[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN
AVIATION MANUFACTURING
=======================================================================
(115-2)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2017
__________
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
24-210 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida Columbia
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ROB WOODALL, Georgia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DOUG LaMALFA, California Georgia
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Dorenda Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA.................. 7
Alan H. Epstein, Ph.D., Vice President of Technology and
Environment, Pratt & Whitney................................... 7
John Hamilton, Vice President of Engineering, Boeing Commercial
Airplanes...................................................... 7
Michael Thacker, Senior Vice President of Engineering, Textron
Aviation....................................................... 7
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Margaret Gilligan................................................ 42
Alan H. Epstein, Ph.D............................................ 53
John Hamilton.................................................... 58
Michael Thacker.................................................. 60
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration, response to question for the
record from Hon. Andre Carson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana...................................... 52
Letter of February 14, 2017, from Chuck Wiplinger, President and
COO, Wipaire, Inc., to Hon. Jason Lewis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Minnesota, submitted by Hon. Lewis.. 69
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN
AVIATION MANUFACTURING
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will please
come to order. Thank you all for being here. I would like to
ask unanimous consent that Members that are not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
OK, without objection, so ordered.
Before I begin my statement, I would like to take a moment
to recognize that February 12th was the eighth anniversary of
the tragic crash of the Colgan flight 3407 that claimed the
lives of 50 people. This anniversary is a vivid reminder to all
of us that ensuring safety of our aviation system is and will
continue to be our top priority. I want to thank the Colgan
family members for their continued dedication and involvement
and advocacy.
Today the Aviation Subcommittee will hold its first hearing
of the 115th session of Congress. This hearing is also the
first in a series of hearings to prepare for the FAA
reauthorization bill. This Congress, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is looking to the future and how we
build a 21st-century infrastructure for America. With this in
mind, today the subcommittee will discuss the state of aviation
manufacturing, the challenges it faces, where it is heading in
the 21st century, and how we ensure the continued success of
this segment of the aviation infrastructure.
Aviation manufacturing is a critical sector of our Nation's
economy that contributes billions of dollars and supports
millions of good-paying American jobs. The United States has
always been the gold standard in aviation safety, as well as
the leader in aviation manufacturing. U.S. civil aircraft
manufacturing is a top net exporter, with U.S. aviation goods
being delivered throughout the world. However, recently, global
competition, as well as redundant, outdated, and inefficient
rules and regulatory processes have jeopardized that lead.
The FAA plays an important role in ensuring that all
aircraft and aircraft components made in the United States meet
specific design and production safety standards. This role is
absolutely critical to ensure that safety is never compromised.
It is the FAA Tech Center in my district in South Jersey that
all certification research is performed. The Tech Center is
finding more and more ways to improve airport designs and
procedures, as well as develop fire suppression capabilities
for aircraft.
Yet, the certification process has its problems. As
manufacturers design and build to meet those standards, they
can experience needless and harmful bureaucratic delays, both
internationally and domestically. These delays can be very
detrimental to U.S. manufacturers trying to compete globally
where every day of delay can mean real losses in both profits
and jobs.
As the aviation industry expands its international reach,
and introduces new technologies and innovations, it is critical
the FAA certification and regulatory process adapt and respond.
The FAA must leverage the expertise of the private sector and
fully utilize all of the authorities it has been granted.
Enabling our aviation manufacturers to enter new markets and
innovate, while ensuring the highest level of safety, is a top
priority of this subcommittee.
Today I look forward to hearing our witnesses' viewpoints
on the state of American aviation manufacturing and where they
believe it is headed in the 21st century. I also want to hear
their suggestions on what role the Government can play to
support the aviation manufacturing industry's continued
success. I thank all of the witnesses for joining us today.
And finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank
Ms. Peggy Gilligan for her years of service. As many of you
know, this will be Peggy's last hearing, testifying before our
subcommittee. Peggy began her career with the FAA in 1980, and
this spring, after 37 years of dedicated service, she will be
retiring.
I would like to thank you for your dedicated service and
all that you have contributed to the FAA and aviation.
Before I recognize my colleague, Mr. Larsen, for his
comments, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material for the record of this
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling
today's hearing on the state of American aviation
manufacturing.
The U.S. aviation industry is an economic powerhouse. In
2014 civil aircraft manufacturing in the U.S. generated a total
output of more than $143 billion, an increase of more than $20
billion since 2012. This number does not account for the tens
of billions of dollars in output from engine and aircraft parts
manufacturing, and this topic naturally hits close to home for
me.
According to the State of Washington in 2014, the aerospace
industry generated over $85 billion in economic activity
throughout the State. More than 1,300 Washington aerospace
businesses support more than 260,000 jobs and travel for
billions of passengers each year. These companies range from
Boeing, whom this panel will hear from today, to the many small
businesses that are a critical part of the aviation supply
chain, and there is some discussion going on in Lynnwood,
Washington, today, in my district, at the Pacific Northwest
Aerospace Alliance conference on these very issues.
In 2014, 95 percent of all commercial airplanes produced in
North America were manufactured in and took their maiden
flights from Washington State. So, needless to say,
manufacturing and certification are critical to my home State,
but many Members here today have a robust aviation
manufacturing presence in their districts.
The issues we explore this morning have been explored
before by this panel, and I thank Chairman LoBiondo for
remaining focused on them. Without question, the predictable
and timely certification of aircraft and aircraft components is
critical for domestic manufacturers to get their products to
market.
I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses about
what difficulties U.S. manufacturers face, what the FAA and
this subcommittee can do to make the agency's certification
process more consistent and efficient, while providing nothing
less than the highest level of safety.
To that end, I understand the FAA's certification workload
is constantly growing, while the size of its inspection
workforce is not. The FAA needs adequate staffing resources to
do the job and keep pace with new demands and new technologies.
This is one reason the FAA's Organization Designation
Authorization program, or ODA, is critical to making the
certification process more efficient. So I look forward today
to hearing about ODA, how the program could be better used, and
the FAA's recent efforts in this area.
A common theme I hear during conversations with
manufacturers as well is they're competing in an increasingly
crowded global market. Chairman LoBiondo and I asked the
Government Accountability Office to explore the FAA's
certification process in the U.S. as it compares with those of
its counterparts around the world. The resulting 2015 report
highlighted many of the challenges in getting products
certified and to market. The FAA's product certification is and
must remain the gold standard abroad, so that U.S.
manufacturers remain competitive. So I look forward to hearing
about the progress in that area, specifically.
Last year the committee had been moving forward towards
passage of a long-term FAA reauthorization. Bipartisan
compromise and significant industry input produced an entire
certification reform title in the bill, the AIRR Act, that
would have brought long overdue changes to the FAA's
certification process. Certification, improved grant and safety
programs, established rules of the road for unmanned aircraft
systems, and boosted consumer protection are not back-burner
aviation issues; they are front-burner aviation issues. And the
next FAA reauthorization should be a long-term bill, a
comprehensive bill, and address the issues on today's agenda.
