local communities, such as Brown Field in San Diego, Palm Coast
in Ormond Beach in Florida, and of course, Wittman Field in
Oshkosh. All serve a very important role in enhancing safety at
airports with robust general aviation activity.
Other contract towers, like Martin State, here in our local
area, provide a significant safety enhancement for a broad mix
of operations. This includes intensive flight training and
support of the 175th Wing of the Maryland Air National Guard.
As far as costs are concerned, the FAA Contract Tower
Program is one of the most cost-effective government-industry
partnerships in the history of the agency. Virtually every
performance metric of the program has a proven track record of
sustained cost savings, efficiency gains, and economic value to
local communities.
In 2011, the 246 towers then in the program handled 28
percent of all tower operations, but only accounted for about
14 percent of the FAA's tower budget. In contrast, the 264 FAA-
staffed towers that handled the remaining 72 percent of
operations used 86 percent of the FAA's tower budget. Looking
at it another way, the cost of operating a contract tower is
roughly one-third the cost of operating an FAA-staffed tower.
These numbers clearly highlight that the Contract Tower Program
is of great value to the American taxpayer.
Numerous studies have also shown that airports are economic
engines for communities. And we also know that the
establishment of an air traffic control tower drives even
greater economic development through the creation of jobs, the
growth of airport businesses, and other benefits. This was
validated in a 2011 study by an independent contractor for the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
This study showed that each dollar spent by an aviation
business or an aviation-related business generated $1.52 in
economic activity. It also showed that airport jobs are
desirable, and the average wage of a job at a Virginia airport
was 40 percent higher than the average Virginia salary. For
every job at a Virginia airport, nearly three are created in
its visitor-related economy. And aviation-related businesses
and employees annually contribute $105 million to the local tax
base.
The study also indicated that construction projects like
airport control towers are beneficial because dollars spent by
the State and local governments are leveraged with Federal and
private funds. This multiplier effect results in generating an
additional $2 in economic activity for each dollar spent.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the FAA's Contract
Power Program has a proven track record of providing cost-
effective and essential air traffic safety services to general
aviation airports, and they provide strong support to local
economies.
On behalf of the members of AOPA, I thank you for your
leadership in examining this important program. This concludes
my testimony.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. I do have a
few questions.
Mr. Strong, as the previous panel indicated, the FAA is in
the process of revising the cost-benefit analysis for contract
towers. And from what you know of their plans, do you believe
they are considering the right cost and benefit factors? And if
not, what would be more adequate or appropriate, in your
opinion?
Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. We
have been in consultation with the FAA. As Ms. Oettinger spoke
earlier, we were in their offices just 3 or 4 weeks ago.
Some of the items that they intend to include in the cost-
benefit analysis we believe are appropriate. Probably our
biggest concern is that the world has changed from what we once
knew it to be in the world of contract towers, and there are a
lot of activities that may not be picked up in their current
process. And we want to make sure that all of the benefits, all
of the things, all of the items that go on at the airports are
actually included.
At Westheimer in Norman, we have a really broad program of
what goes on there. The University of Oklahoma has a
significant flight training program, where we train pilots that
will come into the system and be your pilots on airplanes and
commercial service in future years. Those folks generate 200 to
250 flights a week during the semesters. We also have the
Governor that flies in and out of our airport. We have a
tremendous amount of law enforcement activity at our airport.
And we also have the business community that comes and goes.
And, on top of that, when we play football in the fall, on
game days there is a tremendous influx of business jet and
single engine aircraft activity that comes to the airport.
So we are not certain that the FAA really includes those
complexities and all of those things that are included in their
cost-benefit analysis. And that is what we really want to work
with them on, and make sure that they are including those
things. Because we don't want to put any contract tower
community in a position to even consider reducing services or
closing a tower because they can't afford the shifted costs in
their direction.
Mr. Petri. The--I am sure you are aware--and I don't know
if this question is directed for you, or if others would care
to respond. But we live in a world--and certainly it is true in
aviation--of rapidly changing technology. And I talk often with
general aviation pilots, and they show me their things where--
we all have Garmins in our car and the satellite--the amount of
data you can get as an automobile driver, let alone as an
airplane pilot.
And so, the world of air traffic control is--if it is not
already--is rapidly about to change, and has for some of
general aviation already. People have routes, they have
information in the cockpit that enable them to dial in an
airport and to get there.
