[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ISSUES IN MODERNIZING
AND OPERATING THE NATION'S AIRSPACE
=======================================================================
(113-83)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
__________
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
00-000 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, inspector general, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 11
Hon. John Engler, president, Business Roundtable, and former
Governor of Michigan........................................... 11
Captain Lee Moak, president, Air Line Pilots Association,
International.................................................. 11
Mark Baker, president and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association.................................................... 11
Nicholas E. Calio, president and CEO, Airlines for America....... 11
Paul Rinaldi, president, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association.................................................... 11
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III........................................ 50
Hon. John Engler................................................. 77
Captain Lee Moak................................................. 83
Mark Baker....................................................... 94
Nicholas E. Calio................................................ 107
Paul Rinaldi..................................................... 115
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, request to submit a letter from Hon. Yvette D.
Clarke, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York, regarding LaGuardia Airport, November 17, 2014........... 10
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, inspector general, U.S. Department of
Transportation, responses to questions for the record issued by
the following Representatives:
Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois................................ 65
Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty of Connecticut........................ 66
Hon. Richard L. Hanna of New York............................ 67
Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania............................ 71
Mark Baker, president and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association, responses to questions for the record issued by
Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut........................................... 106
Written statement of December 2, 2014, from Charles T. ``Skip''
Miller, executive director, Louisville Regional Airport
Authority...................................................... 125
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FAA REAUTHORIZATION: ISSUES IN
MODERNIZING AND OPERATING THE
NATION'S AIRSPACE
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The committee will come to order.
Good morning, I wanted to thank everybody for being here.
We have a packed room, a topic of great interest, I hope.
The FAA reauthorization issues in modernizing and operating
the Nation's airspace. I believe it is a critical issue, and
one that I and the members of the committee have been talking
about for a year now. And as we go into the next Congress,
September, we are going to have to reauthorize the FAA and so
we have been working for a year on that. Meeting with folks in
this room, members of the committee, stakeholders all across
the country, to try to better understand what the situation is
out there, and today is going to shed even more light on that.
Our 1958 Congress recognized the need to establish a
comprehensive aviation regulatory and air traffic control
system. This system has served our country remarkably well and
today we have the safest system in the world. However, the
world has changed since 1958 in numerous ways and it is time to
take stock, where we are and what we need for decades ahead.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to learn about
issues we should consider as we plan for the next FAA
reauthorization and beyond. It will not come as a surprise to
any pilot who has waited in a long line of planes on the
tarmac, or to any passenger who has watched the departure board
as his or her flight is delayed or cancelled, that our system
can be better.
Since the Federal Aviation Administration was created 56
years ago, there have been many attempts to reform it. For
instance, numerous advisory committees have been made, reform
recommendations based upon input from aviation stakeholders.
Both President Clinton in the 1990s and President Bush in the
2000s, sought to reform the FAA in order to ensure the level of
air traffic control service that Americans deserve. While each
had a varying degree of success, neither was able to implement
long-lasting transformative reform.
As air travel continues to grow and our airspace becomes
increasingly more complex, we must ensure that the
infrastructure, rules, process, laws are up to date and able to
withstand the test of time. To do that we must make sure the
FAA is properly structured to carry out our modernization
efforts and operate as efficiently as possible.
In report after report the inspector general of the
Department of Transportation and the Government Accountability
Office, for that matter, has identified costly problems with
the FAA's management of air traffic control modernization
programs. For example, in 1998 the IG found that in carrying
out one modernization program, the FAA had wasted a billion
dollars of taxpayers' moneys. Sadly, the IG will testify today
that this is not uncommon. He notes that of 15 major
acquisitions that were ongoing as of September 2013, 8 included
acquisition cost increases amounting to $4.9 billion, and 8
experienced delays.
This waste is a result of the FAA's inability to plan
effectively, to manage programs in a way that delivers
responsible, cost-effective, and beneficial outcomes. Congress
has an important role in modernization efforts. And we will
continue to provide the tools and the resources necessary while
also conducting the oversight to ensure taxpayer money is not
being wasted.
Now is the time for us to learn from the past mistakes
while at the same time taking note of what other nations have
accomplished, and how they have done it. What successes can we
apply to the American system that will help us safely and
efficiently modernize our airspace? I don't have all of the
answers. So I look to the aviation stakeholders and those of
you in this room that are experts for your input. As we move
forward we want to look at all options, put all options on the
table. However, anything we do in the FAA reauthorization needs
to be done together to ensure that our work helps lay a
foundation for the best possible future of the U.S. aviation.
American aviation, we invented it. We have been the leader
in aviation for the past 80 years. We are now starting to lose
our edge. Competition coming from foreign carriers, from
foreign manufacturers, and one of the big impediments is our
own bureaucracy here in Washington and around the country that
impedes us from allowing to compete and move products to market
fast and quickly. We cannot allow this to happen and we must
act now.
If you just look back at the 23 extensions, the
sequestration that took place, the Government shutdown, the
time is now and I think that all the stakeholders are in the
room that have had to go through those painful experiences know
that we really have to take a different look and move in a
different direction.
Today we have representatives from a wide cross-section of
aviation stakeholders who can offer valuable insight into the
issues we face. So I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses, and thank them all for appearing here today.
Before yielding to Ranking Member Rahall, I ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
questions we have submitted to them in writing, and unanimous
consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional
comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses be
included in the record of today's hearing. Without objection,
so ordered.
I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for opening
remarks.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
It has been my great honor to serve as ranking member of
this committee for the last 4 years, and on this committee for
my entire 38-year career in the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, your commitment to bipartisanship has proven
that together we can do great things. We successfully completed
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act this year, which
showed the American people that leaders in Congress can come
together to pass big bills and improve local economies and our
Nation's infrastructure.
In September, the committee marked up a bipartisan Amtrak
reauthorization that again showed both sides' willingness to
compromise for the good of the traveling public. And I have
every confidence, Mr. Chairman, that if you work in that same
spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, FAA reauthorization
will be short and swift. I have seen so many extensions, 23, I
think as you mentioned, that it is like watching a child, I
guess, come of age and then the parent leaves home instead of
the child.
Since I was first elected to Congress, a lot has changed in
our aviation system. In 1977, we were on the eve of airline
deregulation. Our modern air traffic control system had existed
for less than 20 years at that point. There has been talk
recently of potentially changing the structure of air traffic
control in the United States.
On that point, I would just say that when Congress enacted
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, it recognized that good
Government is at the core of a safe air traffic control system.
However this reform idea takes shape, I would urge my
colleagues to ensure that labor remains engaged in the
conversation, and that aviation programs receive robust, stable
funding and to keep air traffic control in the realm of good
Government, where it belongs.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for today's hearing. I
will miss working with you and all of my esteem colleagues from
both sides of the aisle, but I know that with your leadership,
and your bipartisanship, and your transparent manner of
operating this committee, this Nation's future is in good
hands.
Mr. Shuster. I want to thank the gentleman.
And with that I recognize the subcommittee chairman Mr.
LoBiondo for an opening statement.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you Chairman Shuster, I especially want
to thank you for holding this hearing at a full committee level
to emphasize the importance of it and I would really like to
echo the chairman's comments about the critical importance.
The United States has a great deal to be proud of when it
comes to aviation and thanks to the men and women in this
country who day in and day out pilot the aircraft, serve as air
traffic controllers, care for the passengers, maintain
equipment, and numerous other important jobs, we have the
safest and busiest aviation system in the world that keeps our
economy ticking and serves as a model of American global
leadership.
This industry and these issues are near and dear to my
heart. As many of you know, I represent the FAA's flagship
technical center in my district, that has and continues to play
a vital role in making advances in aviation safety, and air
traffic control technology. However, I believe there are some
things we need to do even better, like getting technology
programs both done and delivering benefits on time without any
further waste of taxpayer's money. Let us look at the long-term
challenges our aviation sector is facing, and be bold and
decisive in addressing these through an open exchange of ideas.
It is my hope today to learn what issues we in Congress
need to think about as we look forward to the next FAA
reauthorization and beyond to ensure we continue to have the
safest system possible that also secures America's leadership
in this vital global economy.
And Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, there is so much
at stake, and we have a tremendous opportunity to build on what
we have done for the last 2 years, so I look forward to the
hearing, and look forward to the participation and moving
forward.
I yield back, thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Aviation, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for calling
today's hearing on our work ahead to reauthorize the Federal
aviation programs by October next year, and I look forward to
working with you and Chairman LoBiondo and all of my colleagues
to get a bill done on time, one that improves safety and keeps
our aviation system the envy of the world.
I also want to recognize families of the passengers of
Colgan flight 3407, who are with us today. And we welcome you
and want to thank you for your tireless efforts to improve
aviation safety.
I want to just recognize that many of the aviation
stakeholders, including a few testifying here today, are
frustrated with funding uncertainty and the delays associated
with some programs like NextGen. But I also want to be clear:
the FAA is making progress, and good progress thanks to the
Subcommittee on Aviation's strong oversight under Chairman
LoBiondo's leadership.
At this time last year we were uncertain when we would see
a plan for implementing DataComm, and now in response to a
tasking by Chairman LoBiondo, the FAA has a plan with industry
support to implement DataComm. At this time last year, we were
uncertain about the path forward for performance-based
navigation procedures, and now again in response to our
tasking, the FAA has a plan with industry support for
accelerating PBN procedure implementation.
So when I read in some stakeholders' testimony that the FAA
is not moving fast enough on several of these programs, I would
also like to point out that we have progressed significantly
from last year. And Chairman LoBiondo and I remain laser-
focused on making sure the FAA continues to make progress.
Moreover, under Chairman LoBiondo's leadership the Subcommittee
on Aviation has held hearings in the last Congress on FAA's
work to streamline the certification process. We heard the FAA
has made progress. We also held two subcommittee meetings on
the FAA's work to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the
national airspace and will stay focused on progress there as
well.
At the same time we recognize that more has to be done. The
FAA must have funding certainty and the flexibility to invest.
When we talk about the FAA's challenges in running programs
smoothly, we need to recognize the agency's problem is not only
a management problem. I think the agency has a political
problem, a political problem resting here in Congress.
Last year's efforts by some in Congress to force the
Federal Government off the fiscal cliff was not only--was a
catastrophe for the everyday operation of the national
airspace. It caused great harm to NextGen efforts. Just as the
FAA must do better, we have to do better here in Congress, and
I hope today's hearing will give us a solid path for how we
should progress with a strong bipartisan bill.
I know conversation has been going on about air traffic
reform, as well; I have had some of those conversations with
folks. I just want to be sure that reauthorization does not
become a science experiment. If we resolve to go big in this
bill with significant air traffic reforms, we must do so
methodically with a clear statement of the problem we are
trying to solve, and a clear understanding of how to solve it
without compromising safety in any way.
This hearing might be a good first step in that regard.
Today we are asking, what problems should we solve in
reauthorization? That is an important question. We all need to
understand there may not be one answer to that. And I look
forward to hearing how witnesses would answer that.
In addition to airspace management, we can't lose sight of
the work that needs to be done to safely implement and
integrate UAS in the airspace, improve certification, and
streamline FAA facilities. I look forward to tapping those
topics in future hearings.
On that note, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
the full committee and next Congress, and with your continued
commitment to bipartisanship, I know we can produce a bill that
provides the funding, the stability, and the flexibility that
the FAA needs to move forward along in the future to continue
to make sure we have a safe national airspace.
I thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Larsen.
Before we get started, I think it is important that we
acknowledge there are a number of members of this committee
that this will be their last hearing. So if you would indulge
me. Let's start with the most junior Member, I don't think he
is here, Mr. Daines. He has gone off and lost his mind and
decided to run for the Senate. I tried to tell him the other
day on the floor, I hope he remains true to his roots as a
House Member, and continues to work hard to get things done and
not hold things up so--but we wish him well in the Senate over
there.
Mr. Michaud, who is--I don't believe he is here. I am sure
he is going to go on to bigger and better things. You know,
when you leave Congress, I look out at the folks out there that
they usually have bigger smiles than we do, especially at the
end of the month and when we are out of session. So again, I
wish Mike all the best in whatever endeavors he goes off to.
Gary Miller has been a long-time member of this committee.
I don't think Gary is here. Gary has really been a champion of
developers and building in this country and has always been on
the forefront of trying to reduce the burdens the Government
puts on us as we try to develop and build roadways and develop
communities around the country. So Gary, we wish you well in
your future endeavors.
Mr. Bishop from New York, who was a great ally and working
on the WRRDA bill. There were times when we would disagree.
There were times that we would agree and I would say, I can't
get that through my conference, so I can't even be for it. I
mean, I want to be, but I can't. And so I think we had a good
understanding of finding a common ground, moving the bill
forward, and it was a lot of his hard work is the reason we got
to that 417 mark on final passage, and I appreciate all of the
efforts that he has put forward.
I will say I am not going to miss him on third base. I
think the last game you had seven put outs or something like
that; something outrageous for a guy your age. And I think at
least one of them was me you put out. So you know, but we are
going to miss you and miss greatly your voice of reason, and of
course, you represented your district extremely well over the
years and the committee will miss you.
Mr. Coble, Howard Coble is leaving the committee, the
Coastie, served over 20 years and has been a great advocate for
transportation infrastructure, and certainly been a great
protector of the Coast Guard and on the other committees he has
worked on. So Howard, he is not here today. I know he is around
here somewhere. We wish you well in your future endeavors.
Shelley Moore Capito, truly West Virginia royalty. Is there
such a thing? I am from western Pennsylvania, so I can make
some analogies about being at the top of certain mountains, but
I won't. But Shelley, we wish you well in the Senate. We know
you are going to do a great job over there. And we know you
won't forget us. You can talk to us over here. We hope you will
continue to do that. But congratulations on your victory. And
we know you, as I said, will do extremely well in the Senate.