Chairman LoBiondo, before hearing from our witnesses, I too
would like to extend my gratitude to Peggy. We will lose a
visionary leader, a tireless advocate for aviation safety when
Peggy Gilligan retires. But after 37 years, she has earned it.
Your exceptional service and unwavering dedication to the
agency and the public is inspiring, and I thank you very much.
I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues, as well, when I
say you will be missed.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward today to hearing
from our witnesses.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Rick. I would like to recognize
Chairman Shuster for any opening remarks.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing today. I appreciate you and Ranking Member Larsen
for putting this together.
I just want to start off by just echoing what my colleagues
have said about Ms. Gilligan. Her upcoming retirement is well
deserved. We appreciate the service that you have given the
Nation, and look forward to--hopefully you are not going to
stay out too long, you will figure out some way to reengage
with all the knowledge that you have and we certainly can
utilize. So thank you very much for that.
I look forward to today's discussion, to hear from the FAA,
but also the manufacturers, and find out what is going on in
their world and learning. I understand that a few of you have
some pretty good ideas, some strong ideas, based on experience,
that work. So we look forward to hearing that.
We are--this is the first in a series of hearings talking
about aviation and we in Congress can work with the industry to
build a 21st-century aviation system.
Aviation manufacturing, which was mentioned, I'm not going
to go through the numbers--we heard it, we know it, it is
incredibly important to the United States of America, the
manufacturing of aviation in this country. And I will say we
have a President in the White House that is committed to making
sure that manufacturing in this country is strong and viable.
And also, it is probably the first time we have had a
President that has used the airspace more than anybody else
coming into office. He owns a plane, he knows--he is in the air
constantly. Quite frankly, I think he probably uses an airplane
like most of us use an automobile to get around. And so we have
got somebody that, again, really understands, and understands
the need to make sure that, if we are manufacturing, how we
have to streamline these agencies and Government to help the
manufacturers move forward.
And again, we have had longstanding leadership in aviation.
In fact, everyone knows we invented it. We need to maintain
that lead. And one of the reasons we have been able to maintain
that lead is because of our high level of safety, the current
safety, and all of our manufacturers sitting at the table, I
know they are committed to safety. If they weren't, they
probably wouldn't have businesses, because their business is
driven by safety. They have got to have the safest product out
there, because we depend on it when we are using those
products.
So again, I look forward to talking about those types of
things. And again, it is important that, as we move forward,
that the Government agency that oversees this, that regulates
it, is just as innovative as our industries have been, moving
forward with new programs to, again, make sure safety is job
number one, but that we are out there making sure that our
manufacturers aren't looking to other countries.
And I have heard the stories about, you know, when you hear
countries across the world that move--industries move faster
than ours, when it is--when you hear it is maybe Brazil or
Canada or China, you think, well, OK. But I have heard the
stories the Europeans move faster than we do when it comes to
moving these air frames and these avionics forward. And if the
Europeans are moving faster than we are, we are really
threatened, I believe.
We are threatened by what other countries are doing, but
when Europe does it we have really got to stand up and pay
attention and make sure we are doing the right thing, because I
don't want to see the aviation industry go the way of
electronics, autos, textiles, and steel. As I said, this is so
important to the Nation, and we need to be committed to making
sure we have the best oversight that we can have to ensure
safety, but also moving forward with manufacturers to continue
to maintain our lead in the world when it comes to aviation.
So again, I look forward to the discussion, and thank you
all for being here. Thank you for giving us your time today.
And I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it was just
about 2 years ago today that you convened a hearing on this
same topic, as we were approaching FAA reauthorization. In the
end, we came to a bipartisan consensus on what we need to do to
reform certification. And I would hope that we can reach that
same point again very quickly this year. It was the other
issues in the bill that precluded the adoption of a longer term
authorization. And hopefully we can do that this year.
We did adopt at least one change. I had heard from a number
of people, particularly dealing with the Chinese aviation
authority, that our manufacturers are over there without FAA
representation. So, essentially, a company dealing with the
Government, as opposed to a Government-to-Government supporting
our companies. And I got a provision included to allow the FAA
to accept reimbursements. Unfortunately, it seems that the FAA
has been unable to figure out a way to accept reimbursements,
which should take about 10 minutes. So I will be asking about
that today. I really want to see that move forward, and I want
to help rein in the abuses of the Chinese and others.
Another concern is the charges that are levied. The EASA
[European Aviation Safety Agency], you know, to--just to
revalidate an FAA-issued certificate, charges about 95 percent
of what they would charge for a manufacturer to bring in a new
product and go through their full certification. That seems
unreasonable. And I think it would be critical that, in this
long-term bill, that we put in provisions for reciprocity. That
is, if the Europeans want to do that to our manufacturers, then
we are going to do it to their manufacturers for the same
price. And then perhaps we can bring them to the table and get
more reasonable.
And then, just--not to engage in the debate over the
privatization of air traffic, but, you know, that is what
caused these provisions to stall last year. And I would observe
that certification is, when the industry is polled broadly, the
number-one issue. And reforming it is one thing, but it is
going to--in the proposal that passed this committee last
time--it is going to be left over--subject to the vicissitudes
of the appropriators, and sequestration, and all the other
problems that we have had. While over here we would have the
ATO [Air Traffic Organization], but yet the ATO can't move
forward without the certification.
So, I think sundering the agency is problematic when the
certification is recognized by so many as the number-one
problem we have today with the FAA.
And, like everyone else, I would like to thank Peggy
Gilligan, a lifetime of work. And, you know, I guess this is
probably the last time we will have you here formally, but I
wish you well in a well- and hard-earned retirement. And your
legacy is that, you know, you have been a warrior for safety,
and the industry has the best safety record during your tenure
as the chief safety officer of any time in the history of the
United States. And I think a lot of people can thank you for
that. You kept them safe.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Now we will turn to
our first panel.
First is Ms. Peggy Gilligan, Associate Administrator for
Aviation Safety for the FAA, who is accompanied by Ms. Dorenda
Baker, Director of the Aircraft Certification Service for the
FAA.
Mr. John Hamilton, vice president of engineering for Boeing
Commercial Airplanes.
Mr. Michael Thacker, senior vice president of engineering
for Textron Aviation.
And at this time I would like to recognize Representative
Esty to introduce one of our witnesses that is from her home
State of Connecticut.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member
Larsen, for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. I am
delighted to have the opportunity to introduce our final
panelist, actually, who is in the middle of the table, Dr. Alan
Epstein from Pratt & Whitney in my home State of Connecticut.
And he is vice president of technology and environment. He is
responsible for coordinating technology across all of Pratt &
Whitney, and has a distinguished career at MIT, my father and
grandfather's alma mater, and we are delighted for your
leadership and your insight to help us guide important
decisionmaking in this committee to have robust and safe
aircraft in the United States and across America.