As that world evolves, could you discuss how--the contract
towers and general FAA towers, the flight movements aren't
constant throughout the day, there--possibility of transferring
to TRACON or to regional--and a lot--and they can control
flights into airports, there are programs to put sensors of--
ground equipment on airports so it will show in the cockpit for
the pilot if anything is approaching. There are a lot of things
that can be done now that minimize the need for expensive air
traffic control for airports that--a lot of airports don't have
any towers, anyway.
And could you discuss how the impact of this technology is
on both the general FAA and the contract tower situation?
Mr. Strong. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I might characterize it
in the following fashion. I am reminded of a day when I was at
the Oshkosh event years ago, back in the 1990s, and I was
talking to some FAA folks there. And there was a table in the
tent that had NDB and ILS. And over on the end there was one
young fellow that was talking about GPS. And I thought, ``I
want to talk to him, because that is new technology, and it is
coming at us.''
And around the year 2000 I asked FAA--we needed an ILS for
Westheimer Airport in Norman. And we were told, ``You can't
have an ILS.'' ``Well, why can't I have an ILS?'' ``Because you
are not on the list.'' ``Well, why aren't we on the list?''
``Because we are going to have full implementation of GPS by
the year 2000.'' That was the answer that I got. I would submit
to you that we are in the year 2012. And not to be overly
critical with the FAA, but you are talking about new
technologies that often take a tremendous amount of time to
bring on board.
So we did get our ILS. We still don't have full
implementation of GPS. We do use a lot of security cameras at
our airport. If you are referring to NextGen and coming online,
I have heard talk about virtual contract towers, or virtual
towers, where you might have a controller in a room looking at
video screens that are, you know, feeding camera data from an
airport to a video screen, so they can control traffic at more
than one tower. I would submit to you that cameras--I don't
think, personally, cameras are at that level of confident data.
I just don't think it is there.
At night time, the data that you get from a camera is
reduced. You won't see a 12-point buck crossing the runway at
night with a camera, where a controller with eyeglasses may see
that. So while I believe new technology coming at us will make
a benefit in the future, I think we are still a long distance
off from that. And for the time being, I think we still need to
work with the efficiencies that we have in the Contract Tower
Program, and even the FAA tower program. I don't think it is
time yet to shift to air traffic management from air traffic
control.
That is personal opinion. I was a controller for 17 years.
I have worked towers and radars and enroute traffic, so I am
familiar with the process. And I just don't think we are ready
for air traffic management quite yet.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Strong, one of
the issues that I have heard with some of the contract towers--
in fact, one in my district--is that the FAA could do a better
job of upgrading and maintaining their facilities and
equipment. I wonder if you might comment on that. And I would
ask the same question of Ms. Gilbert.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I think we could all
do a better job of upgrading our equipment. I know we have--for
example, one of the comments earlier was old radios that are
not used--you cannot use a headset with a radio. I will admit
to you that we have a light gun in our control tower that is
probably 30 years old. But it is functional. So do I need to go
out and spend $15,000 or $20,000 to buy a new light gun, just
so I can have a new light gun? I don't think so.
There are times when we do need to be more effective and
more efficient in adding new equipment. And the FAA, frankly,
has put some new equipment in our control tower, because we are
in the greater metropolitan area of Oklahoma City, and we have
a reasonable amount of traffic. So they installed a radar
system in our contract tower that quite a few contract towers
don't have. So we do have some of those upgrades. But I
wouldn't throw out an old radio just because it is old. If it
still functions, you can still talk to the pilots, you still
get the job done. Does it need to have new bells and whistles?
Might be a little bit better, maybe a little more efficient. Is
it necessary? Maybe not.
Mr. Costello. Ms. Gilbert?
Ms. Gilbert. I would agree that new doesn't necessarily
mean better. Our concern would be where the equipment isn't
functioning in a way that allows you to do the job, the very
serious job, that air traffic controllers do in both Federal
and contract towers. They are often distracted by maintaining
equipment. Controllers are having to do it themselves, because
there are not onsite technicians in the facilities. Then that
distracts them from doing the job that they are there to do,
which is the movement of air traffic in and out of the airport.
As you well know, several years ago we didn't have the
relationship with the FAA that we do now. So we had a lot of
involvement with many Members of Congress on behalf of the
contract towers that we represent, to get them appropriate and
proper equipment in the facilities. In Georgetown, just on the
outskirts of Austin, Texas, we were able to get a DBRITE in
that facility to help them move planes in and out of that
airport, with the help of Congressman John Carter.