Tom Petri. He was right here. I thought I saw him here. I
think he thought I was going to talk about him so he left. But
here is a guy that served on this committee for almost four
decades; served in every capacity and every subcommittee on the
committee, and you know, he was here for ISTEA, TEA-21,
SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21. Here is a guy that has got tremendous
institutional knowledge. He has decided to go back to Wisconsin
and not put up with the headaches of Congress. And again, we
wish him well in his endeavors. And let's see, make sure I get
everybody.
Finally, most importantly, my partner, the leader of the
Democratic side in the T&I Committee, Nick, you have been a
great friend, a great ally. I have got a lot of stories about
going to WRRDA with Nick. My staff told me not to tell the one
I really want to tell. So I am going to get rolling here, and
then you never know what is going to come out.
But truly, when we sat down for the very first time and
talked about how we could work together, and Nick said, it is
about communication. Let me know where you are. I will let you
know where I am and so we worked very well together on WRRDA.
There were times when we would go to negotiate with the Senate
and Nick was with us, and we agreed to be on the same page, and
there were times we tried to get together before to figure out
what maybe would happen in the room and sometimes we didn't. He
would come in late or I would be there late, so we didn't get a
chance to talk. But he truly was a great counter puncher.
When Barbara would come up with something that we disagreed
with, I didn't even have to wink at Nick. He didn't say
anything. He was able to counter punch and help me prevail on
the issue.
So again, it was a great honor to work with you. We got a
lot of stuff done. There is one really, really interesting
story that, the most important thing was WRRDA was passed, but
there was another story that was one of the highlights of the
conference that caused us to lose our way for about 15 minutes.
But I am not going to go into it because my staff insists I
shouldn't. But it is a great story about Nick and his great
history here on Capitol Hill and his great friendships he has
developed.
So Nick, again, we are going to miss you greatly. We know
that wherever you land out there, we know you are going to do
well and you will always have friends up here on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Rahall. May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Shuster. Yes, sir, are you going to tell the story?
Mr. Rahall. No, I am just going to say thank you for your
kind words and just commend every member of this committee,
both sides of the aisle, commend the professionalism of the
staff, each member of this committee brings talents, and
background, and a wealth of knowledge about transportation and
so many issues. They also bring a dedication to their
constituents, above and beyond anything else. And this
committee is where the future of this country is at, in my
opinion. This committee is about jobs, jobs, and jobs.
And Mr. Chairman, when I look back over the bills that we
have produced in a bipartisan fashion, you truly have returned
that spirit of bipartisanship to this committee, and every
Member has a desire to work across party aisles in order to
produce for the American people, and this is where the future
of the country is, in my opinion, is on this committee right
here. And I feel very safe that that future is in great hands
under your leadership.
Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
With that, I recognize the--do I have to call you Senator
yet? OK--the gentlelady from West Virginia, the royalty from
West Virginia, Mrs. Capito.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will get
nowhere, anyway.
I appreciate your leadership on the committee, and I have
been honored to be on the committee now for 12 years. But I
wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Nick
Rahall, from West Virginia. He served honorably and with long
tenure and with a lot of distinction over his 38 years in
Congress; most notably on this committee.
His legacy in West Virginia will be long and strong. The
Rahall Institute of Transportation I think shows his passion
for all areas of transportation and it is a growing, vibrant,
economic development driver in our State, and I appreciate that
for him.
One of the things that I have always admired about Nick, is
that he has a wonderful turn of phrase. If you have ever heard
him argue a point, or read his press releases, or heard him try
to convince you to his way of thinking, he is very, very
clever, and very humorous at the same time. So I have always
enjoyed that Nick about your--except when it is aimed at me
maybe but--never aimed at me, but in any event, I thank you for
everything you have done for me, and with me, and for our
beloved State of West Virginia. You have been a fighter for
West Virginia through and through and I appreciate it. Thank
you.
Mr. Rahall. If the gentlelady would yield I appreciate your
kind comments, Senator-elect, and congratulations to you, and
we will always be working for the future of our great State and
this country. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Any other Members wish to be heard?
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I just very briefly want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your very kind words, and also thank you for the
leadership that you have provided to this committee.
My fondest hope as I leave the Congress is that the way in
which this committee has conducted its business will come to
characterize the way the Congress as a whole conducts its
business. I fear that may be a distant hope, but it is very
much my hope.
I also have greatly enjoyed and benefitted from working
with Ranking Member Rahall. I have learned a great deal about
how to do my job from watching how he does his.
And to all of my colleagues on this committee, to Chairman
Gibbs with whom we worked very closely on the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment, I have enjoyed my service. I
have cherished my time on this committee, and I wish you all
the very best in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you Mr. Bishop.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well I have been on this committee my entire tenure in
Congress and my first term, the chairman of the subcommittee
on--I can't even remember--oh, you were then on resources;
mines and mining. Nick came into my district for a very
interesting hearing. I won't go into the story right now, but I
told him the story the day after election day and even got him
to laugh. I will miss Nick a lot.
Jim Zoia, who I think has been with Nick almost the whole
time, if not the entire time, I have good stories about Jim,
too, back in the days when we used to do earmarks which we need
to bring back, and how we promoted them with Jim in one bill.
And Tim, it may not have helped as much in your district,
although I know you have got some coasts, but in my district I
bragged on water the entire election. Did better on the coast
than I have done in years. That shows transportation
investments are important to the American people and
bipartisan. So thank you for that great work.
And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you, and to all of our departing
Members, we wish you well. Just had an incredible run in my
short tenure as chairman and ranking member. Of course, we all
remember working with Mr. Transportation, Jim Oberstar, who we
did a lot of positive things with, first, reauthorization of
passenger rail, and 11 years, the first WRDA, a record number;
$24 billion, which we actually overwrote President Bush's veto
quietly when Jim went into the hospital.
But with Mr. Rahall, I found out where Beckley, West
Virginia, was with our first, very first transportation hearing
on the reauthorization. Some things couldn't be accomplished
when one party had the House, Senate, and the White House. And
I know we had some rough and tumble, but we did accomplish for
the American people a record number of pieces of legislation.
So I thank him for his service, and all of the departing
Members for their service. We have an important responsibility
in building a Nation's infrastructure, and I intend to work
with everyone to make certain that we keep that obligation.
I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman.
With that, we will go on to our panel now. Thank you for
indulging us.
Our panel today consists of the Honorable Calvin Scovel
III, inspector general for the Department of Transportation;
Governor John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable.
Captain Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association,
International; Mr. Mark Baker, president and CEO of the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Mr. Nick Calio,
president and CEO of Airlines for America; and Paul Rinaldi,
president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
Thank you all for being here.
And before I let you start, Mr. Larsen wants to be
recognized for a UC.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record a letter from Congress Member
Yvette Clarke regarding issues that she has around LaGuardia.
Mr. Shuster. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shuster. And with that, we will recognize first General
Scovel 5 minutes for your opening statement. Proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. JOHN ENGLER, PRESIDENT,
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE, AND FORMER GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN; CAPTAIN
LEE MOAK, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
INTERNATIONAL; MARK BAKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIRCRAFT OWNERS
AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; NICHOLAS E. CALIO, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AIRLINES FOR AMERICA; AND PAUL RINALDI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall,
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
on FAA's efforts to modernize the National Airspace System.
As you know, FAA has undergone considerable change after
Congress granted several important reform authorities. FAA is
also in the midst of a multibillion-dollar effort to improve
the efficiency of its air traffic system through NextGen. My
testimony today will highlight several challenges that we have
identified through our ongoing and recently completed audits
faced by FAA as it tries to meet its modernization and reform
goals.
First, while FAA has instituted a number of important
reforms such as establishing the Air Traffic Organization, it
has yet to fully adopt sound management practices, such as
using metrics and goals to assess productivity. Without such
practices, FAA's reforms will have little effect on slowing
cost growth or improving operational efficiency. We determined
that between fiscal years 1996 and 2012, FAA's total budget,
operations budget, and personnel compensation and benefits
costs nearly doubled in nominal terms with inflation accounting
for only part of this increase.
Further, FAA's workforce remained relatively constant
during this period, while FAA's air traffic operations dropped
20 percent between fiscal years 1998 and 2012.
Second, FAA's acquisition reforms have fallen short in
improving the delivery of new technologies and capabilities.
When FAA implemented a new acquisition management system in
1996, its stated goal was to cut acquisition costs by 20
percent and schedules by 50 percent within 3 years. Yet,
between 1996 and the establishment of the ATO in 2004,
acquisitions averaged 38 percent over budget, and 25 percent
behind schedule, consistent with FAA's prior performance.
Moreover, of the 15 major acquisitions that were ongoing as
of last year, which totaled $16 billion, 8 included cost
increases amounting to $4.9 billion, and 8 experienced delays
ranging from 6 months to as much as 15 years. Now, most of
these overruns are attributable to two problem-plagued
programs. But even factoring them out, the remaining programs
are still $539 million over budget, and behind schedule by an
average of 25 months.
FAA's cost overruns, delays, and poor performance on these
major acquisitions are traceable to longstanding management
weaknesses in identifying requirements, estimating software
complexity, leveraging sound contracting practices, and
securing reliable cost and schedule estimates.
For example, during the award phase of its ATCOTS contract,
a support service contract to improve air traffic controller
training, FAA found that there was a 60- to 80-percent
likelihood that the contract would not meet its goals due to
the limited staff hours proposed by the successful bidder.
However, FAA did not require the contractor to address this
risk before awarding the contract, leading to a cost increase
of 30 percent in the first 2 years of the contract.
As FAA works to better meet the goals of its reforms and
modernization efforts, it faces additional challenges. Key
among these is FAA's work to implement four NextGen investment
priorities identified by a joint industry-agency committee,
including performance-based navigation, which our office also
has identified as the top priority. FAA published its master
implementation plan for these priorities last month. However,
executing the plan and holding all parties accountable could be
difficult, especially given FAA's history of schedule slippages
and cost overruns with NextGen programs.
Adding to these complexities, FAA faces the demanding task
of safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems into U.S.
airspace. The rapidly accelerating demand for UAS presents
important economic and technological opportunities for our
Nation. However, before commercial UAS can safely operate in
U.S. airspace, FAA must first reach consensus with industry on
design and safety standards, establish necessary rules and
regulations, and collect and analyze UAS safety data to better
understand and mitigate risk.
Finally, recent incidents involving fires at Chicago area
air traffic control facilities demonstrate the importance of
ensuring that FAA has controls in place to mitigate potential
security risks and viable business continuity plans to maintain
operation of the Nation's extensive air traffic control system.
Ultimately, FAA's actions to implement the reform
authorities Congress granted almost two decades ago have not
achieved the results the agency and this committee seek. We
remain committed to working with FAA to help it succeed in
meeting ongoing challenges highlighted today.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am
happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
committee may have.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, General.
And now we before we go to Governor Engler, it is fitting
that he has a fitting introduction because of the star power
that he brings to the panel today.
So with that I yield to Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank you for providing the
sound effects of the whistle in the room when we are talking
about aviation. So you think of everything. We appreciate that.
But, it is my great honor to introduce Governor John Engler
from the great State of Michigan. As many of you know, I served
as Michigan Secretary of State for 8 years before I came to the
Congress, and I had that honor and privilege of serving with
Governor Engler at that time. And if I can be a bit parochial,
I certainly think he was one of my State's most successful
Governors, and I think one of the Nation's successful Governors
on all kinds of issues. But he really left a legacy in the
transportation area as well.
And so very fitting as we are talking about transportation
today in our aviation system that he is here. We have Detroit
Metropolitan Airport, of course, in southeast Michigan, one of
our Nation's, one of the world's busiest airports. And during
his tenure his last year, I think, as Governor, he put together
an authority that really cleaned up a lot of things that needed
to be cleaned up at our airport. And today, if any of the
millions of you go through that airport, you will see what a
fantastic facility it is because he recognized how important
aviation is as a critical link and component of our aviation
transportation grid.
And so, as the president of the Business Roundtable with
his vision and commitment taking it to a national level, we
certainly appreciate his attendance here today. Governor.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mrs. Miller, and with that, I just
remind our panelists, pull that mic close to you because that
whistle is pretty annoying and it is difficult to hear
sometimes.
So with that, Governor Engler you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Engler. Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, thank
you Congresswoman Miller. Thank you for your wonderful comments
to the committee.
I deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify on aviation
and air traffic control as Congress begins work on
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
And I am certainly pleased to speak on behalf of the
Business Roundtable that is more than 200 CEOs of major U.S.
corporations. From Kitty Hawk to the end of the 20th century
the United States was considered the world's leader in
aviation. Today our air traffic system remains the world's
largest and safest. But sadly, as the chairman noted in his
opening comments, it is no longer the most technologically
advantaged, and it may no longer be the world's most cost-
effective.
The Business Roundtable recently conducted an analysis that
applied Canadian rates for air traffic control services to U.S.
flight data. Preliminary results suggest that in aggregate, the
Canadians are delivering services at a lower cost than the FAA.
At a minimum, the next FAA authorization should seek to
reaffirm and regain U.S. aviation leadership by fostering a
more modern, efficient system, starting with air traffic
control.
Such a modernized system would produce significant benefits
for all air travellers including the huge numbers who are
traveling on business. Advanced technologies and procedures
will enable more planes to land and take off safely on existing
runways, reducing delays. More direct routes also equal shorter
flights and more efficient operations with notable savings in
staffing and fuel. Emissions and noise pollution would fall.
With the modernized systems overseas sale of technologies
developed and deployed in the United States would expand,
reasserting U.S. aviation leadership. Like many other
stakeholders, business leaders are concerned about the slow and
uncertain pace of the modernization effort represented by the
FAA's NextGen program.
Numerous official reports document costs overruns--we just
heard some of those from my colleague, General Scovel--delayed
implementation of systems and led stakeholders to question
whether we have the best model, not just for delivering
NextGen, but also for the ongoing management and modernization
of what used to be the world's most advanced air traffic
control system.
A few years ago I convened experts who identified
challenges to aviation and they found problems start with
funding unpredictable, unreliable, often inadequate funding
streams are doing damage to long-term planning investment. Last
year's sequestration with its furloughs of controllers and near
shutdown of 149 contract towers is only the worst example.