Thank you very much for joining us. We are very proud of
your work.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Congresswoman Esty.
Ms. Gilligan, you are recognized for a statement.
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED
BY DORENDA BAKER, DIRECTOR, AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION SERVICE,
FAA; ALAN H. EPSTEIN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, PRATT & WHITNEY; JOHN HAMILTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF
ENGINEERING, BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES; AND MICHAEL THACKER,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, TEXTRON AVIATION
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Shuster,
as well as Ranking Member Larsen and Mr. DeFazio.
First, let me thank you for those very kind words. I am
very proud of the FAA's accomplishments during my tenure. And I
want to thank this committee for the strong support you have
provided to us for all of those efforts. And I would also like
to thank you for all the opportunities I have had to appear
before you over the years. Some of those have been very
difficult, challenging hearings. This one, I am pleased to say,
I think will be a very positive hearing, where we and our
industry can share what we are doing to continue to build this
industry and support the American economy.
I can tell all of you that the state of American aviation
manufacturing is strong. The FAA is proud to partner with
industry to find ways to make it even stronger, and to support
innovation. Civil aviation manufacturing is the strongest trade
sector for net exports at $60 billion. And, as the chairman and
others noted, the manufacturing sector supports 1.5 million
jobs in the U.S. economy, and contributes $165 billion to the
GDP.
But from my perspective, more importantly, it contributes
to our outstanding aviation safety record, where we have seen
no passenger fatalities in U.S. airline operations for more
than 8 years. This accomplishment, our outstanding safety
record, is not the result of luck or happenstance. It is the
result of FAA, manufacturers, operators, and aviation labor,
working together to establish sound safety standards and
practices.
And the bedrock of this achievement, the bedrock of our
safety record, is the FAA's certification process itself, which
assures the American public and Congress that our manufacturers
are meeting our safety standards. This committee has asked FAA
to improve the process for certifying aviation products, and I
am pleased to share with you what we have accomplished.
You wanted performance objectives and metrics. We have
developed a joint industry-agency certification scorecard. The
sample scorecard that you have in front of you has three
sections. At the bottom we track the manufacturer's
noncompliance with standards and the implementation of
corrective actions to assure us and them that everything is
being done properly.
In the middle, we measure how well FAA is optimizing
delegation, based on the company's capabilities. And at the
top, we actually rate each other's performance. This serves as
a tool to have open communication between the manufacturer and
the FAA office to assure that we are each held accountable to
meet our responsibilities.
You wanted us to delegate more responsibility to
manufacturers. The scorecard shows that we're doing that.
Eighty-four companies hold Organization Designation
Authorizations, or ODA. And according to the GAO, FAA designees
perform more than 90 percent of certification activities. That
means FAA is optimizing our involvement and holding
manufacturers accountable to their capabilities. And the
industry has been clear with us; they appreciate our efforts in
this area.
But we also know that, to respond to new business models
and innovation like additive manufacturing or electric
propulsion, we need to be agile. And that is why we are
transforming the aircraft certification service. And I have
provided more details on that transformation in our written
testimony.
You wanted a process to resolve disputes that slow
certification. Based on industry recommendations, we developed
a regulatory consistency communication board that allows for
unresolved issues to be addressed in a timely fashion by a team
of safety and legal experts.
You wanted us to provide support when our manufacturers
sell products overseas. Starting with Europe and Canada, we
have agreed to accept each other's approvals of repairs, of
parts, and of basic aftermarket modifications, with no further
technical review. We intend to extend this approach to Brazil.
We are also working with other national aviation
authorities in countries that do considerable business with our
U.S. manufacturers. For example, just last week Ms. Baker was
in China, working with her counterpart, to expand and improve
the use of our bilateral agreement. The prompt validation of
U.S.-designed aircraft like the 737 MAX, is our top priority in
working with China. And the more our international partners can
rely on FAA certification, the more efficient it will be for
U.S. manufacturers.
You wanted us to make it easier for the GA fleet to get
safety equipment in the cockpit. First we enabled the
installation of angle-of-attack indicators to address loss of
control, the leading cause of fatalities in general aviation.
We built on that experience and issued policy for installing
other nonrequired safety-enhancing equipment. And we are
beginning a prototype program that streamlines production
requirements for more modern equipment.
And, most importantly, with the strong support of this
committee, we issued a new set of design standards for general
aviation aircraft: the rewrite of part 23. This rule will allow
innovation and efficiency in GA aircraft design and
manufacture, while assuring the right level of safety.
We have made tremendous progress, but there is more to do.
And just last week we kicked off a committee with industry to
foster collaboration in an open and transparent manner. We
committed to develop a blueprint to establish shared objectives
and priorities. This will allow FAA to meet future needs and
ensure that aviation manufacturers remain competitive in the
global marketplace.
Thank you again for this opportunity and for the many
opportunities throughout my career, and I am happy to answer
your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Ms. Gilligan, very much. Dr.
Epstein, you are recognized for your statement.
Dr. Epstein. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo and members of the
subcommittee. I am Alan Epstein, vice president of technology
and environment at Pratt & Whitney. And our dependable engines
have powered aircraft for over 90 years, with over 75,000 now
in the field.
Pratt is part of the United Technologies Corporation, a
global enterprise with a long history of pioneering innovation
in aviation and building systems. As noted, aerospace is
America's largest manufacturing export. I make the number at
$80 billion a year. It seems to be an elusive number.
While marquee aircraft make up about half of this total,
famous names like Boeing and Cessna, the export of aircraft
components such as engines and cells and landing gear are of
equal value. Indeed, much of the component content of the
world's civil aircraft is American, even if the airplanes carry
the name of European, Brazilian, or Chinese manufacturers.
And of course, American aviation manufacturing is about
more than just dollars. It is about the 1.7 million Americans
who are employed at this industry.
The most recent surge in aircraft orders has a lot to do
with Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofan engine. The GTF and the
competitive responses resulted in orders valued at almost $800
billion. This success stems from the GTF's dramatic reduction
in fuel burn and noise.
For example, when the new aircraft take off from La Guardia
Airport, about half a million fewer people will be impacted by
noise. This success means that Pratt will be doubling
production over the next few years.
Part of this growth depends upon manufacturing innovation,
bringing moving engine assembly lines to Connecticut and
Florida, cryogenic machining to Maine, advanced coatings to New
York, hybrid airfoils to Michigan, and additive manufacture to
Georgia. You need the best people to make the best products.
Pratt plans to hire 25,000 people over the next decade. To
foster 21st-century skills on the factory floor, we support
community colleges in many States, including Connecticut,
Maine, New York, Georgia, Michigan, Texas, and Florida.
The strength and experience of the FAA is an important
competitive advantage for U.S. industry. FAA production
certification is required for new manufacturing technologies
and new suppliers. As part of our expansion, Pratt has worked
with the FAA to gain production certification at new engine
assembly sites, and approval of new suppliers. Partnering with
the FAA through the organizational designated authority system
has proven extremely helpful. ODA for manufacturing approval
works, and it works well.