Now, however, we have a relationship with the FAA that
allows us to better communicate the needs of those facilities,
as well as the FAA facilities, with regard to not necessarily
new equipment, but certainly equipment that will enhance safety
and equipment that will improve efficiencies. We support that
in both facilities.
I would like to also give you one more perspective with
regard to the voluntary reporting system that we have in the
FAA that we would like to see in the contract towers. With that
in place, and the collection of a lot of data, you are able to
better prioritize equipment issues that need to be put in place
to enhance safety, versus what might just be nice to have. When
you get that good, solid data, it enables us in tight budget
times to prioritize appropriately what should be deployed and
where. So that is another benefit of the voluntary reporting
system, that we see it.
Mr. Costello. You just answered my second question about
nonpunitive reporting, voluntary reporting at contract towers.
The final question, Ms. Gilbert, is you mention in your
written testimony that the FAA and contract towers have
different ``safety cultures.'' What do you mean by that?
Ms. Gilbert. Well, in the FAA, as you well know, we
voluntarily submit data to the agency so we can better assess
where the risks are, how to mitigate them, how to prioritize
them, and fund them appropriately to address the concerns.
Rather than a punitive culture, where the blame would go on an
individual, and there would be no real effort to correct what
might be a true safety concern or issue.
We do not have that in the contract towers, and we are
hoping that we are able to get that very soon. We do represent
controllers under all three employers, and we are at different
levels of discussions with them. However, I believe at this
point in time their idea of a voluntary, nonpunitive reporting
system and ours is very, very different. So we have a little
ways to go there.
Mr. Costello. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Lankford?
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Strong, do you think it is--there is a greater risk, landing
and taking off at a contract tower?
Mr. Strong. No.
Mr. Lankford. What about in a--is there a difference in
safety between a contract tower and an airport with no tower?
Mr. Strong. No.
Mr. Lankford. OK.
Mr. Strong. And I pause because you have different humans
working in different towers. And, to me, that is not whether it
is a contract tower or if it is an FAA tower. That is a human
issue.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Mr. Strong. If the human is capable, and the human is on
their game, if the human is Barry Sanders, as Mr. Southerland
spoke to earlier, of the air traffic control world, then the
human will be on their game and there won't be any difference.
And we--typically, we don't see any.
Mr. Lankford. OK.
Ms. Gilbert. Could I answer that, please?
Mr. Lankford. Sure.
Ms. Gilbert. I was a controller at Houston Center for 21
years. And in my airspace, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, there are
three airports in close proximity in that community. And there
are no towers there. We provided the service out of the enroute
facility. And it was a completely safe operation. However, for
us to do that and not have a tower onsite, we were only able to
provide one in, one out type of service.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Ms. Gilbert. So you are not able to efficiently move
aircraft in and out of the facility.
Mr. Lankford. But you are typically talking about a lower
rate of in and out, as well. You are not talking about someone
doing takeoffs and landings every 3 minutes in a no-tower
airport.
Ms. Gilbert. No, only one is in. As soon as they taxi and
they call you and they tell you they are off the runway, then
you are able to then put another one in. In the meantime, those
waiting to get in are holding.
Mr. Lankford. OK. And, as Mr. Strong said, you can't see a
12-point buck at that point.
Ms. Gilbert. Exactly.
Mr. Lankford. So which--I would assume there would be
multiple responses to a 12-point buck in most Oklahoma towers,
if you looked at the window and saw that.
Let me--ask a couple other questions on this, as well. How
does--for Mr. Strong, there is a discussion about the cost
sharing for the local municipality or the State or--how does
that get covered? Now it is up to 20 percent. There are some
recommendations up there to be up to 50 percent of the cost
being a local cost. How does that get covered? What effect does
that have?
Mr. Strong. My concern, Mr. Lankford, is that it doesn't
get covered. If we get to a place where the FAA asks a
community to--``Your cost-benefit analysis has dropped to this
place where we now want you to pony up to 50 percent of the
cost to staff the tower on an annual basis,'' the community may
already be looking at we have got to deal with DEQ regulations,
we have got to take care of stormwater, we need more
firefighters, we need more police, we have already got--we are
already strapped with all of these things, and now the FAA
comes to us and says, ``In order for you to remain fully
functional, you are going to have to step up to $175, $200,000
a year to staff the control tower.''