The second underlying problem, governance, the Air Traffic
Organization answers to way too many disparate interests,
agencies, and administrators.
The third underlying problem is organizational culture. The
culture needs to embrace innovation so modernization occurs
continuously as technology advances. For an example of culture
of innovation that works, look at AT&T. It happens to be the
company chaired by my boss at the Business Roundtable, Randall
Stephenson. The years we have been talking about NextGen, AT&T
has gone through at least two generations of cellular
technology, from powering your basic flip phone to 4G streaming
video in today's modern iPhones that most of us have in our
pocket.
The last two decades have seen other countries restructure
the way air traffic control is funded and governed. Australia,
Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom have been among the early
movers. These Governors determined that an air traffic control
is a high-tech service business that can be funded directly by
aviation users, in effect, the customers. More than 50
countries have separated their air traffic control systems from
their transport ministries, leading to arm's length regulations
of air safety. In the U.S. the FAA's own management advisory
council recently studied the same issues. Their final report in
January of 2014 made three unanimous recommendations.
First, remove all air traffic control funding from the
Federal budget so that aviation users would pay directly for
air traffic control services and allow that revenue stream to
be bonded.
Second, create a governing board of aviation stakeholders,
not just to advise on technology decisions, but to actually set
the priorities for management and modernization.
Third, separate the operation of the air traffic control
systems from the FAA safety regulator. This will establish
independent arms-length safety regulation, the kind that
currently applies to all the other actors in U.S. aviation.
These three unanimous recommendations were made by experts
like Paul Rinaldi, who you will hear from in a moment, and they
are an excellent starting point for FAA reauthorization.
Finally, it is important that the financial and business
model for any new structure be sound, fully discussed, and
broadly supported; hence, the appreciation for today's hearing.
Next year's FAA reauthorization offers a critically important
opportunity to advance NextGen, to restore our leadership in
aviation, and to put management in the national airspace on a
path to continuous modernization.
Business Roundtable looks forward to working with you to
achieve these important goals.
Mr. Chairman, I have a more complete statement for
submission to the record and appreciate the opportunity to do
that.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Engler. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. And next Captain Lee Moak, the president of
the Air Line Pilots Association, International. Captain Moak,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moak. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and
members of the committee, I am Captain Lee Moak, president of
the Air Line Pilots Association, International. Thank you for
the opportunity to represent ALPA's 51,000 members who fly for
30 passenger and all cargo airlines in the United States and
Canada, before the committee today.
When it comes to issues of modernizing the airspace in the
United States, contrary to what you are hearing previously, I
am very happy to report that we are on the verge of becoming a
success story and one that you can help us write. We have made
considerable progress during very turbulent times, in spite of
dealing with issues like sequestration and operating under 23
short-term extensions.
NextGen is a collaborative initiative involving industry,
Government, and key users, including airline pilots and
controllers, and technicians. The various system components
they save time, fuel, emissions, and money while increasing
safety, and I want to underscore that, while increasing safety.
There is no question that our Nation's airspace needs an
overhaul to prepare for the influx of passengers projected to
arrive in our terminals and the continued growth of the cargo
industry. And there is no question there is room for growth in
our aviation industry. I would say that we agree on 95 percent
of how to achieve that growth, but the 5 percent we disagree on
lies in how to pay for it, and who pays for it. That is the
real issue, a lack of commitment when it comes to dedicated
Federal resources now to a problem we know is only going to get
worse.
We need leadership to set us on a path for continued
infrastructure expansion, and airspace modernization so that we
can better serve our customers, and maintain our position as
the world leader in aviation.
Continuing the recent tradition of kicking the can down the
road will result in failure and like many of you in this room,
I hate failure. ALPA believes that this committee can fill that
leadership role, ensuring that FAA can count on the
sustainable, long-term funding needed to get the job done
right.
However, for the aviation industry to succeed, this funding
must come from a source that is separated from the constant
jeopardy inherent in the reauthorization process. We simply
cannot put the future of our Nation's airspace in the cross
hairs of DC politics. After all, we are updating the largest,
most complex, and safest air transportation system in the
world, and that requires everyone to be all in.
And up until this point, that hasn't been the case. Several
years ago airlines invested approximately $100,000 per aircraft
to install Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications Equipment,
CPDLC, only for the FAA to cut funding for the program because
the Congress couldn't support it. That put our airlines out
millions of dollars and left them with useless equipment on
aircraft. In fact, some of that--some of those airplanes are
now getting parked in the desert with equipment that was never
used. If our airlines invest in new equipment on our airliners,
they have to see a return on investment; not a different plan
from a different administration.
Aviation industry stakeholders want to see that return on
investment to pilots, controllers, airlines. We all want to
operate in the 21st century; not the 1950s infrastructure we
are trying to replace.
While the current air traffic control system isn't perfect,
performance-wise it is still one of the best in the world and
it is consistently pumping out 97 percent capacity through the
system. And in fact, I would caution that the current
operational performance and costs of the U.S. system may not
warrant an immediate need for a complete overhaul; namely,
creating a standalone air traffic service provider similar to
the NAV CANADA model which I have up here showing you a scale
of that model. Pilots will continue to operate safely under any
ATC structure.
Again, I would, however, respectfully offer the NAV CANADA
model needs a thorough investigation before anyone jumps to the
conclusion that it is the answer here in the United States.
And as I mentioned earlier, the U.S. national airspace is
by far the largest, most complex airspace system in the world.
The NAV CANADA model might not translate well to the U.S.
system because it only covers roughly a quarter of the airspace
and flights we manage. That is our east coast alone.
And so if you see the issue here, what has worked well and
seems completely manageable in Canada, might not even scale to
our system's needs. We all know that our system has room to
improve, but structural changes to the governance of the Air
Traffic Organization will not serve the fundamental problems
facing our industry. We first need to debate about reliable
funding.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard you say many times before,
America invented aviation. We are the global leader. If we want
to hold this position, we cannot allow Government policies,
either through laws, regulations, or taxes, to put us at a
competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world. We already
pay 17 unique taxes, the most of any industry. I know you
understand that, Mr. Chairman, because you introduced and
passed legislation to make those 17 taxes more transparent to
the traveling public.
We thank you for that, but we all know that there is more
work to do out of those 17 taxes. Some don't even go back to
aviation. I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues here that
are sitting on the panel when we say that we are fed up for the
aviation industry being the piggy bank for Government programs
that have nothing to do with aviation.
And finally, that is why I am asking you to invest in the
U.S. aviation industry. I am here to underscore that the Air
Line Pilots Association is committed to working together to
make the tough choices necessary to ensure our aviation system
remains the best, the safest system on the planet, and with
your leadership, sir, stable funding can be held and we will
move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Captain Moak and all I
can say is amen.
With that, Mr. Baker, the president and CEO of the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association.
Mr. Baker, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baker. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall,
committee members, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
My name is Mark Baker and I am the president and CEO of the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and AOPA represents our
members as aircraft owners and private pilots concerning the
economy, safety, utility, and popularity of flight in general
aviation aircraft.
Mr. Shuster. Will pull your mic up closer to you?
Mr. Baker. This one here? This one is not working.
Mr. Shuster. Captain Moak, can you shift over there.
Mr. Moak. Happy to work together.
Mr. Shuster. OK. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Baker. The general aviation industry is under stress
and needs the FAA to enact policies and procedures that will
support GA growth. Over the past decade, the number of private
pilots has fallen by more than 6,000 each year. In addition,
today's GA fleet is on average more than 40 years old. The
number of single-engine piston-powered aircraft being produced
in the U.S. has fallen dramatically, from more than 14,000
produced in 1978 to just 674 in 2013. Many of the stressors on
the industry are compounded by outdated FAA processes that are
costly and cumbersome.
A long-term reform-minded FAA reauthorization measure is
needed. As the committee develops a multiyear FAA
reauthorization, we encourage the inclusion of provisions that
will give the FAA the direction and the tools needed to improve
its internal processes. The regulatory and certification
processes used today may have been needed 30 or 40 years ago,
but they simply cannot keep pace with today's rapid changes and
improvements in technology. Changing these processes in ways
that lower costs, reduce bureaucracy, and improve safety will
help general aviation grow. These should be our collective
goals.
I would like to provide three examples of areas that we
believe require a different approach from the FAA: medical
reform, aircraft certification and retrofit, and the FAA's ADS-
B 2020 mandates.
The third-class medical reform is long overdue. Nearly 3
years ago, AOPA and others filed a petition requesting an
expansion of the sport pilot medical standard, a standard that
the FAA had put in place more than a decade ago. This standard
allows sport pilots to fly without obtaining a third-class
medical exam, which is a cursory medical check that is less
comprehensive than an annual physical.
The sport pilot typically flies small, light general
aviation aircraft that are limited to two seats. The FAA's
decision to eliminate the third-class medical for these pilots
was the correct one. Over the past decade, it has not had a
discernible impact on safety and has helped grow the sport
pilot segment of general aviation. A conservative estimate
indicates that expanding this standard would save private
pilots in excess of $24 million a year to each one of these
pilot groups.
Today, other than sport pilots, all general aviation pilots
under the age of 40 must take a medical exam every 5 years.
Pilots over the age of 40 need an exam every 2 years. In
between exams, pilots self-certify their own fitness to fly. In
addition, every 2 years pilots are required to undergo a flight
review with an FAA certified flight instructor who must
determine a pilot's cognitive ability to fly.
Again, we believe the 10 years of experience we have with
the sport pilot standard demonstrates that it should be
expanded to a larger segment of general aviation pilots.
The FAA and the Department of Transportation are currently
reviewing a proposed rule. In addition, legislation has been
introduced by both the House and the Senate. The bills combined
have nearly 180 bipartisan cosponsors, many of whom serve on
this panel. We thank you for your vigorous support. Expanding
this standard to more pilots is a top priority for AOPA. We
look forward to working with this committee in the next
Congress on this issue.
Certification and regulatory reform are also urgently
needed. Since 2008, the aviation industry and FAA have been
working to streamline and simplify part 23 certification
standards for the manufacture and modification of new aircraft.
To that end, this committee shepherded the Small Airplane
Revitalization Act through Congress, and the bill was signed
into law last year.
To fully realize the benefits of increased safety and
reduced certification costs, the regulations, orders, and
policies for retrofitting existing aircraft with new equipment
must also be streamlined and transformed. These realities are
highlighted by the fact that the general aviation fleet
averages more than 40 years old and most aircraft rely on
decades-old technology. Widespread availability of modern
equipment can make flying much easier, safer, less expensive,
and give the industry a much needed boost at every level.
While the FAA's desire to create a ``gold standard'' for
safety is admirable, in practice, this approach has the
opposite effect. Allowing products that offer incremental
safety improvements to reach the market more quickly would
lower costs, simplify flying, and ultimately improve the safety
for folks flying today and into the future.
The FAA's ADS-B mandate is too expensive. The FAA has set a
standard of January 1, 2020, for aircraft to have ADS-B Out
equipment in order to keep flying in airspace near large cities
and airports. However, the mandate standards were designed for
commercial airliners and the resulting equipment is just too
costly for GA owners.
More than 81,000 of the 188,000 certified piston-powered
aircraft on the FAA registry are worth $40,000 or less, and
those aircraft have a weighted average value of about $25,800.
That puts the $5,000 to $6,000 minimum cost to install ADS-B
Out beyond the reach of many owners.
Without changes, we will see these airplanes parked in
fields or reduced to limited flying, further accelerating
general aviation losses and seriously damaging the thousands of
small aviation businesses nationwide.
We believe that technological advances in portable,
noncertified equipment could point to a strategy that would
lower the cost of compliance with the FAA's mandate. We look
forward to working closely with the FAA and industry to make
low-cost solutions available so all segments of general
aviation can participate in a modernized air traffic system.
In conclusion, we believe the future of general aviation
depends on bold and transformational reforms in the
certification and regulatory processes at both the FAA and DOT.
We do not believe the FAA has a funding problem. In fact, this
committee and Congress have funded the FAA generously,
increasing the FAA's budget by more than 500 percent since
1980, even though the number of agency employees has decreased.
The system of funding the FAA through excise taxes
collected on fuel, rather than a user-fee system, has proven
both efficient and effective. And the FAA's nearly $16 billion
budget gives the agency sufficient resources to make needed
changes in the way it oversees general aviation. The challenge
facing the FAA is to use those resources to meet the needs of
stakeholders and improve efficiencies.
We need the FAA to embrace a system that can keep up with
rapidly changing technology; that is comfortable with timely,
economical, and incremental safety improvements; and that will
actually work to reduce risk today for hundreds of thousands of
general aviation pilots. When pilots, industry, and the FAA
work together, we see positive results for general aviation.
On behalf of AOPA's members, we appreciate your leadership
on these important issues. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Baker.
And now I will turn to Mr. Nicholas Calio, president and
CEO of Airlines for America. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Calio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Airlines for
American and its members appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this hearing on the operation and modernization
of our Nation's airspace system.
The issues surrounding modernizing and operating our
system, are critical of the future of U.S. aviation, and the
future growth of our economy. At stake are whether you and your
constituents can get to your destinations faster, smarter, and
in a more environmentally friendly way.
Mr. Shuster. Nick, can you get closer to the mic, I am
sorry.
Mr. Calio. I am already standing up, Mr. Chairman.
At stake is whether you and your constituents can get to
destinations faster, smarter, and more efficiently. Aviation is
5 percent of our gross domestic product. The question before
this committee is really pretty simple. Can we move people and
products in a more efficient manner with a more modern system?
There seems to be a little disagreement that we can do so.
Three Federal commissions and reams and reams of testimony,
congressional testimony, as well as multiple speeches by
multiple stakeholders over a year all agree to the point.
So the question becomes: How do we get that system and what
does it look like? Here, the clarity of the goal starts to get
complicated. Its achievement starts to get complicated. While
Chairman Shuster, you have called for transformational change,
and we agree with it, different stakeholders have differing
interests. And my guess is that this committee is going to have
significant resistance to any kind of significant potential
changes.