The FAA must continue to progress in the delegation of
responsibilities to certificate holders. Pratt strongly
supports the actions already deployed under the FAA
accountability framework initiative, and looks forward to
teaming on air transformation.
As Benjamin Franklin said, ``an investment in knowledge
pays the best interest.'' We work with the FAA on advanced
technologies to reduce fuel burn, emissions, and aircraft
noise: notably, the FAA's CLEEN [Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions, and Noise] program. Recently, the FAA has been
proactive in exploring the certification implications of new
technology such as additives manufacture.
One industry concern is the aging certification workforce.
A lot of talent will be retiring in the next few years, and to
provide the support U.S. industry needs, the FAA must be
properly funded and authorized to hire and train replacements.
A strong, competent, flexible FAA is an important enabler for
U.S. industry.
Competition is fierce. Other nations have been ramping up
Government civil aeronautics investment as the U.S. has dropped
its own. U.S. research down by 40 percent, the EU up by a
factor of 10. China, the newest entrant, has announced large
investments in civil aviation, both for airplanes and, most
recently, billions for engines.
U.S. aviation manufacturing is alive and well. The Federal
role is critical to America's largest manufacturing export
industry. We must continue to nurture the public-private
partnership that has served this country so well. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Dr. Epstein.
Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. Good morning. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking
Member Larsen, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide Boeing's perspective on the state of
commercial aerospace manufacturing and the policy changes
facing our business.
I am John Hamilton, vice president of engineering for
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and I am proud to be here today to
represent the 148,000 Boeing employees who design, build, and
certify the best aerospace products in the world.
First I commend the committee for the bipartisan reform
included in the FAA reauthorization. We appreciate the bold
vision of this committee and the continued focus on ensuring
the strength of domestic aerospace manufacturing.
For context it is important to note Boeing's place in the
U.S. and world economy. Boeing remains the Nation's largest
exporter, exporting $56.8 billion of products and services in
2016. Last year we delivered 748 commercial airplanes, with 80
percent of those overseas. We assemble all of our aircraft in
the United States, and we are proud that 80 percent of our
company's suppliers are here in the United States.
Annually, we spend roughly $50 billion in the U.S., far
more than any other company that produces large, commercial
aircraft. We are proud to sell American-made products to all
corners of the globe, which is why we have long supported trade
policies and trade agreements that open markets, facilitate the
movement of goods across borders, and level the international
playing field.
More than 90 percent of our workforce is based in the
United States, along with 1.5 million jobs throughout the
supply chain. The biggest markets for our products over the
next 20 years are in Asia and the Middle East. And we need
Congress and the new administration, including the FAA, to
support our efforts to win in these markets. Tens of thousands
of U.S. jobs in our industry are at stake.
The FAA's role in this global competition is critical.
Every new Boeing airplane, type-certified by the FAA, must be
validated by its foreign regulatory counterpart in every
country for which we export a product. This process is not
meant to be a recertification. A validation should be just
that, validating that the FAA conducted the type certificate
work to the standards of the foreign regulatory authority in
question. This process should be quick and efficient. But in
some cases it can take upwards of 14 months.
For example, 83 different customers from 43 countries have
ordered our newest product offering, the 737 MAX. The FAA and
Boeing must work with each foreign regulatory authority to get
approval to deliver our aircraft to those customers. This is a
time-consuming task and requires FAA resources and, more
importantly, a strong working relationship between the FAA and
foreign regulators.
The FAA aircraft certification service cannot efficiently
complete these critical validation activities without resources
and support from Congress and the prioritization and focus from
FAA's senior leadership. This work cannot be viewed as
secondary or a lower priority function at the FAA. It is a
critical priority for Boeing and all U.S. aerospace exporters.
Congress must continue to support and prioritize these efforts.
With respect to our day-to-day interactions with the FAA on
certification activities, we have seen progress in efforts to
streamline the process, and hope that, with continued
partnership, we will see continued progress.
The FAA has embarked on an effort known as air
transformation to reorganize and better align the agency's
activities with the strategic imperatives for certification in
the coming years. This process must enable the FAA to shift
resources to focus on areas of greatest safety impact,
including engagement with international regulatory authorities.
Doing so will help the FAA retain its global leadership status
and ensure a level playing field.
I want to stress that last point. The FAA must be a global
leader in aircraft certification, and adhere to risk-based
oversight principles that focus the agency's resources on areas
of highest risk, provide timely and consistent requirements to
applicants, and fully support and promote U.S. exports of
aerospace products and services. This will ensure a growing and
competitive world-leading U.S. aerospace manufacturing base for
the next 100 years. I am privileged to be here today to discuss
further ways in which we can advance these important
priorities.
Thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Thacker, you are recognized.
Mr. Thacker. Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman Shuster, Ranking
Members Larsen and DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me to testify this morning on the state of
American aviation manufacturing. My name is Michael Thacker. I
am senior vice president for engineering at Textron Aviation.
Textron Aviation is the leading general aviation authority
and the home to Beechcraft, Cessna, and Hawker brands, which
account for more than half of all general aviation aircraft
flying. Textron Aviation provides the most versatile and
comprehensive business and general aviation product portfolio
in the world through five principal lines of business: business
jets; general aviation and special mission turboprop aircraft;
high-performance and utility piston aircraft; military trainer
and defense aircraft; and a complete global customer service
organization. During the past 90 years, Textron Aviation has
delivered more than 250,000 aircraft to more than 140 countries
worldwide.
Textron Aviation appreciates the efforts being made by FAA
leadership and the support of Congress for streamlining
aircraft certification processes. While progress has been made,
opportunities remain to consolidate the gains and capture the
full benefits of the changes. As an aircraft manufacturer,
Textron Aviation's success in the certification process and in
business requires a clear path to compliance consisting of
three primary elements: clear and stable aircraft requirements;
clear and consistent documentation expectations; and consistent
and appropriate levels of regulatory involvement.
Textron Aviation would like to thank Congress for passing
the Small Airplane Revitalization Act. The resulting public law
encouraged timely completion of the part 23 rewrite effort. We
should see near-term benefits from the continuum of safety
approach to product categorization, and over time should see
more rapid incorporation of safety and efficiency-enhancing
technologies through the more streamlined process of using
industry standards to achieve consensus on new means of
compliance.
Textron Aviation would like to see this philosophy and
approach expanded beyond part 23 to include other categories of
aircraft. We believe the safety and efficiency benefits would
transfer.
Textron Aviation also applauds the intent of the FAA's
ongoing transformation of the certification organization. The
FAA's outreach and collaboration with industry to refine the
implementation plan will be an important factor in its success.
While the top-level reorganization helps establish a vision,
the implementation will determine if real and tangible results
come from the change. Textron Aviation is pleased to be
involved with these efforts, and looks forward to continued
engagement going forward.