It seems to me that we then put those community leaders--in
our case, the University of Oklahoma--into a position of
considering where do we get the money, if we don't have the
money now, where are we going to find it, and then they begin
to consider maybe a reduction in services, or even closing the
control tower. That is my concern.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Mr. Strong. We have come to a place where the control
towers are in place, they are part of the NAS. Everybody that
has testified so far today has all agreed that it is about
safety, safety, safety.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Mr. Strong. And any kind of reduction or putting a
community in a position where they say, ``Well, we are going to
have to shut this thing down,'' is simply----
Mr. Lankford. Is there a possibility to give you more
flexibility that reduces cost in other areas, to say--you
brought up multiple different regulations, stormwater and all
the different regulations that also come down from the Federal
Government into a community or onto an airport itself. Are
there ways to be able to say, ``We will give you flexibility in
these areas to take care of this, but you also have an
increased cost, straight off''?
Mr. Strong. I suppose that there might be, sir. I wouldn't
know the answer to that, because it doesn't have wings, jet
engines, or propellers on it. If it had one of those things, I
might be a little bit better to answer it. But I suppose so. I
don't really know the answer.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Ms. Gilbert, you also mentioned that you
were opposed to transitioning, or the organization was opposed
to transitioning more airports from FAA to contract. In the
mid-1990s was your organization also opposed to transitioning
the 136 that are currently contract that used to be FAA? Was
the organization opposed to that transition, as well?
And if so--let me just get a chance to talk this through--
do you think it was a mistake that they were moved from FAA to
contract towers, based on the current position the organization
now, that we shouldn't have any more contract towers moved from
FAA to that?
Ms. Gilbert. We were opposed to the transfer and conversion
of those towers. Just as our testimony says, our written
testimony and the recommendations----
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Ms. Gilbert [continuing]. Our concern is about proper
training, proper staffing, and proper equipment maintenance,
regardless of whether it is a contract tower or an FAA tower.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Ms. Gilbert. So that is our position.
Mr. Lankford. Was it a mistake to move those? Has it proved
to be unsafe?
Ms. Gilbert. It hasn't proved to be unsafe, but we have a
concern about the margin of safety being stretched to
accommodate the bottom line, versus safety first. Somebody has
got to make money in a Contract Power Program, and that is our
concern. And the way that they are able to do that is barebones
staffing, the equipment issues that we have raised, and also,
in a lot of cases, the hours of operations. A lot of those
facilities reduced the hours that they provide service to their
community when they transferred from FAA to contract tower.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And--yes, sir?
Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there is a couple of
things that I would like to speak to: the proper training,
staffing, and equipping of the control towers. I have been a
part of the U.S. Contract Tower Association Policy Board for
about 10 years. And in that time, I have been the chair for
about 6. I have met with the contractors on a frequent
recurring basis. And each and every one of them, when we come
to our meetings, it is always about safety first. How can we do
this the best way we can possibly do it?
Training, they always step up to the highest levels of
training, be it recurring training or initial training. There
was talk about the difference between certified controller and
the training only being 30 days, and then you might get fired
if you didn't make your--get your rating in 30 days.
Controllers in the contract world come to the tower already
certified by the FAA. They have a control tower operator
certificate. So all they have to do is come to that tower,
learn the particulars of the airspace at that airport, and then
move forward.
So, if there is something different about that facility
that may require them to need a couple of extra days, I think
the contractors would allow for that.
There was comment about the punitive safety culture. That
causes me great concern. Again, I have worked with these
contractors for 10 years. I know what their heart is, I know
what they are driven by, I know what their attention is. And
they are not about punitive. Now, in the contract tower world,
we do not yet have ATSAP. But the contractors are embracing
that activity or that possibility. They want to move that
forward.
I would submit to you also, in the voluntary reporting of
ATSAP, much like the NAS's callback--pilots are familiar with
that--NAS's callback, if you make an error, you report it to
callback, then you are not to be punished. And it seems to me
that ATSAP is about the same thing for controllers. Even in
NAS's callback, even though it is a very good program, you will
never get 100 percent reporting. You are talking about humans.
If--some people, if they make an error, and they don't think
anybody saw it, they may not report it, whether it is a
contract tower or an FAA tower. Unless we have some other
nonhuman methodology of tracking the error, I don't think you
will ever get 100 percent.
But I would say this. I know the hearts and the minds and
the intentions of these contractors. And they are dead set on
having ATSAP or some functioning reporting system like that, as
FAA does. And currently, I might add, they are serious about--
the only time that you will get punished is for not reporting
an error. If you have an error or a deviation in the system, if
you don't report it, then you have got a problem. If you do
report it, we want to know about it, because we want to know
what caused it, and how could we move forward, how can we learn
from that and move forward in a safer condition.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]