An undeniable record of missteps, cost overruns and
equipage investments gone bad exists, and has been detailed
before this committee. It has been detailed by GAO reports, by
the inspector general and others. Some of that record as well
as some particular airline disappointments are detailed in our
written testimony, and I commend that testimony to you.
So the record begs a series of questions that need to be
asked in light of the historic opportunity that this
reauthorization bill presents. Does the United States have the
best governance and funding structure in place to deliver the
most efficient, modern air traffic control system? Have the ATC
models used by other countries enhanced safety and efficiency,
and if so, can their best attributes be applied to our system
here without it adversely impacting safety?
If yes, would the adoption actually improve our system
which is a key question, obviously, and if so, at what cost and
to whom? Asking these questions is not a criticism of the
current FAA leadership. They have been advancing the ball.
However, it is simply a need to ask and examine these questions
given the checkered history of progress and, frankly, the
stakes were simply maintaining the status quo.
A4A has an open mind on these questions. To that end, we
have engaged independent aviation experts to create a fact base
and see if the facts lead us to any kind of conclusions. Our
study is benchmarked in the financial, operational, and
governance performance of USATC system against models used by
other countries. It is evaluating the risks and opportunities
for specific elements of reform on the U.S. system and
developing USATC options, highlighting the benefits
economically and implications for NextGen, as well as potential
governments' impact of reform. The work is incomplete, but some
basic observations are emerging.
First, the difficulties U.S. modernization efforts have
encountered in the past seem to consistently come back to
Government structure and funding questions.
Next, the commercialized ATC model present three
alternatives to consider represented by, for example, the
United Kingdom which has a public-private partnership, and NAV
CANADA already spoken to, which is a completely independent
commercial corporation, and then Germany, which is an
independent, Government-owned corporation.
All three models engage airspace users in a--in
decisionmaking to a greater and more structured degree than we
do here. All three models have improved safety and efficiency.
And all three systems--all three models have implemented long-
term modernization programs pretty smoothly.
The bottom line, we have a good aviation system. We have
the best pilots. We have the best air traffic controllers.
Frankly, we can do better. It is clear that we don't need
another Federal Commission On this issue. What we do need is
for the Congress and all major stakeholders to keep an open
mind and take a clinical, fact-based approach to looking at
possible solutions, including the models in other countries.
If we determine that significant reforms are not necessary
or, frankly, are not politically achievable, then we still need
to examine what we can do about the bottlenecks and
difficulties and obstacles in the current system and admit that
we might just find some answers outside the U.S. and apply them
here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And, now, we will turn to Mr. Paul
Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association. You're recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Rinaldi.
Mr. Rinaldi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify in front of the committee today is truly an honor.
We all have a stake in the National Airspace System. It is an
economic engine. It contributes $1.5 trillion to our gross
domestic product every year and provides 12 million American
jobs. NATCA appreciates the committee for its outreach in the
industry in order to better understand the issues/problems in
which--in the National Airspace System.
This committee is doing it the right way. Identify the
problems and then collectively, we can develop the right
solution. But we must make something clear. Any change we make
needs to be accomplished with the precision-like approach so
that we don't interrupt the day-to-day operation of the
National Airspace System.
Currently, we run the largest, safest, most efficient, most
complex, most diverse airspace system in the world. Our system
is incomparable, unequaled, and unrivaled by any country in the
world. The United States airspace system and the FAA is
considered the gold standard in the world aviation industry.
And, yet, we come to a reality, we need to change.
The globalization and innovation are driving dramatic
changes in the aviation industry. Our current system has served
us well to this point. However, we face many challenges in
responding to the problems of an unstable budget, the inability
to finance long-term projects, competing stakeholders'
interest, the inability to grow the National Airspace System
for new users, and legislative priorities. Every stakeholder in
the National Airspace System should work together to ensure
that the United States continues to be the world leader.
Without change, we face continued funding uncertainty. We
all remember the disruptions that we experienced in 2013 with
sequester. In March, the FAA scaled down all modernization
projects. They looked at closing 238 air traffic control
towers, and they tried to close 149 of them. They tried to
reduce services across many airports in this country. They
stopped ATC hiring for the full year, which is still causing a
rippling problem today. They furloughed air traffic
controllers, causing rippling delays through our system. They
went to a fix-on-fail maintenance philosophy and stopped
stockpiling critical parts for essential equipment, all to meet
the budget restrictions of sequester.
Currently, the FAA is working on what reductions they need
to do, starting in October of next year as sequester comes back
into effect. This just can't happen again. This is no way to
treat this economic engine and no way to treat our National
Airspace System.
You see, without change, we will continue to struggle to
develop, train, implement the NextGen initiatives. Currently,
NATCA and the FAA are working collaboratively, along with other
stakeholders on the NextGen Advisory Committee. We are
implementing and modernizing projects and deploying new
equipment procedure across the country. In order to keep pace
with these initiatives, we need to be properly funded, and the
FAA needs to be adequately staffed, which can only happen with
a stable, predictable funding system. We will continue to
struggle to maintain--without a change, we will continue to
struggle to maintain proper resources and staffing for our air
traffic control facilities.
The air traffic controllers are the backbone to the
National Airspace System. We should never short-staff our
facilities. The air traffic controllers maintain a safe,
orderly flow of aircraft across this country.
In addition to that, they are the subject matter experts
that help us develop, implement, and train the NextGen
initiatives. And they train on-the-job training for every new
hire that comes into the system. This requires us to be
appropriately staffed. An understaffed facility can barely keep
all the positions open to run the day-to-day operations safely
and efficiently. Nevertheless, they are going to have to train
our controllers on new NextGen technology and equipment.
Understaffing our facilities will delay modernization projects,
and we will be responsible for the overcost runs.
Mr. Chairman, our National Airspace System is an American
treasure. We cannot treat it like we did in 2013. Aviation is
uniquely an American tradition. We need to make changes to
secure a stable funding system, a proper governance so that we
can continue to be the world leader, which will allow us to
grow the aviation system and not shrink it. It will allow us to
integrate new users, such as the UAV community and commercial
airspace programs properly. And it will give us the competitive
edge to continue to be the world leader in aviation.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in
front of you today. I look forward to answering any questions
you may have or the committee may have. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Rinaldi. Thank all of
you for being here today.
We have a number of Members that are in the queue for
questions. Our practice, on the Republican side, whenever the
gavel goes down, if you are here when the gavel goes down, you
get first in the queue. Because there are so many Members, I am
going to forego my questioning until the end and I will, first
of all, yield 5 minutes to Mr. LoBiondo, and I will be brutal
with the gavel in the 5-minute rule. Because if everybody shows
up, we are going to be here for a long, long time.
So, Mr. LoBiondo, 5 minutes.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want you to
be brutal with me. Thank the panel for being here.
I think most of you know that Rick Larsen and myself have
really focused in on NextGen and the implementation and how
this is all coming together. So what I would like to know,
starting with you Mr. Scovel, we tasked the FAA with creating a
joint industry and FAA implementation plan to begin delivering
short-term NextGen benefits to our airspace and its users. In
October, we received a copy of that plan. Can you tell us what
you think of the NAC priorities for NextGen and the FAA's
implementation plan to address this?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. Certainly, we are
aware of the NAC's recommendations to FAA and FAA's plan in
October. And as you may remember, this committee has tasked my
office to review FAA's plans for moving NextGen forward,
especially in the near term. So FAA's commitment to the NAC
recommendations has been vitally important, and we are greatly
encouraged by those. As the committee knows, from reading the
NAC report and FAA's response, the NAC recommended a greater
commitment to performance-based navigation, which our office
has endorsed for a long time now; a commitment to surface
operations so that aircraft on the ground can move around the
airport surface in a more efficient and effective manner; as
well as DataComm, which FAA anticipates to implement in 2019.
So those are the three main recommendations from the NAC which
FAA has endorsed and has begun to move out on.
We would put an asterisk for the committee's consideration
next to performance-based navigation. This has been a priority
for the airline industry for a long time. It is one that will
allow them to move their aircraft in an efficient way and will
provide fuel savings as well. But FAA has had problems in
developing those procedures and getting them certified. So if
those problems with delays in the past were to continue in the
future, the objectives for near-term success, according to the
NAC's priorities, may not be realized.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Calio, same question.
Mr. Calio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the--I
would agree, performance-based navigation has been one of our
key priorities. We helped develop the priorities that the NAC
suggested. We think they are critical. The whole point of them
is to move to some near-term benefits so that the stakeholders
can see some benefit from investments that have to be made.
Some of it is going painfully slowly, despite best efforts.
PBN is a key there. We have moved very slowly. We are going
basically city by city, metroplex by metroplex, with not a lot
of--showing for it. A lot has to do with the procedures being
developed. We have--you know, we have the equipment on the
aircraft to do it. But the process--or the procedures to get
those planes to use it is not really happening very quickly.
And there is a whole variety of reasons, some of which are
detailed in our written testimony. It is a matter of us being
able to fly, a matter of the controllers being able to use them
in different places.
So if we are going to do it, it has got to be more scalable
across the country, otherwise we are just going to take years
and years to get it to work. Meanwhile, we have got other
technologies that are being mandated that are not harmonized
with others for which the cost benefit has not been reviewed.
So PBN would be the quickest way to get quick results.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Rinaldi, sorry you only have a minute,
but I would like your take on this one, too.
Mr. Rinaldi. We were part of the NAC initiatives. We--we
agree with the initiatives. I will tell you, you know, changing
major airspace and flows in and out of metroplex is not an easy
task. It is not something we can just develop in the--in a, you
know, sterile room and roll it out. It has to be tested and
developed and continued tested with pilots and then tweaked.
You know, once we implement it, we have to go back and retest
it and making sure we are capturing the efficiencies we want to
do. It is not an easy thing to do. It sounds like an easy thing
to do but certainly not.
The one thing that will slow us down is the unstable
funding. You know, the second we have to fall back and we don't
have the funding to continue these initiatives, we stop all
modernization projects and we just focus on running the day-to-
day operation, the safe and efficient flow of airplanes.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. And Chairman Shuster is going to
make sure we have stable funding.
Mr. Shuster. That is correct.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. With your help, Mr. LoBiondo. With that, I
recognize Ranking Member Larsen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rinaldi, you discussed some of the--you have discussed
some of the discussion about ATO reform and so on. What
reservations would the air traffic controllers have regarding a
change in the Air Traffic Organization?
Mr. Rinaldi. Obviously, any time you make any change to a
system that is as large as this and is as efficient as we are
at this point, we don't want to disrupt the day-to-day
operation. And we can't lose focus that currently we are
running the world's safest, largest, most complex, most diverse
system in the world.
So the changes that--if we were going to make changes, we
have to be very precision-like, do it very methodically to
ensure that we do not interrupt the safe and orderly flow of
airplanes in the United States.
Mr. Larsen. Well, Captain Moak, a similar question. You
laid out some broad principles about your concerns. What
specific thing--do you have specific items you would like to
help us understand with regard to separating air traffic
functions out from the FAA?
Mr. Moak. Just a couple of things. First off, you know, we
are having a----
Mr. Larsen. Get closer to the mic.
Mr. Moak. We--you know, this is kind of a high-class
problem in the United States. If you read the papers and you
catch the news, you know they are having accidents all over the
world. But in the United States, we have the safest airspace in
the world. But we don't stop there. We want to improve that. We
want it to be more efficient. We want to save fuel. And there
is other things we want to do, but we are doing that with the
idea that we have the safest airspace in the world with what
was said earlier, best controllers, best pilots, best
procedures.
So the idea that we are just going to go to another system,
OK, I think we should take pause there and think through it.
Now, the current system is performing quite well operationally.
Our airlines have been through consolidation over the last few
years. They are performing quite well. And so it gives us the
ability to step back, look at it, modernize it. That is
important, very important. And all you have to do is look at
the DOT Bureau of Transportation statistics. And now when they
report out of different metrics for the airline industry, they
are much improved.
On the issues of PBN, we can do better. The controllers are
trained. The pilots are trained. The airlines that Nick
represents are equipped, and we have just got to keep at it.
And it is--it is difficult to bring each one online, but when
it is brought online, it is truly remarkable.
So I would say proceed cautiously with throwing everything
out. And, again, I want to underscore the whole thing about
stable funding going forward.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Thanks.
Mr. Calio, you are doing a report. Mr. Engler--Governor
Engler mentioned a report. MITRE is doing a report. You
mentioned all the reports that have been done, a lot of
reports. It seems to me that the timing of these, if we are
going to be moving forward in any way, shape, or form, whether
it is a larger reform or even management reforms or individual
reforms, things have to come to a head pretty quickly if we are
going to be moving forward here by the end of--by September
2015.
So I am hearing a tapping. That is not you, Mr. Chairman?
Thank you very much. You are just inpatient. It got--generally.
Have you thought through the timing for us?
Mr. Calio. Yes. Yes, we have. We will be done shortly and
we will be in to brief you. We know that you need the material.
And we--from our perspective, in order to develop a position,
we need to know what the facts are. And again, we are trying to
do it in a dispassionate fashion so that we can take a look at
our system. We are not suggesting going ahead with major
changes. What we are trying to do is see if they would be
worthwhile, whether they can be made and if they can, what the
impact would be.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. OK. Thanks.
And, Governor Engler, have you all, in the BRT, thought
through that flip-the-switch moment, that is, when you move
from one model to the next model as you are thinking through
the ideas that you are presenting here?
Mr. Engler. Well, I think that is part of the--part of the
conversation. And, clearly, even under congressional mandate,
there have been changes in the--you know, in the creation of a
chief operating officer responsibility of the ATO itself. There
have been iterations coming along. So I certainly would echo
the comments made, the safest, largest, don't--don't mess with
the way it works. But you do have a challenge, I think, inside
FAA that we have heard a lot about--from other stakeholders,
about you sort of got this technical buildout proposition. And
I mentioned the idea of, you know, our focus on funding. That
is very important. And the key decisions to be made, even the
role--one of the weaknesses we have known in the Federal budget
for a long time, the lack of a capital budgeting process. And
so the--the attractiveness may be being able to bond this, get
this, fund it, and get it built out without financial
interruption. Let that happen.