Both of these efforts move in a positive direction, but
leave work to be done. As with the part 23 effort, Congress and
this committee can play an important role in working with the
FAA and industry to advance certification and regulatory
reform. The certification titles contained in last year's
committee-passed bill and the Senate-passed FAA reauthorization
would have provided an important framework and direction for
these reform efforts.
Specifically, we support language that supported fuller
utilization of ODA, improved validation and acceptance of
products globally, and reduced inconsistent application of
regulations. Passing such provisions in an expeditious manner
this year would benefit safety, innovation, jobs, and our
Nation's competitiveness.
Also included in my written testimony is an appendix,
including comments from other Textron businesses impacted by
the topics being discussed today. This testimony is for the
record, and any questions related to the appendix can also be
addressed for the record.
Before closing, Textron Aviation would also like to
acknowledge the contributions and accomplishments of Associate
Administrator Gilligan. We understand that she has announced
her retirement, and we would like to thank her for her hard
work, her consistent engagement with industry, and her efforts
to improve aviation safety processes.
And for all of the committee, particularly the chairman and
the ranking member, we would like to invite you to come see
aviation at work at any of our facilities, but particularly in
Wichita, Kansas, the aviation capital of the world. It is
important to understand how important this industry is----
Mr. Larsen. I object.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thacker. It is important to understand----
Mr. LoBiondo. Overruled.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thacker. It is important to understand how important
this industry is to our Nation, and to see and touch the
workers who make it the vibrant and important industry that it
is. We would love to have you.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much, Mr. Thacker. Now we will
go to--start with questionings.
Mr. Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question deals
with delegation authority. And I believe that Textron and
Boeing have designees in your companies that respond or report
directly to FAA. And I think it is really important for Members
to hear and understand how that works. Because we say
``delegation authority,'' and, you know, 5 and 6 years, 7 years
ago I didn't understand it, and now I think I understand it
better.
But if you would, Mr. Hamilton, why don't you explain how
it works? And, Mr. Thacker, maybe you could talk about the
benefits that you get from having that. So, if you would, Mr.
Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. Certainly. So I actually come from a unique
perspective in that I, in my previous role at Boeing, was the
ODA administrator for Boeing in the commercial side. So I have
a pretty good understanding of that.
You know, the ODA is the current form of delegation from
the FAA. Delegation has been around since the 1950s in
different forms. And in the current ODA, what it is is the FAA
delegates to, essentially, the company certain privileges. And
those privileges typically are documented in a manual of some
form. And with it come both the privileges, but also
restrictions or things where you are not delegated.
The delegation is a privilege to our company, and probably
to any other company. But it is a valuable resource when you
look at the amount of work that is going on in aerospace, and
how to best maximize the total resources that are available to
the industry.
With delegation, there are some things that we have to
submit to the FAA and request to be delegated, and there are
other things that are just automatically delegated to us. We
typically start with requirements, and--which feed into the
design of the product. The certification approach--so how are
you going to comply with requirements, whether it is through
test, analysis, simulation, and then some form of deliverable.
And that may be a document that says, ``Here is how we
demonstrated compliance to the rule.'' And each of those can be
delegated or retained by the FAA.
Now, the FAA also has something called participation, which
is something that has fairly been--we are seeing more of, where
the FAA delegates, say, a flight test to you, or a test to you,
but chooses to come along and witness it with you.
Now, as I think Peggy pointed out, we have seen increased
delegation, and we thank you for that. Participation, where we
have also seen increases in, and that sometimes can delay work
still on the critical path.
We really like to work with the FAA on requirements
upfront, and then allow the certification work to proceed, and
then allow the FAA to do systemic oversight of the process, so
that they can assure that we are abiding by our manual.
Mr. Shuster. And is it accurate to say those folks are on
your payroll, but they directly report to the FAA
Administrators, or the FAA folks in--is that accurate?
Mr. Hamilton. So they are employees of the Boeing Company.
Boeing pays their salary. They wear a Boeing badge, just like I
do. But they wear two hats. And I always tell them, ``You have
to understand which hat you are wearing.'' In some cases they
can be the Boeing subject matter expert on a specific system or
design, and at other times they are working as an accredited
representative for the FAA, and in that case they weren't
wearing their FAA hat, they have to abide by the regulations
and the guidance they receive.
Mr. Shuster. And, Mr. Thacker, if you could, just talk
about the things you see, the benefits that you have seen.
Mr. Thacker. Certainly. So the benefits of the
organizational designation are both to industry and to the FAA.
From an industry perspective, it allows us to be able to
move more quickly with production changes, small changes that
are routine within our business.
And for the FAA, it allows them to focus on things that are
of the highest safety importance, or that are new and novel and
unique, and that require their attention to make sure that we
are complying appropriately when we are introducing new
technologies.
From a matter of being able to operate the business, it
allows us to both continue operating the business for existing
products, put new safety technologies mandated equipment into
the aircraft quickly and efficiently, and still be having the
larger new product development programs going on at the same
time, which consume more of the FAA's involvement.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gilligan, in your testimony you talk about something
that I would just like to have explained better. It is having
to do with airworthiness directives. Whereas when we promulgate
an airworthiness directive, most other aviation authorities
apparently forward that to operators and they abide by it.
But I--it seems from the testimony that it can't work the
other way. That is, if EASA, you know, has one, we can't adopt
it. Why is that?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. The requirements that we have for
rulemaking, legislative requirements for rulemaking, require
that the agency make its own finding, in essence, that in fact
there is a safety issue. We do find that at times it is
somewhat redundant because, again, we rely on many of our
partners for the original certification of the product. When we
validate that, we expect them to be responsible for the
continued operational safety, and yet we have to go through a
process of notice and comment before we can put in place the
directives that they may have put in place for their product in
other States.
We have talked with staff to see if there might be
something that would be helpful. And, in fact, in the bill that
was worked on last year there was some language that we think
would be helpful, and we will certainly look to work with you
again to try to support that.
Mr. DeFazio. So, I mean, the net result is that, although I
assume that many operators might go ahead and comply with it
once they become aware of it, but it is not mandatory because
we haven't been able to adopt a rule.
Ms. Gilligan. That is correct. We can't enforce it.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Ms. Gilligan. We do, of course, see that many operators
implement it. They are sometimes hesitant because it is not
inconceivable when we go through our process we might have some
nuance change or something that we find necessary. But
generally they will follow what they learned from the
manufacturer directly, and that is why we were looking to see
if there might be some way we can streamline that process.
But the Administrative Procedures Act right now is a piece
of the puzzle that we are struggling with.
Mr. DeFazio. And then the issue I raised about the European
authority and the charges they levy to essentially rubberstamp
what the FAA has already done, have there been discussions with
the authority regarding that?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir, extensive discussions. We actually
did get a small reduction shortly after we entered our
bilateral agreement that oversees how we relate to EASA. We are
close, I believe, to getting an agreement on how we will
further reduce the fees on large projects. But, as I testified,
we do already have agreement with the European Aviation Safety
Agency that there are certain approvals that we give that they
will simply accept, so there will be no work for them to do,
and there will be no charge. And that has already been put in
place.