At the same time, there is a tremendous amount of work
inside the FAA in the modernization of procedures and practices
and the kind of training and vetting that has been discussed
here today. So it seems to me there is plenty of work for
everyone. That flip-the-switch moment, I think, is not so much
a disruptive thing. I think it is a transition that takes
place. So I think that takes time, and I don't think it is
anything abrupt and certainly can't be anything that disrupts
the functioning of what has worked well.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman.
With that, I recognize Mr. Massie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baker, from your written and spoken testimony, it is my
understanding that you are saying that the FAA's approval
process could be making general aviation more risky or less
safe. And can you explain how that is? I mean what needs to
change about the approval process? Is it taking too long to get
technological improvements integrated into general aviation
industry?
Mr. Baker. Yeah. That is exactly right.
The idea that you have an aircraft that is 40 years old is
the equivalent of having your car with an AM radio. The
certification process to put an FM radio in there could take
years, millions and millions of dollars. And the industry is
saying it costs too much, it takes too long, and is not willing
to put those upgraded products in these aircraft.
Situational awareness in the aircraft is still the number
one issue that leads to accidents. Today, the iPad has added
more value to situational awareness than almost anything else.
But if you were to try and install that type of equipment on an
aircraft today, it would take millions and millions of dollars
to try and do that for the industry, and it would take years to
get it done. So there should be an expedited process, because
we have experimental aircraft today--they have great
autopilots, great gas gauges, great situational awareness, and
it is done at a very low cost. So the systems have moved very
quickly, and the FAA has not moved in that process yet. For
example, in the new aircraft today, it costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars, but you can get it done.
Mr. Massie. So they need to be moving quicker. Is there
anything in this FAA reauthorization that we could do in
Congress to encourage that?
Mr. Baker. Yeah. We think that there could be an
opportunity to put some of these older aircraft into a legacy
program or classic program to try and get some of these things
expedited, these safety items, not changing the power plant and
not changing the wing, but putting a good panel in some of
these older aircraft, make it safer, make it easier for people
to access the airspace. It could be done.
Mr. Massie. So while we are on the topic of technological
improvements, the ADS-B adoption in general aviation, what does
it cost? What is the least costly entry point for somebody in
general aviation to become compliant with the 2020 standard?
Mr. Baker. So for the ADS-B Out, which gives the pilot in
the cockpit no information--it doesn't give you any traffic or
weather information, it just pings out, is about $5,000 to
$6,000 is what we hear, installed today, on the aircraft that
many are worth less than $25,000.
Mr. Massie. So it is over 20 percent of the cost----
Mr. Baker. That's correct.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. Of the aircraft as represented.
Mr. Baker. You get no advantage.
Mr. Massie. So is it reasonable to expect some of these are
going to be parked in hangars or boneyards and pilots who are
pilots now aren't going to be flying because of this?
Mr. Baker. That is the risk.
Mr. Massie. So there needs to be a lower cost solution.
What is your organization doing to promote this lower cost
solution?
Mr. Baker. We are currently working with GAMA, General
Aviation Manufacturers Association, and the FAA to say, is
there some other type of portable device that could be
recognized? Now, remember, the iPad wasn't even invented when
ADS-B came out. Is there some type of portable, lower cost
device that could be like our cell phone that is pinging out at
an adequate level for these small general aviation airplanes?
Remember, the ADS-B certification calls for 9 feet of
accuracy--do we really need that for a little two-passenger
airplane?
Mr. Massie. Got you.
General Scovel, while we are on the subject of technology
here, the FAA seems to be behind on issuing rulings on drones
and integrating, I mean, UAS, UAV whatever we want to call
them, integrating them into the airspace. How far behind are
they right now?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you. They are behind, and they are behind
the mandates established by Congress in the last
reauthorization from 2012.
Mr. Massie. So when we write this authorization, we should
say ``We really mean it this time.''
Mr. Scovel. Well, yes. Absolutely. And it would certainly
help everybody if the agency listened.
FAA was slow in designating its test sites. Six of them
were finally designated, pursuant to the congressional mandate.
But we have found that the agency's plans to develop data and
to learn from the results that accrue from operations at these
test sites have not been prepared to the agency's satisfaction
and certainly not to the needs of the burgeoning industry. This
also includes gathering safety data from UAS users currently in
the system and from the Department of Defense. FAA has a lot to
learn, a long way to go yet.
Mr. Massie. Well, I wish they were here today to defend
themselves or to give me an answer to the next question. But in
your estimation, when do you think they will give us some
rules? I had a constituent--on behalf of a constituent, I sent
a letter to the FAA 3 months ago just asking them to point me
to the rules or what rules exist, and I still don't have a
response to that letter. But when do you think they might come
up with some rules? They are spending the money, I understand.
Mr. Scovel. Yes. The so-called small UAS rule has been
promised by the end of this year. I am not sure what kind of
UAS your constituent may be interested in operating. But if it
is a small UAS, I would say stay tuned, see what FAA can
produce by the end of this year.
Mr. Massie. Well, it sounds like--Mr. Baker kind of hinted
at an idea that could help us with drones. The accuracy, maybe
we could relax some of the rules for accuracy.
Yes, Captain Moak, would you like to speak on that point?
Mr. Moak. Yeah. There is one--one point, I think, that is
being missed here. OK. In commercial aviation, OK, to keep it
safe and keep our customers, our passengers safe, we need to
know where all the planes are.
I am confident, working with Mark and AOPA, that we are
going to be able to achieve that. But on the points that are
made down here, I think, I couldn't disagree more with the
analysis coming up.
We have to be using the same principles, a certification of
the aircraft, the remote piloted aircraft, the drone, the
operator, and the people that are operating them as we do for
airlines so that we have the same safety.
Mr. Massie. My time has expired. But let me--let me agree
with you.
Mr. Moak. All right. We have to follow the same.
Mr. Massie. Look, I--having no rules doesn't benefit the
air traffic----
Mr. Moak. Exactly.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. Controllers, the commercial
pilots, the general aviation pilots. Everybody is put at risk
when there are no rules because the rest of the world is
leaving us behind and you have commercial entities who are
being encouraged or they encourage themselves to break the
rules that don't exist. And you hear anecdotal stories of near
collisions and whatnot. So I think it is incumbent upon us to
get these rules so that everybody benefits.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Massie.
And with that, I recognize Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps a few observations I would like the panel to think
about: First off, you know, the biggest problem relates to
budgets, money sequestration, all of that. This year, 83
percent of all FAA operating and acquisitions is being paid for
out of the trust fund. So you could look at it and say, well,
we have got a 17-percent problem. If the trust fund can cover
100 percent, we make it mandatory spending, then, we are going
to have these stupid issues with shutdowns and sequestration
and all those sorts of things in the future. That would help a
great deal.
Secondly, I really want people to recommend improvements to
FAA procurement. They are worse than the Pentagon. Now, how do
we fix that? You know, it is always a moving target. We never
get them to end up at a point with something that is going to
work, too many change orders. I would like people to think
about that.
We have a dispute over ADS-B In and Out schedules. We have
a ground system, we have a mandate. Europe has a mandate. They
have no ground system. Why can't we harmonize those things two
things and say Europe and the United States ought to move
together. We have already worked on harmonizing the
electronics. Why can't we harmonize the schedule for adoption
so that there will be real benefits to people, both in Europe
and the United States of America? I don't know why. I would
love to hear more--more about that.
And then, you know, on air traffic control, I--granted, a
lot of my information is somewhat dated, but I went through a
vigorous debate when I was ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Aviation with Mr. Mica in 2006 on this issue, and I didn't
find that there was a safer system in the world. In fact, just
before we had that debate, we had a mid-air collision which
killed people in Europe because they were understaffed, and the
one person on duty was off somewhere doing something. You know,
that is--that is an issue.
Secondly, when I looked at the productivity issues, we are
virtually identical with Canada. And, you know, so, again, I
think making major changes there is a steep slope. And we--but
I am willing to have a thoughtful discussion about that.
And, now, I will actually get to a question, which will be
directed principally to Mr. Rinaldi. You know we have got to
staff up. We are going to have a lot of retirements. Other
policies are forcing even more people to consider early outs.
And I read in your testimony--and, again, this is a question,
what is with the FAA? Why do you take people who have just
graduated from the Academy and send them to the highest level
facilities and, basically, engender a high failure rate? And
what is the--what could the rationale or advantage be? And do
you think really we could have more retention and better
trained controllers if we change that?
Mr. Rinaldi. Great question. And the simple answer is yes.
We could have a better system and retain controllers if we--can
you hear me?
Mr. DeFazio. It cut off.
Mr. Rinaldi. How about now? Can you hear me now?
How is this? No. All mics.
Mr. Shuster. I don't have any power? Do I have power?
Mr. DeFazio. I have power. I got power. Do you know? Good.
All right.
Mr. Rinaldi. Hello.
Mr. DeFazio. There you go. All right.
Mr. Rinaldi. OK. It is a great question. And, yes, we could
retain more controllers if we sent them to the lower level
facilities and let them develop and hone their skills, than to
send them to the large, busy, complex TRACONs that we have. Our
busy TRACONs are struggling with staffing right now, because it
has been an FAA way to take it somebody freshly new out of the
academy and then send them to an Atlanta, a New York, or a
Chicago and, you know, within, you know, 6 to 8 months, they
are unsuccessful and they send them to lower level facilities.
We have tried working with the agency for about 2 years now
to develop a real process to develop to move the controllers at
a lower level facilities where they are honing and developing
their skills so they can maintain the ability to do it at a
high level, like, a New York or Atlanta or Chicago.
We are not there yet. It is--you know, we call it ``FAA
speed'' sometimes. We should have been done with this about a
year ago because the new hires that are coming out of the
academy----
Mr. DeFazio. What--what is so hard about it?
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, you are going to have to ask them what
is so hard about it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right.
Mr. Rinaldi. We have some ideas. It was a drawn-out
process. And we thought that--well, we thought we had a good
plan and it is just--it is taking a very long time to implement
it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Rinaldi. But I--You know, when you--when you take
somebody straight out of academy and you send them to a busy
TRACON, they are not--they don't have the training program to
teach them from--from zero----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. No. I have sat there. I have watched
those screens. I couldn't do it. I mean, I wouldn't even begin
to think I could do it.
Mr. Calio, do you want to respond to the idea about why not
have harmonization in terms of the schedule with Europe on ADS-
B? Would that eliminate some of the concerns of the airlines?
Mr. Calio. It would not eliminate all of our concerns. This
is a classic case of the FAA embracing the standard before they
have reviewed the cost benefits of it and made the business
case for it. As I said during my earlier testimony, we have
made a lot of investments. We have equipment on the airplanes
we can't use now. Now it is mandated that we get more
equipment; and we don't know how it will work, whether the
standards will change, whether the equipment will change. So
harmonization is one part of it, but actually making it work
and making sure there is a business case to be made for it is
critical. And if you go back through all the cost overruns and
all the failures and hiccups here, that is pretty consistently
one of the problems. So it has got to be part of the process of
how you get to where you are, where you're just going to say,
``OK. Use this equipment and I will use this equipment.''
Mr. DeFazio. Back to the procurement issue.
And, Mr. Rinaldi, I mean, as I understand ADS-B, we are
going to get--do you think it is really critical that we have
updates in real-time, as opposed to every 7 or 8 seconds? Is
this going to make--which is what I understand. Because you
already have transponders.
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, the information--more accurate
information and more timely information, especially in the
interim environment where you can get, you know, constant en
route update of airplanes moving at a very high speed is very,
very valuable. At the lower level activity, as Mr. Baker was
talking about, I am not sure that there really is a bang for
our buck there, so to speak.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Thank you. My time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Graves is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And the first question is for Inspector General Scovel. In
your recent ADS-B audit report, how many commercial and general
aviation aircraft are going to be affected by the--you know,
with the update?
Mr. Scovel. Thanks, Mr. Graves. By our account--and it is
an estimate--220,000 general aviation aircraft are subject to
the mandate. About 18,000 commercial aircraft as well.
Mr. Graves. Does that include the entire existing--existing
fleet?
Mr. Scovel. Virtually. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves. Is the number changed or do you anticipate them
changing any?
Mr. Scovel. Oh, certainly. They will move up and down. But
we believe that, between now and 2020, those numbers will hold
generally firm. And that is the problem, which some of my
fellow witnesses have spoken to. It is the ability of the
manufacturing industry to produce the equipment. It is the
ability of FAA to get the equipment certified. It is simply
time and space for aircraft owners to get their planes into
repair facilities and repair stations so that those avionics
boxes can be installed on the aircraft. It is a tough row to
hoe between now and 2020.
Mr. Graves. My next question is probably for Mr. Rinaldi,
and I also want to hear from the airlines, too. But we have a
situation--you know, one of the things that NextGen has always
promised us was lower costs and it is going to save us money in
the long run and we can eliminate the outdated system, which is
obviously, you know, passing radar or radar overall. But we all
know, too, that if--with ADS-B----
[Inaudible.]
Mr. Graves. There we are. You can go invisible if you want
to, if you pull that circuit breaker, with ADS-B and you have
no way of tracking that plane. And then you hear the argument,
too, well, we will just make the system permanent so it can
never be shut off. But we know, in an airplane, you don't want
to have a system that cannot be disabled if you have--
obviously, have an electrical failure or whatever the case may
be.
What worries me in this whole situation is, ultimately, we
are going to be operating two systems. So we are never going to
achieve any cost savings. And I would be very curious, you
know, what you think, Captain, and probably, Nick, you can
weigh in on that, too. And I would also like, Mr. Baker, if you
could, too, but go ahead.
Mr. Moak. So, look, we--we have a problem here and we are
going to be able to work through it on ADS-B implementation and
mandates. But let's be clear, ADS-B is revolutionary. It is
what we need. We probably needed it 5 years ago. You have less
separation. You can fly curved approaches. At 600 miles an
hour, you go a long way in 7 seconds. This is where we should
be going, and it is going to--it is going to help aviation
tremendously, OK.
So the--the few things we disagree on, what we need to do
to is be working together to address them. Cost is one of them,
we get it. But ADS-B is good for the airlines, it is good for
the air traffic controllers, it is good for our customers, it
is good all the way around. We just have to work through the
hiccups, not let those hiccups define the problem----
Mr. Graves. And I would like to address----
Mr. Moak [continuing]. Define the situation.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. The safety aspects of it, though,
further. Again, are we going to operate two systems? Are we
going to have to operate two systems?
Mr. Moak. We--we do--we always do that. It is a transition
phase. From the NDB, which you have flown, sir--from the NDB to
the VOR to the tack end of the VOR for the military folks, we
normally have two systems. It is rarely you can ever have a
light switch on this.
And, again, that is part of--that is part of this
transformative issue. It is not in 1 day. It is over a little
piece of time, so----
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Mr. Moak. And you will have cost savings when you are fully
implemented.
Mr. Graves. I will go ahead and hear from Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. You know the concern that we have, with general
aviation airplanes, is the cost related to the benefit. And
this is just to get ADS-B Out. ADS-B In, which we think can be
advantageous to have some better weather in the cockpit when
using some other type of tablet device or some other device,
would be a benefit. And having traffic inside the cockpit, we
see as a long-term benefit. It is simply how long will it take
to get the benefit?
And I do think you are right, Mr. Graves, that we are going
to be operating two systems for a long time. And that was a big
part of the initiative to save money here. So part of the cost-
benefit for the Government, I think, is probably not accurate
today.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Calio.
Mr. Calio. You know, I should have stated early on that we
believe that ADS-B is the cornerstone of NextGen. There are
issues that I have laid out and that Captain Moak addressed
that we need to work through with the FAA. The call-to-action
meeting they had earlier--I guess it was last month now--was a
good start, but there are still those issues that have to be
resolved in order to achieve any cost savings, increased safety
down the line.
And in terms of two systems, yes. As Captain Moak said, we
always do. But once we get past all that, we will have a much
better system, assuming we can work out the problems.
Mr. Graves. And, Mr. Rinaldi. I know my time has expired,
but I would like to hear from you on this.
Mr. Rinaldi. I think that you are always going to have two
systems. To think that we are going to shut down a radar system
in this country after the tragic events of 9/11 and that
somebody will be able to shut off their ADS-B transponder and
that we won't be able to track airplanes. And I think that, you
know, ADS-B is--shows tremendous amount of value. But we can--
we have to have necessary redundancy of our radar system, also.
Mr. Graves. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Mr. Capuano is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I am about to get on a plane for the fifth time
in 9 days. I just want to make sure it is safe, right? We are
good?
Mr. Rinaldi. Yes. And thank you.
Mr. Moak. Yes.
Mr. Capuano. Yeah. We are paying for it. I have been
listening to this. I don't think I have heard almost anything I
disagree with, as far as where we want to go. You know, we have
a good system. We have to make it better. That is natural. That
is American. That is good. That is a good progress.
I get a little problem, though. Everything I know that I
want to make better about myself and my family and everything,
costs money. Somebody has to pay for it. And we--I think I
heard everybody in agreement that we are short on funds. But I
am not sure that I heard anybody say where we should get those
funds. So does anybody have any suggestions, because I would
like to hear them?
Yes, Captain.
Mr. Moak. I have one thing I want to say. We do need to
give the FAA, or encourage the FAA, or structure the FAA to be
able to use private enterprise business principles when they
are putting in an infrastructure program like this.
You know, to have them doing what they are doing with one
armed tied behind their back and criticizing them----
Mr. Capuano. I hear--I understand that, and I appreciate
that, Captain.
Mr. Moak. But that saves--that save money and that reduces
the funding gap which----
Mr. Capuano. Well, I need a little more explanation than
that. I love those generic terms that business can do
everything better than anybody else. And they sound good, and
they really fit on a bumper sticker, and they are good on
political commercials. I am not sure what you mean by that.
What are the political--I mean, I read, you know, Mr.
Engler--Governor Engler's testimony, and I agree with him. AT&T
has, in his example, rightfully improved their business model.
It cost them a fortune to do it. It costs a lot of money to go
from middle tape system to a new 4G system. Somebody had to pay
for it. In AT&T's case, it was some shareholders, but mostly
expanding their business footprint and charging me more, which
is fine. That is America and that is the way it works.
How are we going to expand our footprint with more people
flying and how are we going to charge them more and keep them
flying? Because if we don't do that, even private businesses
have to make money? It is all well and good. If you are telling
me there is that much waste in the FAA, I would love to hear
where. And I am not saying there isn't. But show me the
numbers.
Mr. Moak. No. But----
Mr. Capuano. Generic statements are fine, but I need
numbers.
Mr. Moak. Congressman, we are happy to provide it for you
from the Air Line Pilots Association, working with A4A and BRT.
OK.
But stabilized funding, in a funding shortfall, it is a
little different. You can't be working up and then, all of a
sudden, have all funds shut down on an----
Mr. Capuano. Captain, I agree with you. I voted against the
sequester.
Mr. Moak. All right.
Mr. Capuano. So you are talking to the wrong guy. I think
there are some other people here you got to talk to.
Mr. Moak. All right. Well, I didn't mean it like that. But
I also want to point out that occasionally some of these cell
phones, not to name any names, still drop calls, despite the
infrastructure improvements they put in.
Mr. Capuano. Well, they are trying to improve, too. But as
they improve----
Mr. Moak. Right.
Mr. Capuano [continuing]. It is costing them money. All I
am saying is, we want to get NextGen and all the other things
we are talking--somebody has to pay for it. It is either going
to be taxpayers directly, or it is going to be people who use
airplanes, the customer. Who else? Who else is going to do?
And if it is the customer, let's not pretend that by us,
the Government, saying that we are going to expend money and
simply have somebody else charge you for it, that that is not a
tax. It is. I am not against that, but I don't want to kid
myself. If Government takes action and costs somebody money,
that is either a direct or an indirect tax. Call it whatever
you want. And that includes, if you raise the cost of my
airplane ticket because a private company is now running it, it
is no longer a tax. Now, it is just business cost. Well, that
is kind of what we do.
So who is going to pay for this? And I am all for it. And,
by the way, I guess it is pretty appropriate that I am on the
far left of this panel. I am not afraid of that. But for me,
honesty is more important than anything else. If we are going
to keep up and improve, someone has to pay for it.
Are any of you willing to say that someone should pay for
it? And I am particularly interested, are you willing to say
somebody other than somebody else should pay for it?
Mr. Moak. Well, I will say----
Mr. Capuano. Are you willing to help pay for it?
Mr. Engler. Well, in fact, let me take a shot at it, Mr.
Chairman. A little bit of clarity on this from the perspective
maybe of some of our CEOs. One, just--just in doing the
buildout, if--I believe the Federal Government ought to have a
captain budget process, so I--and that is something pretty much
every State has. I worked for that as a Governor in Michigan.
Mr. Capuano. I am in. I am in.
Mr. Engler. Companies have that. And the way you do a big
CAPEX project, which is what NextGen is, at least in terms of
technology, you would go out and say, what is the--so there
is--we are going to use this system for a lot of years. So
you--you do a bond issue. You would get the money there and,
then, you would go out and carefully invest that money, and
in--in your--you wouldn't try and go--and Captain Moak just
touched on that--you can't stop and start. That is expensive.
Mr. Capuano. Governor, I am a former mayor. I am all for
capital----
Mr. Engler. So I have got some money because I am going to
do a better job more efficiently of spending, my money on the
project. We heard the testimony from General Scovel about
overruns, and Mr. DeFazio talked about acquisition. We can do
that better. There is more money to be saved there. But, bottom
line, there is also, as you heard, an array of multiple
different taxes that are being collected.
We are suggesting that there is a way, among the
stakeholders, to look at that, look at what other nations have
done. Are there ways to make that an equitable outcome? Of
course you have to pay for it. And we, as the flying public,
Members of Congress who fly more than most in the public, you
pay every time you fly.
And what we are saying is, can we economize the dollar you
are paying to make it go and get a dollar's worth of value, not
85 cents.
Mr. Capuano. I am all for that. But in the final analysis,
we are going to need more money to keep it up--to catch up now.
Mr. Engler. Yes.
Mr. Capuano. And if it is a capital bond, fine. But when we
are finished with NextGen, there will be something else.
Drones are the next thing coming. I know, at some point,
drones are going to be, you know, delivering my Chinese food. I
know that. But I also know another thing, I know Captain Moak
and his people need to see those drones and we are going to
have to come up with a system that will allow you to do it and
that is going to cost money, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for indulging me.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, gentlemen.
With that, I recognize Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this important hearing on reauthorization, having been
through several of them.
Probably one of my main concerns is our lack of progress on
NextGen. First bill we--that I helped author, we worked on it--
in the last bill, we worked on it. And, unfortunately, I think
NextGen is either in the stall or reverse, and that is not
acceptable.
Inspector General Scovel, is the lack of funding, has that
been the major problem in not moving forward with NextGen?
Mr. Scovel. From our work, Mr. Mica, we don't think a lack
of funding has been a problem. Certainly, the timing perhaps of
that funding, the steady stream of funding. But I think that is
different from a lack of funding.
In fact, in the past, the Congress has been generous even
exceeding the administration's request specifically for
NextGen.
Mr. Mica. And I think that is the case. Well, somehow FAA
is not getting it together.
And the other thing, too, is, in order for NextGen to be
implemented, everybody here has to have some benefit by--the
airlines have to have a benefit; right? Mr. Calio?
Mr. Calio. Yes. Clearly. It is a point we have made over
and over.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Baker?
Mr. Baker. Yes. Need a benefit. We don't see it today.
Mr. Mica. And the pilots? Mr. Moak?
Mr. Moak. NextGen is the future. We need to keep moving
forward.
Mr. Mica. Governor, do you know anything in business that--
or business aviation that doesn't look for some benefit to--to
a new system or expenditures they are called on to make?
Mr. Engler. Absolutely.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Engler. We want to get rid of those holes.
Mr. Mica. Somehow there is a disconnect. I don't--I don't
think we are headed in the right direction. We have got to turn
this around. And, actually, everybody who is at the table--I
didn't get to you, Paul, or Mr. Rinaldi. Air traffic
controllers who use the system, it has to benefit them, too;
right?
Mr. Rinaldi. Absolutely.
Mr. Mica. Right. Right. I saw my late and the great staff
director, Mr. Coon, sitting back there texting, which I have
told him not to do during the hearing.
[Laughter.]
But he and I--I remember leaving aviation. We both sort of
wiped our forehead when I chaired that one. When I left as
chairman, we sort of wiped our forehead. And it was a sigh of
relief that there had been no major aircraft--passenger
aircraft--this is in large aircraft that we had had a disaster,
like the one we had in, was it, November of 2001 after 9/11.
Now, we did have small commuter and regional aircraft.
Mr.--the late Mr. Oberstar and I and others, we worked--Mr.
DeFazio isn't here--to do commuter safety, and we have done
good there.
But I am telling you guys, the clock is ticking. It is
going to happen. It can be an air traffic controller. It can be
a pilot error. There is no reason the United States should not
have the most advanced air traffic control system in the world,
and we do not have it.
Mr. Rinaldi, have you been to Canada?
Mr. Rinaldi. I have.
Mr. Mica. OK. Canada is about one-tenth our size, but
they--they have a system. They are already placing themselves--
they will have satellite capacity. We should be ahead of the
game on this thing. But maybe it is going to take a disaster to
wake people up to this. We cannot backslide on NextGen. So that
is just one point.
In the mean--did you want to comment?
Mr. Moak. Yes, sir. Congressman Mica, I also represent the
pilots of Canada. And although NAV CANADA is a system we should
be looking at, I just want to point out that I have also had to
represent pilots that have had major aircraft accidents up
there. And in this pay-to-play mode, we have to be mindful that
some of their airports in the northern part, they don't--under
that system, they don't have the most advanced systems. So----
Mr. Mica. But they are adopting to that faster than we are
and will still soon have that if they have that capability. And
it is placed from a satellite rather than a radar-based system.
So that is my point, is we have got to--we have got to stay
ahead of that game.
You don't want to pick anything that is outmoded as a
technology. What you want to have in place is the technology
that--that gives us the best coverage. And we will probably--as
was testified, we will probably always have to have the backup
systems because we have had and we want to maintain the safest.
But I am telling you, don't--we all need to gather again
together--maybe not Mr. Scovel--but this group here can make it
happen. We have got to pay for it, and some of it--it has been
mostly about an 80-20 proposition. I would like to see that
more self-paying. And I don't think there should be a war
between the airlines and the airports. We need the facilities.
Our airports need to be expanded across this country to be able
to accommodate the aircraft that we have coming into play.
So one last thing: Do you all find out who are
representatives to ICAO? Who is the Ambassador to ICAO?
Mr. Moak. Senator Lawson.
Mr. Mica. OK. OK. There should never be an air--ICAO,
International Civil Aviation Organization up in Montreal
controls all the rules, the international rules. There should
be--never be a passenger aircraft that takes off in the United
States or anywhere in the world--this sets the world
standards--that we don't know where that is. What happened with
Malaysia Air 370 should never happen. We should know where
every aircraft is.
It is the United States responsibility to take the lead in
the international organization. I want all of you to write the
Ambassador and say, ``We need to pass in ICAO a rule that no
passenger aircraft should ever be lost.'' OK. So that is one of
the larger pictures. This should never happen again.
Am I out of time?
Mr. Shuster. Yup.
Mr. Mica. Yeah, I have been out of time for some time.
Thank you. I will submit--just--just to be nice and not
embarrass anyone, I will submit the rest of the questions
later. I did want Mr. Baker to address the falling number of
single-engine piston-powered aircraft and number of pilots in
the United States.