There are some other approvals that need some
administrative work for which there will be minimal fees, and
that has already been put in place. Now we are taking on the
larger, more complex projects to reach agreement as to how we
will reduce the time we spend and that they spend on projects,
and thereby reduce their fees. So I hope to have some real
progress on that, if not before I leave, not long after.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. This question will be
for Ms. Gilligan.
Cybersecurity has rapidly risen to the top of the list of
things for us to look at, and challenges for us to figure out.
Ensuring the cybersecurity of the national airspace and all of
its components is a priority for this subcommittee. In the FAA
extension, we directed the FAA to create a comprehensive and
strategic framework for cybersecurity, and the FAA Tech Center
has ongoing work at the cyber task force lab.
Can you talk to us about how the FAA is utilizing that
cyber task force lab at the Tech Center with their expertise in
developing certification standards?
Ms. Gilligan. Sir, as you know, we rely on the work at the
Tech Center quite extensively. And cybersecurity, as it relates
to aircraft design, has been an issue that the Aircraft
Certification Service has focused on for quite a long time.
As you point out, what we are realizing, what we
understand--I think we always realized it--is that we need to
be looking more holistically, to make sure that the--not just
the aircraft, but the entire aviation system is properly
addressing cybersecurity. And that is really the work that the
Tech Center is helping to support.
We have interagency groups that include many of the others,
the other agencies that are involved in cybersecurity kinds of
work. They bring their expertise, as well as, then, our
expertise on aircraft design, and the FAA expertise on the air
traffic system design. And all of that is being brought through
at the Tech Center to test scenarios, to understand where we
may have hazards, and how we might mitigate those risks in the
future.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Could you just clarify? Is it--
Doctor, your last name pronunciation for me? Yes, sorry.
Dr. Epstein. You, sir, can call me anything you like. But
it is Epstein, usually.
Mr. Larsen. Epstein, great. All right. Great, thanks a lot.
So, Dr. Epstein, could you comment on Pratt & Whitney's
experience with ODA? I noted in your written testimony you are
looking at expanding its use as your production demand grows.
And with that growth do you anticipate problems? Or what would
you say would need to be changed?
Dr. Epstein. Well, Pratt & Whitney has ODA authority for
manufacturing. It does not have it for design certification,
mainly because, as the FAA was rolling this out, in our design
cycles it didn't match very well.
But for manufacturing, since 80 percent of our content we
purchase, and of that 80 percent, 80 percent is purchased here
in the U.S., the supply base is of critical importance. And the
supply base is very heavily strained because of the expansion
in business, the concerns of safety, and it is a very capital-
intensive business to begin with. So we found that ODA for
manufacturing has been a very powerful way for both our in-
house manufacturers, but also as we bring on new suppliers who
have to be certified.
We are also looking forward to the discussion on certified
design organization, which the FAA intends to move to, and we
think that will be a powerful tool for U.S. industry to move
forward.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, great.
Mr. Hamilton, how can we move this potential 14-month
timeline that you mentioned in your testimony with regards to
international validation to something less than 14 months?
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Congressman. So, as new entrants
really come into the aviation industry, such as China, where
they want to build an aviation industry, they are using
sometimes the validations as opportunities to learn about how
to certify products. And sometimes you might even ask that--the
question if they were trying to get some of your intellectual
property, and how you design the products.
I want to, you know, cite Ms. Baker, who just returned from
China, for the constructive dialogue they had last week. You
know, we deliver about one-third of our 737 airplanes to China,
and we were told that they wouldn't be able to validate those
airplanes until the end of 2018, initially. I think, through
the dialogue between the FAA and the Chinese authorities, we
are hopeful that we can shorten that down to midyear of this
year. But I think it takes a strong relationship between the
FAA and their counterparts overseas.
Mr. Larsen. So it is almost like it is not so much a
process issue, it is a presence issue.
Mr. Hamilton. You know, our industry is built so much on
relationships. And being there, being present with them, can go
a long ways, especially with the Chinese. We are a little
disappointed the FAA pulled out their technical representative
from Beijing and put him in Singapore. The Chinese kind of took
that, I think, in a negative manner.
But being present, being there, the importance of being
able to travel there is vitally important. And being able to
have those face-to-face conversations.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Thacker, wouldn't you agree that some
people also have a claim as the aviation capital of the world?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Thacker. So I am sure there are many claims.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Larsen. Good. Well, then, we are back on track. We are
back on track.
What recommendations would you have to change the ODA
process, if any?
Mr. Thacker. So I think that the biggest opportunity is
really to fully utilize the designations that are already in
place. So, for an organization like ours, we are a very capable
and large organization. Our ODA staffing is across the spectrum
of all of the technical resources.
And, frankly, we have the capacity to overwhelm the FAA
with the amount of new product development and continuing
product improvements that we put in place for a product line
that today produces 21 different models. And we have three
products, three new products, in various stages of development.
So, the ability to, again, reduce the level of involvement
for the things that are low-risk--you are familiar with many of
our products. They are, for the most part, derivatives. They
are airplanes that look similar, have similar systems. And so,
for the past decades we have been designing with the same
design philosophy, with developing tools along the way,
improving the reliability, and then putting the efficiency and
safety into the products. But the basis of what we are doing is
well understood by both us and the FAA.
So, it is a very low risk for the bulk of what we do for
the FAA to go ahead and delegate most of those programs to us,
and then pay their attention to the things that are new and
novel, or new and novel to us, if we are taking on a new
technology. We would like to see that be--to the fullest extent
possible, we think that is the greatest opportunity.
Mr. Larsen. All right, OK, thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Graves?
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got just
a quick question for Ms. Gilligan.
And I am very curious as to if you can give us an update on
the FAA's efforts to certify unleaded avgas [aviation
gasoline], at least on a fleetwide basis.
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Congressman Graves. I appreciate
the opportunity to talk about this fabulous success, which has
also involved the Tech Center work, as well, Mr. Chairman.
We are very far along on identifying a replacement for
leaded fuels for general aviation aircraft. I know you are
familiar with it, and this committee has very much supported
that work, as has the Appropriations Committee. We are testing
two fuels right now. We are actually flight testing them, and
we thank Textron and a number of other companies that have
provided in-kind contributions to this effort by providing
airplanes and crew to fly these flight tests so we can better
understand whether and how these fuels will interact between
engines and aircraft.
The challenge for us when we finally approve replacement
fuels, which will happen shortly, I believe 2018, next year.
The way our process works right now is we would have to certify
the new fuel in each engine aircraft configuration, because we
were never before faced with the idea of a whole new fuel for a
whole new fleet of multiple kinds of aircraft. And so we have
worked again with this committee and staff on last year's bill
to provide authority for us to look at this in a much more
holistic way.