Mr. Shuster. I believe he did that in his testimony.
Mr. Baker. Yes, I did.
Mr. Shuster. So we have got that in the record.
With that, Ms. Norton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me,
I have a cold.
I agree with Mr. Mica. In the present environment, it may
take a catastrophe to move this along. It is a good thing this
wasn't--this hearing wasn't called ``Progress on NextGen''
because you have had nothing but setbacks. And it is time you
were candid with the public and with this committee. It is
murder flying today. It is murder. Because more people are
trying to fly and you are having to be more and more cautious.
That is what we need to tell the American people.
I had high hopes for NextGen because of the economic
effects in our own country and because of what it means for our
place in the world. But you have operated within an environment
where--where you--you had to stop major NextGen programs where,
you know, the environment of 20,000-plus furloughs, half a
billion dollar cuts in operation, hiring freezes. You know--you
know, somebody needs to be candid here and--and tell the public
what I think the gravamen of your testimony is here.
Now, Captain Moak said, ``Proceed cautiously.'' God, I wish
we were proceeding at all. ``Proceed cautiously to a new
system.'' This 2020 date that was set some time ago is a
fiction. And what we need to tell the public, don't we, is that
they are going to have--we are going to be living with the
present system for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Scovel, you are an inspector general. You are--you are
supposed to tell the truth here. I mean, isn't that, in effect,
what the testimony amounts to today and what the present lack
of progress has meant?
Mr. Scovel. There are some very tight wickets to be run
between now and 2020.
Ms. Norton. Some very what?
Mr. Scovel. Tight wickets, in other words, for industry and
for FAA to get----
Ms. Norton. I am talking about on the public side.
Mr. Scovel. I am sorry. I misunderstood.
Ms. Norton. I am talking about on the public side. The
public side has to be a partner to whatever wickets the private
side is trying to run.
Mr. Scovel. Yes. And by public, if you mean the FAA and
what it must do in order to provide these enhanced air traffic
control services to our national airspace, absolutely.
Ms. Norton. So this is a system you got and what I am
asking you to do is to make the system we have got as safe as
you can. Because you really can't sit there with a straight
face and tell me and tell the American public that the way we
are going to get out of this is we are going to move to a new
system, you know, the system which has high hopes, less delays,
less environmental impacts, because we are not going to do that
any time soon.
Yes, sir, Captain Moak.
Mr. Moak. Just in case I--I gave the wrong impression: Our
system for our customers and for our pilots, for our
crewmembers is the safest system in the world.
Ms. Norton. OK. I am not questioning your safety.
Mr. Moak. It's very safe.
Ms. Norton. I am telling you this--look, I don't even have
to fly the way my colleagues do it. But when I do fly, I see
what is happening. I can't imagine what they see.
Mr. Moak. Right.
Ms. Norton. It is murder, because more and more people want
to fly in more and more crowded skies. I believe we have a safe
system. I know it, because you slow things down to make it
safe.
Mr. Moak. And the--the other thing I wanted to add on the
safe system is many of--NextGen is not defined by the 2020
mandate. It is not defined by ADS-B. NextGen is a work in
progress, and many of the benefits of NextGen have already come
online. And I think that is getting missed there. In fact, in
my----
Ms. Norton. Captain Moak, the FAA and nobody here is even
willing to give us a target date for when the--we could say we
have now made the transition and we have moved to NextGen.
Mr. Moak. Well, many here----
Ms. Norton. Isn't that the case?
Mr. Moak. Well, I would say----
Ms. Norton. I mean, for most programs--for most programs in
our country, we at least have a target date. And if you don't
have a target date, then it does seem to me your goal should be
to keep the system we have because that is a system we are
going to have for some time--Mr. Scovel didn't object to that
characterization, and to keep it as safe as it can with
whatever slow down, telling the public, ``Yes, there will be
slowdowns. But you have to understand that these slowdowns are
to keep you safe.'' It is better to have that kind of candor
than to have people being angry at the airports when you tell
them that they can't get someplace when--when we were supposed
to get someplace.
Now, I am not chastising the private sector. I know who is
to blame here. But I am saying, now that we know what the
atmosphere is like, be candid with the public so that the
public does not expect anything but slowdowns for the
foreseeable future.
If anybody objects to that, speak now or forever hold your
peace.
Mr. Moak. I--I can't let that stand like that, because, you
know, the on-time records, the improvements, the safety, that
is not a characteristic of our U.S. aviation system. We are
working. It is never going to be a finite date that everything
is done because it will be constantly improving all along.
The nuance problems we are working through here as a team,
we will always work through them. So I would say it was a
mischaracterization of the U.S. airline industry.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman. The lady's time has
expired.
I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask a
question.
I think it is pretty apparent that the process doesn't work
like it should. We obviously have the safest airspace in the
world--the biggest, largest airspace in the world. But when you
look at Mr. Engler's example of AT&T and you can look at i--or
Apple, in the last 7 years, they have had eight phones, eight
iterations.
We are now, at the FAA, spending $115 million on an--on an
information system, flight information system, that they are
projecting to be done in 2025. There will be probably 10 more
iPhones out before the FAA gets there. And those are the kind
of things that is it is just apparent the process is broken,
when you look back over the last 3 decades in the 10, 11
different pieces of legislation and Executive orders that said,
``Let's get this done.'' And I am sure that--you know, as
Michael Huerta, who I think has done some good over at the FAA.
But if you look back, I am sure you are going to find every FAA
Administrator saying, ``We are moving in the right direction.''
But, you know, they are moving at a snail's pace.
And so to Mr. Mica's point of view, we have got to get
these things up and running. And the process doesn't work. And
we all--I think, it is apparent that the money starting and
stopping is a huge problem.
So, Governor Engler, coming from--you all represent
businesses. But as a user, as somebody that looks at this and
needs this airspace, that needs this system to work efficiently
and with the benefit of how your company is operating in a
technology world, a new governance model, how do you envision
that working, not only from the process, but also from the
funding side? And I know you have talked about it a little
bit----
Mr. Engler. Sure.
Mr. Shuster [continuing]. But I won't interrupt you and I
will let you lay it all out.
Mr. Engler. Well, at least some of the thinking is to
examine these stakeholders, and many of us are at the table
here today. Others are not, but would--would want to be
included. And--and it really is a question of stakeholders
coming together.
And nobody has made any decisions on exactly how--what a
funding model would look like. That has always been a sticking
point in the past. I mean, that is when it gets hard, when you
start putting money. And that has been referenced here.
But, you know, one of the other Members was pressing us on
money. There is a lot of money in the system, and so--and there
is a recognition there still are airport needs out there. And
that--so this separating this out, that is one of the reasons
some of the work we have been doing is really trying to
understand what funding models might look like, what options
might be there, but not trying to get into that conversation.
Because that really is--my sense has been, given the size of
the committee, the complexity of the issue, if you can't get
all the stakeholders together, we are not going to be able to
show up here and be very successful. So that is going to be
really, really important.
On the governance side, the same thing is true. The people
who are putting up the funds who have an interest in this
working, be they pilots, be they the controllers, be they
certainly the commercial airlines themselves, general aviation,
all will want a seat--need a seat at the table for that. There
is sort of a model that was used up in Canada in terms of
bringing the stakeholders together. Now, that--that really is
only on sort of building out the system, the things, the
technologies.
The other very key part of this never leaves the FAA, it is
the whole--the safety regulations there. And I made reference
to, you sort of have today the regulator, the decisionmaker on
the technologies designed to enhance safety also being the
decisionmaker on safety itself.
And so there is an inherent kind of conflict that exists,
if you will. And what works well, I think, is some separation.
The agency still has got all of the safety responsibility, plus
they have got all of the operational responsibilities which
are--I mean, these captains they have challenging jobs, because
they have got these manuals of technical specifications. You
have to comply with how you fly.
And the reason we are the safest in the world, if they
find, I don't know if there is a different way to deal with
wind shear, I mean, an edict goes out and pilots are almost
retrained instantly on that in the commercial space.
Controllers have a lot of technical things they are in charge
of, and the agency is way behind on some of this stuff. And,
frankly, an agency that was really focused laser-like on
getting caught up there, so that as new technology was
available and could be deployed, it would be an agency that
would be really working well.
So I actually think, in this case, kind of realigning these
responsibilities a little bit, so that everybody is doing what
they are best at doing, and picking up the pace, we get to a
better place for the Nation's air traffic system.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Governor. And I think you made a
good point there, which is maybe we need to be looking at all
of these other different systems around the world and how they
do things. The one number from NAV CAN that just actually
jumped off the page at me was that we are nine times the size
of the Canadian airspace. We spend 20 times as much in CAPEX as
they do. And from what I have seen, and Chairman Mica has been
up there, and their technology has advanced ours, and they are
spending a lot less money getting technology and getting it out
there quicker. So I think that is something that, you know, we
need to put up there and pay attention to.
With that, I will yield 5 minutes to Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a new member of
the committee, I have to say, this is one of the rare areas
when I came on the committee 2 years ago, when I said oh, my
God, this is a triple win. If we get NextGen right, we are
helping with safety, we won't lose planes--which I was told we
don't lose planes, but now we know we do. It has happened, it
is better for the environment, and it is beer for communities.
We don't need to expand our runways as much.
We need to find a way to get this done. So it seems to me
there are two different issues: One is the funding and one is
the timing. The benefits don't really accrue until we have a
critical mass who have the equipment in place. So I think we
need to be looking at, Mr. Chairman, a carrot-and-stick model.
When we have the cost of borrowing near zero, we absolutely
need to find a way right now to do this with American
technology that sets the standard for the world.
And one way to do that is set a date certain by which all
equipment must be retrofitted, and there are heavy penalties
beyond that, and then you set together a funding corpus that
you borrow from. But anybody who wants to be the late one to
the table, to be the free rider, they are going to pay heavily.
And that seems to me a way to help engage the market and engage
Wall Street in setting out that money. The Federal Government
ought to partner, but we need to set a realistic timeframe and
a very heavy incentive to comply by that timeframe.
That will bring the cost of the technology down, and we
would get it done before 2025. This is ridiculous; we should
not have to wait that long. And clearly, we are going to need
more iterations. But we risk the real opportunity right now
that not only are we behind, but that other countries are going
to develop and sell the technology to the world and the
standard. And that is foolish. We should not do that.
Our citizens deserve the safety. Our communities deserve to
have cleaner air. It is better for the environment. We deserve
to not be chewing up land we do not need to, and we should get
this done faster. So if anyone would care to opine on whether
we think what kind of timeframe is realistic. If we could get
the money together to borrow from over time, what is the time
period by which realistically we could say, you have to
retrofit or have new equipment to meet this model?
Mr. Calio. Congresswoman, if you are suggesting that it
is--are you talking about the airline's need to retrofit?
Ms. Esty. Yes.
Mr. Calio. Well, I think here it is a very complicated
question, or more complicated question. We have deadlines. We
have had deadlines in the past. We have met the deadlines. We
have invested money. There is $6 billion in the trust fund
right now that is unallocated. We have the money, really. The
problem lies in the processes, and making sure that the
equipment works, and making sure that there is a return on the
investment for the equipment.
It is far more than that. I mean, just setting a deadline I
don't believe, with all due respect, is going to do anything.
We have a deadline for 2020 on ADS-B, and yet, we are not
harmonized with the world. The case hasn't been made that there
is going to be a return on investment for the people who are
being forced to invest in it. Meanwhile we are flying around on
aircraft, we have aircraft in our fleets that has equipment on
it that we can't use because the procedures are not in place to
use it. It is a very frustrating situation.
Ms. Esty. Well, then, one of those pieces that we could--to
realize the benefits--obviously, we are talking about sort of
these unrealized or unrecognized benefits. How do we
incorporate that into the system so that, in fact, they are
realized, or the incentive is there such that they do get
realized by those who currently find it not to be in their
interest?
Mr. Moak. So, Congresswoman, we are making progress. You
know, it doesn't lend itself in the time that we have here, but
if you go out to greener strides in Seattle, for example, they
concentrated on that. They brought it on line. It saves
emissions. It saves fuel. It is a safe operation. And they are
trying to replicate that all over the United States. The
Houston metroplex, they brought that on line. Great job there.
And again, I want to stress what I said earlier: The
airlines have trained the pilots; the controllers are trained;
we are working through procedures with the controllers; the
airlines have invested; and the FAA continues to work, but
again, private enterprise management principles applied in the
public sector with the FAA; stabilized and consistent funding;
all of those things allows them to do a better job. Right now
they are working with their hand tied behind their back, I
believe.
Mr. Engler. I think that your summation is excellent. I
mean, you say how do you kind of make these pieces and sequence
them to get them all to work. But there is a point in there
that you really touched on that deserves to be picked up a
little bit more, and that is on these procedures that Captain
Moak just referred, that Nick Calio just referred to, that one
of the recommendations of the Management Advisory Committee,
and this was unanimous recommendation, is give these
stakeholders more of a role in helping to prioritize what
procedures need to come when so that we can get those done,
because some are high value, high payoff, pretty quick return.
Others have a little bit longer tail. And I think that kind
of--this is what I think General Scovel will tell you about in
terms of performance management. I mean, normally all of us
would in our offices or in our enterprises, do it by order of
priority.
Mr. Shuster. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Mr. Meadows is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scovel, let me come to you because sitting in your
exact seat, we have had people before this committee with the
FAA, and both the Administrator, and the person in charge of
making sure that NextGen gets implemented. And when we asked
for deadlines, we asked for timeframes, I see sweat pop out on
their brow, and really, the plan to get it implemented, there
is not an answer. And you said it was a very tight wicket. I
made the analogy it is like getting a bowling ball through a
wicket.
And what degree of confidence on a scale of 1 to 10, with
10 being most confident, do you have in the FAA's ability to
implement most of this thing and meet the target deadlines that
have been reestablished? I might add, these are not the first
deadlines. These are multiple deadlines. On a scale of 1 to 10,
how confident are you, and would you place your job based on
that rating?
Mr. Scovel. Well, that is a tall order, sir. And when I
mentioned tight wickets, I was referring specifically to the
time between now and the mandate in 2020 for airspace users to
equip.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Scovel. ADS-B Out equipage. What happens after that is
anyone's guess.
Mr. Meadows. So we are going to invest billions of dollars
on anyone's game or guess?
Mr. Scovel. Yes, but I do agree with Captain Moak that it
is essential, it is necessary, and it is achievable. It is a
question of enough time and proper procedures.
Mr. Meadows. Well, it is achievable that I can run a
marathon, but it is not real likely that it is going to happen
in the near future, too. I mean, so from a timeframe
standpoint, when do the stakeholders start to get counting on
our timeframe so that they can make the proper investments? As
a business guy, it concerns me greatly that we are spending
millions and billions of dollars to have equipment and training
ready, and yet, we are not doing our part on the Federal
Government side.
Mr. Scovel. Well, let me just take the January 2020
mandate.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Scovel. Realizing everything that needs to be done
there in terms of automation platform renewal and
modernization, ERAM is supposed to be completed----
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Scovel [continuing]. In 2015, right? STARS is supposed
to be completed several years after that, DataComm is supposed
to be coming on in 2019, the need to develop procedures and
training for all of the controllers, the need for enough of the
fleet that is going to use the system to equip so that we can
have end-to-end testing. Without the end-to-end testing, we
can't be sure that it is going to operate as intended.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Scovel. And all of that by 2020?
Mr. Meadows. Scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest.
Mr. Scovel. I am less than 5. And I would say, probably, we
don't have until 4.5 years from now in order to judge. We may
have a year and a half, 2 years, because by the time the whole
thing comes out of service to equip, we won't have time to----
Mr. Meadows. That is right. So let me shift to Europe then,
because they are in the middle of an ATC modification as well,
and they are taking a different approach, which is saying make
sure that all of the stakeholders have all of the stuff, and
yet they are not going to make their deadlines either. So would
you say that our approach is better than their approach? It is
a softball.
Mr. Scovel. In terms of?
Mr. Meadows. In terms of ultimately getting what the
airline industry, and what air travellers need, is it a better
approach to make sure the stakeholders are equipped first, or
is it better that we do what we need to be doing on the part of
ground installation, et cetera?
Mr. Scovel. Well, the ground installation is done.
Mr. Meadows. Which one is better?
Mr. Scovel. That is about one-third of the equation.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Scovel. We still have a long way to go.
Mr. Meadows. In the training and other implementation.
Mr. Scovel. And the stakeholder----
Mr. Meadows. So is our process or Europe's process better?
I need you on the record to tell me which one is better.
Mr. Scovel. Oh, let's see. We are going to make ours work,
and it is going to be done right.
Mr. Meadows. So is ours better?
Mr. Scovel. For now, for us. We have to take into account
our stakeholders.
Mr. Meadows. It sounds like you are running for office.
That is a political answer.
Mr. Scovel. I am trying to avoid any kind of policy input
because I know that is the committee's----
Mr. Meadows. I am asking you that. I am asking you a direct
question. Would it be better that we get rid of the process we
are having and adopt theirs? OK.
Mr. Scovel. By process, are you referring specifically to
the----
Mr. Meadows. Well, their emphasis is more on the
stakeholders. I would assume that your answer is no.
Mr. Scovel. No. We have to have an emphasis on
stakeholders.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
And with that, Mr. Lipinski is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
I wanted to first ask Mr. Calio and Mr. Baker, we were
talking already about the issue with ADS-B Out and incentives
for installation of those. Let me ask specifically two things:
Would financial incentives be enough? And/or should there be a
greater use of best equipped, best served policy that the FAA
uses? What are your thoughts on those?
Mr. Calio. From our perspective, the airlines for America,
the best incentive would be to provide equipment and a process
by which we can employ the equipment and see a return on
investment that the cost would not outweigh any benefits.
Mr. Lipinski. OK. Nothing more specific than that, OK.
Mr. Baker.
I understand that.
Mr. Calio. We don't need a loan guarantee to invest in
equipment if we know the equipment is going to work, and that
we can use it and get our passengers to their destinations
faster and more efficiently and safely than we do right now.
Mr. Lipinski. OK. Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. For the general aviation marketplace, we are
open to anything that helps lower the cost for installation.
The general aviation marketplace has been under siege for years
and years, and we are driving, on average, 40-year-old
aircraft. So if there is a way to look at, you know, what are
the other choices between either a portable device, some type
of financial setup, anything that helps lower the cost for
general aviation, we would want to consider it.
Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Rinaldi, what are NATCA's thoughts on the
current best equipped, best served policy?
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, the FAA is not doing the best equipped,
best served. We are still on the first-come-first-serve, but
obviously, we are not going to you know, put a Cessna that is
flying at 110 knots in front of an Airbus 380 that is doing 170
on approach. We are going to move that Cessna out of the way
because it is safe and orderly. Best equipped, best served
would work. The problem really comes, Congressman, when it is
mixed equipage, and if we don't have a high number of aircraft
equipped, then we can have the greatest procedures in the
world, but we are going to have to reduce it to the lowest
common denominator to continue to run a safe and efficient
flow.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. I want to move on to another
issue. As many of you know, Midway Airport is in my district
and suffered from thousands of canceled flights after the fire
at the Aurora in or out center.
Mr. Rinaldi, I would like to express my appreciation for
your hard work at NATCA, and also my appreciation for what PASS
did, and the work you put into keeping our system running and
to get Aurora facility back in line. I know it was a 24/7
operation and years of work were completed in less than a
month, and I commend the collaborative, innovative, and
diligent effort that was undertaken to manage and remedy that
situation.
Mr. Rinaldi, I understand that NATCA, PASS, and the FAA
work collaboratively in a working group to identify
recommendations to keep systems on line, but there is still a
fix-or-fail strategy in place. I am interested to learn about
the status of these collaborative efforts, what recommendations
have been made, and whether you believe that the
recommendations will be adopted, and will finalizing NextGen
mitigate the effects of emergencies that may occur in the
future?
Mr. Rinaldi. Well, we were excited to participate with the
panel with the FAA and PASS and other stakeholders. It is still
in its infancy stage. We did put it all together, and it is in
the process of the review to go through the Department of
Transportation at this time.
Mr. Lipinski. And, additionally, looking specifically at
the--I know that the IG is still examining the security
protocols at the Chicago area facilities, but I am interested
in learning more about what we need to do for the system as a
whole. For instance, the fire suppression system at Aurora used
water to put out the fire. And while that did work to put out
the fire, I am wondering whether there is a need to look in all
alternative suppression systems that could effectively handle
fires to save lives without compromising the equipment? Are
there other fixes that can be made, Mr. Rinaldi, or Mr. Scovel,
if you have any answer on that one?
Mr. Rinaldi. Yeah, I believe the security panel in which we
also participated is looking at all options, and they are
making their recommendations and phoning them up.
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Lipinski, we will be looking at what the
agency's current plans are and also what they intend to proceed
with. So I can't at this point give you a definitive answer to
your question. But it clearly is a significant concern for the
agency going forward, and along with the safe integration of
UAS into the airspace, this will have huge ramifications for
the FAA.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
I think all our Members have questioned. I just want to
thank the--oops. I always forget you, Davis.
Mr. Davis. You know----
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Davis, I will give you 6 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. Thank you. You sit in the
chair, you give the guy a break, and I said I wasn't going to
give it back up but you see who actually gets the chair back,
and then he forgets me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. I have just used my extra minute too, Nick.
But I do want to start with Mr. Calio, and also give Mr.
Baker and Mr. Rinaldi a chance to answer this. I know you
touched on the edges of the $5 billion to $6 billion NextGen
investment that the GAO reported, but there is little
confidence, as I think we have seen and heard through testimony
in this hearing, among the stakeholders and FAA's ability to
implement NextGen. Where is that disconnect, and what return on
investment is the taxpayer seeing from that process? And Mr.
Calio, if you could just even expand a little bit more on what
you have already talked about on that issue, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Calio. Thank you. Congressman Davis, there are, as
Captain Moak pointed out, there are benefits that already being
realized. In certain areas we have put in place procedures
where planes can get in quicker and take off faster. More
clearly needs to be done though, the return on investment will
come, I think when the--or we think when the procedures or the
business processes as Captain Moak has referenced and Governor
Engler addressed are put in place.
Our problem is, the system as it is currently structured
and operated does not have, if you--the question came from, I
can't remember which Member--if you were making a capital
expenditure as a business, you would look at your return on
investment, your return on capital. You would have your process
laid out over long term. You know, you would approach it
probably incrementally, which has not always happened with the
FAA. You need those kind of business-like, private-sector
decisions. It is not a general knock on Government; it is just
that we have not been doing that. And we have seen the embrace
of technologies often that weren't ready, the standards set the
wrong ways, and with very little input with the stakeholders
most affected.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Calio.
Mr. Rinaldi.
Mr. Rinaldi. I think we have to look at some of the
successes we do have, and although the FAA, and maybe even
Congress doesn't even want to talk about transforming our
platforms, our en route modernization platforms and our
terminal platforms. The first things, they are the chassis in
which we are going to attach a lot of the NextGen technology
to, we are making progress with that. And we should be done
with the en route, what we would call ERAM, in 2015, and the
terminal automation, and STARS replacement by 2018.
Now, you have those on and then you can actually start
attaching the technology and the ADS-B, and the SWIM, the
information systems and start bringing them on line. You know,
my frustration is that we are still the safest and most
efficient, and we are working very hard and very
collaboratively to modernize the system, and we are doing it
piece by piece. We have revamped the whole State of Texas
airspace, basically. We did what we call OAPM, optimizing the
airspace in Houston. It is a huge success. The airlines are
seeing benefits from it. You know, optimization of departures
and arrivals. We now have rolled it out in north Texas also.
Texas is a big State. It is big airspace. A lot of airplanes.
So we did that. So now we have a playbook to move forward. It
is not a flip of the switch or a snap of the fingers. We still
have to continue the legacy system and run it as safe and
efficiently as possible while we are doing this.
Mr. Davis. All right, Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. Well, when we think about general aviation
aircraft, if it makes sense, people will adapt.
We think there is probably close to 80 or 90 percent of the
people today using some type of a GPS to move around and
navigate with, whether it be portable or panel-mounted. People
are starting to use a tablet, namely the iPad, in very
significant ways to get weather and traffic in the cockpit at
low altitudes. When there is a value, when people can see that
you are getting something significantly better with which to
fly the aircraft, people adapt.
We are just asking for this to be considered: what is the
lowest possible cost to do that so that we get that adaptation
across the system?
We are in favor of ADS-B where it makes sense. If we can
get weather and traffic in the cockpit, we will be better off.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony, you
raise the issue of safely integrating UAS into our airspace.
Many advanced economies from Australia to Canada, to even
France, have successfully integrated small UAVs into their
airspace. Canada has issued over 1,500 commercial approvals
compared to the FAA's 7. I mean, I think that shows that the
risk-based small UAS rules, that actually, we need to unlock
what I think would be rapid job creation. And the FAA partners
with its counterpart foreign agencies in countless ways. Has
the FAA reviewed other country's actions on small UAS and
leveraged those best practices in preparing the small UAS
rules?
Mr. Scovel. My office has done work, sir, on FAA's efforts
to safely integrate UAS into our airspace. I don't know whether
we have looked at FAA's review of other nations' procedures and
practices. I would be happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Davis. Would you please do that? I mean, in my district
it is a very rural district.
Mr. Scovel. Right.
Mr. Davis. We need to make sure we have some idea of what
type of possible commercial expansion in UAS technology we can
utilize here in this country, and I think when you look at a
1,500 commercial approvals in Canada versus seven here, there
might be something to be learned in what they have seen, and
how they have integrated that into our airspace, or their
airspace. So with that, I thank you for your questions--or
thank you for your responses, and I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman and my apologies for
overlooking him. I will never do that again.
Well, I want to thank everybody, especially our panelists
for being here today. The final word is, let me start off by
saying that I believe Administrator Huerta has done some
positive things down at the FAA, but as I mentioned earlier, I
think if you go back 30 years and every Administrator, you are
going to say, well, that person did some positive things, and
that person did some positive things. But as I look around
these five chairmen on these walls here, all for the last 25
years worked to pass legislation to reform, to change the FAA,
and you look back to 1992, Governor Baliles, who wrote a
report, 25 years ago, if you read that report, we are talking
about the same stuff.
And so I think we have an opportunity here to do something
different. The process doesn't work the way it should, and I
know we get a little bit here and a little bit there. The
funding is not there. And if you think Congress in this
environment that we are in today with the deficits, and the
debt that we have is going to be able to fix this, we are not
going to be able to.
So we need to look at something different, not only from
the process standpoint, but from the funding standpoint, a new
way forward. And we have to do it together. And right here is
the core group of folks that you represent that we have got to
sit down and we have got to figure out together. It is not
going to be Peter DeFazio and I saying this is what we are
going to do. I think if you looked over the last 1990s, and
2000s, President Clinton and President Bush both pretty much
hatched it in the back room and then got slaughtered when they
took it to the floor of the Senate or the House because they
didn't bring the stakeholders to the table.
And I really do believe there is a way forward for us, and
not everybody is going to get everything they want, but I think
we can get something that is going to improve the system
significantly, that is going to give us--today we have the
safest. We need the most efficient. Because if we don't, I
really truly believe, if we don't do something now, and I think
there is an opportunity for us, we are going to continue to
lose our lead in the world, and when it comes to aviation, and
you look back through history, and strewn with when America
didn't step up and do what is right to get out of the way of
business, we lost many, many industries.
So again, on my watch, I don't want that to happen. And I
am going to continue to work with Mr. DeFazio, and Members on
both sides of the aisle, and you, of course, the stakeholders,
to be able to craft something. And September is the due date,
so we need to strap on our helmet, and go to work and figure
out how to do this. So again, I thank everybody for being here.
It was a great hearing today. I appreciate it greatly. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]