And again, with this year's reauthorization, we will be
asking for that continued kind of support, and be glad to
provide technical assistance to the committee so that we can--
once we have the new fuel, we will have a much more efficient
way to be able to approve it and get it into the system.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Well, the more--and I am sure the
committee is very interested in doing everything they can to
further that and help it along. Please keep us informed. And I
know you do a very good job of that, but please keep us
informed as we move forward on that.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Epstein, I have a question about airplane noise,
particularly--and I know that you mentioned ways to reduce such
noise. The noise has become such a pervasive issue that some of
us in the Congress have formed a bipartisan coalition called
Quiet Skies.
Here, for example, in my own district, the District of
Columbia, the noise from planes coming in to and going out of
Ronald Reagan Airport have become just a major issue. People
can't sleep. Now, there are a number of reasons for this:
NextGen, or new flight patterns; some planes come pre-dawn or
late at night; older planes.
I was pleased to hear that Pratt & Whitney was engaged in
something you call the PurePower Geared Turbofan engine. And
you said in your testimony it will result in a 16-percent
reduction in fuel burn and three-quarters reduction in noise
footprint. That was what most interested me.
When do you think we can expect to see planes with new
engines taking off from places--major airports like Ronald
Reagan with such equipment to reduce noise?
Dr. Epstein. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. There are
about 45 PurePower-powered airplanes flying.
Ms. Norton. Would you speak up, please?
Dr. Epstein. There are about 45 PurePower airplanes flying.
Spirit is the sole American operator. They just started flying
last year. More are being delivered this year. The Boeing MAX,
737 MAX, is also an extremely quiet airplane. These----
Ms. Norton. You have less complaints, as far as you know,
about noise from these newer planes?
Dr. Epstein. Well, complaints about noise is a flexible
concept. I was once sitting next to the director of the Port
Authority of New York, and I asked him how quiet airplanes
would have to be so he didn't get noise complaints. And he
looked at me like I was nuts and said, ``This is New York you
are talking about. If they know the airplane is there, they
will complain about the noise.''
Ms. Norton. Mr. Epstein, this is the District of Columbia I
am talking about. And the fact is that the noise has become a
major issue here and elsewhere. And we are not--and we can
compare it to noise before to noise now. So I am not asking you
to wipe away all noise.
I am pleased to hear you talk about more planes coming on.
Do you believe at nationwide airports we will soon see most
airports with such planes?
Dr. Epstein. Yes, the narrow-body fleets are converting to
these new types of engines over the next 2 years, so all the
new airplanes coming in by 2019 or so will have these very
quiet engines.
Ms. Norton. It is very important to hear, because then we
will be able to blame just NextGen or flight patterns, rather
than the noise from the airplanes themselves.
Ms. Gilligan, I have a question for you, because I
introduced a bill last year called the No Lead in the Air Act,
and its main purpose was to give a deadline for the use of lead
in aircraft, and it was 2021. In your testimony you said--and
here I am quoting you--that ``the FAA will need continued
congressional support to streamline the process to approve the
use of new fuels in the more than 160,000 general aviation
aircraft.''
What actions do you believe Congress needs to take to
support this transition to all unleaded fuel? And do you think,
or would you recommend that we try to include this in any
upcoming reauthorization?
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
Yes, we do believe that we need some additional support
from Congress to be able to quickly approve the use of unleaded
fuels in such a large fleet. Right now our standard practice
would be to have to certify each aircraft and engine
combination for the use of this new fuel. And given the kinds
of numbers that you see in my testimony, we believe that that
would just be too long and be very inefficient.
So we did work with committee staff for the last year's
reauthorization, and we will continue to work with staff on
this year's----
Ms. Norton. You think we do need, and you think we already
are on top of what we need Congress to do?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, ma'am, in last year's bill that was
passed through the committee we did see the kind of support
that we need, and we will continue to look at the language and
make sure we get it exactly right.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel for
your presence.
Ms. Gilligan, last year's short-term extension directed the
FAA to establish a UTM [UAS Traffic Management] pilot program
by April of this year, preceded by a research plan. And that
was to be submitted to Congress by January. So I am just
wondering what steps the agency is taking to ensure that the
pilot program is on schedule, and in regard to that, what
extent have you engaged in your business.
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Congressman. The UTM program is a
combined program between FAA and NASA, and it is working really
quite well. We have a team from both agencies that are focused
on building the plan and the roadmap that you discussed, and
there is extensive industry involvement, both in designing that
and in looking at where and how we can pilot those concepts.
We can certainly provide some details for you for the
record, if that would be helpful. I don't have the dates, off
the top of my head.
Mr. Perry. OK, so--yes, I would like the information on
industry. And, you know, from my standpoint, it is not just big
industry, although a lot of great ideas come from big industry.
But there is a lot of small-town industries that can provide a
lot of valuable input. And I would just like to know if they
are being included.
And what about the schedule? Where are we at with the
schedule, with the pilot and with the plan?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, I apologize. As I said, I don't have the
dates off the top of my head, and we can certainly provide
those.
The smaller organizations that are part of the UAS
community are broadly represented by some of their advocacy
groups here in DC. And through those groups we can get
individual small operators or small businesses involved, as
well. We will provide----
Mr. Perry. Is there any opportunity for individuals or
individual companies that don't belong to a consortium that
might have a wonderful, fabulous idea that you have never seen?
How do they get involved?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, we last year had a symposium, a UAS
symposium. We will be having another one this year in March.
Mr. Perry. OK.
Ms. Gilligan. That will be an opportunity for----
Mr. Perry. I need the information on that, as well.
Ms. Gilligan. Absolutely.
Mr. Perry. Can you let us know what the agency envisions
for a certification process for unmanned traffic management? Is
it going to be, like, self-certification, similar to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's guidelines for
automated vehicles? What do you envision?
Ms. Gilligan. Right. Those are exactly the concepts that we
are looking at through the UTM pilot to understand how best to
allow that community that will operate at very low altitudes to
make the most efficient use of that airspace, recognizing as
well there are some general aviation operations that occur in
that airspace, as well.
But, yes, we are looking less at something like the very
elaborate air traffic services that we provide to large manned
aircraft at high altitude, and something much more scalable to
the kinds of operations that small UAS at low altitudes could
benefit from.
Mr. Perry. All right, great. Thank you, ma'am, for your
service, as well. And congratulations and good luck.
Mr. Thacker, can you share any examples of times where the
inconsistent regulatory environment has--or interpretations or
reinterpretations have impacted your business and your business
line?
Mr. Thacker. So certainly we have had that. We have had
examples of that, both from a domestic standpoint, where
interpretations between ACOs have been different, and on an
international standpoint, where the validation activity that we
have had with a Brazil or a Europe ended up resulting in months
of delays because of a disagreement between the FAA and that
organization, all of which, in the end, is a competitive
disadvantage to us and our ability to deliver products to
customers.
So we are--for each of those validations we have a
timeline. You have to have a customer already signed up to get
those agencies even to take on the validation activity. So that
customer is waiting for the airplane from the day you start the
process. And so you end up at times losing those sales. So it
can impact your business that way.
In terms of the inconsistencies between ACOs, I think that
just comes down to the type of business that flows through
those ACOs on a regular basis. And so sometimes something that
is very familiar in one is not in another, and that drives an
increased level of scrutiny that can be of a disadvantage to
one or the other entities.
Mr. Perry. So in an instance where, for instance, or for
example, you lose the sale, what is the relevant impact to the
community for where manufacturing is taking place, for your
supply chain, for your employees, et cetera?
Mr. Thacker. So I think most of this committee is familiar
with the state of general and business aviation. Since 2008 it
has been a difficult business environment, to say the least.
Every aircraft sale matters. And in a very globally competitive
environment where for--the markets we serve, our competitors
typically are foreign-owned companies, as well, every sale
matters, and every sale does add up to U.S. jobs.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gilligan, I would like to add my congratulations and
thanks for all your service, too. You have overseen the
tremendous changes and advances in the use of our airspace, and
directed a lot of that, and we thank you for it. I hope we will
continue to see women involved in the top level of the FAA, and
they will have big shoes to fill.
You know, we have heard recently through an Executive order
that there is kind of this two-for-one. Two for one sounds
great for happy hour in my district, but I am not sure it is a
good way to run the FAA. We are going to have to remove two
regulations for every regulation established. I believe this is
the Executive order that President Trump signed.
I wonder if you would comment on that. Is it going to
affect the FAA? It is kind of wide open right now. We don't
know who all is included, but it could be you. And how will
that impact trying to maintain the most complex, largest, and
safest airspace in the world?
Ms. Gilligan. Congresswoman, we are still working with the
Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and
Budget, along with most agencies around the Government, to
really flesh out exactly what the expectations are through the
Executive order. So we are not completely clear yet on exactly
how it will be implemented.
But we do know that a number of our rules, like part 23, we
are putting rules in place to reduce burden, to, in fact,
enable new technologies--for example, UAS. So we believe a
number of the initiatives we have underway will fall within the
expectations of the Executive order. But again, the details are
still being fleshed out, so we don't fully understand exactly
how we will implement it yet.
Ms. Titus. It is a little scary to think that you have to
strike two rules in order to create one new one, though, isn't
it? Aren't the rules that you have put in place pretty valid
and helpful, and you wouldn't want to just arbitrarily get rid
of them?
Ms. Gilligan. I would completely agree with you. But what
we do see, as we saw with part 23, for example, historically we
tended to do very prescriptive rules. We told the manufacturer,
for example, or the operator, the specific technology or the
specific thing they had to do.
What we have learned with part 23 is you can describe the
outcome that we need. It must perform this function, or the
aircraft must fly in this way, and that allows innovation and
it enables manufacturers, for example, to get product to market
more quickly and as safe or safer than what we have in place
now.
So again, to the extent some of our new rules will have
that kind of an approach, we believe that will fit the
expectation of the Executive order.
Ms. Titus. Could the industry comment on that?
Mr. Hamilton. From our standpoint, we realize it is a
complex issue. And I applaud what the FAA did with part 23. I
don't think we--we work under mainly part 25 and part 21, and I
don't think the same approach to part 25, where you throw it
all out and rewrite it, is really what we want. I think you
want to, like a scalpel with a surgeon, go after some selective
regulations.
As Ms. Gilligan said about--there may be a little bit more
prescriptive--or they are based on propeller technology that we
may want to go after and change those a little bit.
Ms. Titus. When do you think this directive will be fleshed
out, that we will know kind of what is expected of this two-
for-one?
Ms. Gilligan. I don't know exactly. As I said, we are
working with the Office of the Secretary and the Office of
Management and Budget on that guidance now. So I would expect,
as soon as----
Ms. Titus. We have somebody that heads up that agency we
might be able to get something done?
Ms. Gilligan. I am sorry?
Ms. Titus. It was an aside.
Ms. Gilligan. OK.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the witnesses here today. We do appreciate your testimony.
I would like to highlight the importance of aviation
manufacturing in my Second Congressional District in Minnesota.
In 2014, as has been said here before, aviation manufacturing
produced nearly $150 billion in total output; $30 billion of
that came from general aviation purchases. It produces 5,000
jobs in my great State of Minnesota.
In fact, I recently had the pleasure to meet with the
president of one of the general aviation manufacturers in my
district. After touring his facility, I was able to see
firsthand how manufacturing creates such a positive impact in
my community and my district and across the State of Minnesota.
I also saw how aviation innovation and supplemental type
certification--modifications, I should say--help increase the
safety for our pilots, passengers. But we need to sustain
economic growth and industry growth alongside that.
So I asked this particular fellow to send me some advice,
some real input. So I received this letter from Wipaire. They
make floats. They are the largest manufacturer of floats. And
in Minnesota, you have got as many planes with floats as you do
wheels. And they brought to light in this letter--which I would
like to submit, Mr. Chairman, to the committee--they brought to
light some of the concerns the industry has when it comes to
continuing to innovate, improve, introduce new technologies in
maintaining aircraft.
Progress has been made, as we have detailed, to create a
more efficient and effective certification program, but we need
to do more. We need to do more to advance compliance and safety
standard reviews. The FAA and this body need to provide our
manufacturers with increased ability to sell products and
services overseas.
As the preeminent nation for aviation with a great track
record at the FAA, our FAA-certified components in aircraft
should be accepted in the global market. We set a global
standard of safety. And therefore, the U.S.-made-and-certified
products should be easily available outside the U.S.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this letter be submitted
for the record.
[The letter is on pages 69-70.]
Let me start with a question for Ms. Gilligan. And thank
you for your service over the years. And this is a little bit
outside of the scope here, but it is certainly starting to
become an issue. And that is what sort of challenges for the
FAA can you see in the future, as we start to see so many more
unmanned aircraft--drones, as everybody calls them.
How does that affect FAA's mission for safety, for
certification in some cases, just going forward? I mean has the
agency looked at that and anticipated a plan? There have been
some things done already.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. We are well aware of the challenges
that we face with the increase in unmanned systems--or drones,
as you have referred to them. A year and a half ago we created
a registration requirement so we could begin to know who is
operating, and in some cases how many aircraft they are
operating.
And, more importantly, to use that as a tool to educate
this new community, because many folks who are purchasing
these, especially for personal use, are not aviators by
background or training, and they--we used to laugh that they
didn't know they were violating the National Airspace System
because they didn't know there was a National Airspace System.
And so we have----
Mr. Lewis. Let alone the privacy in my backyard. Yes,
right, exactly.
Ms. Gilligan. There are those issues, as well. So we are
well along. We have also issued an operating rule that allows
for operation of aircraft under 55 pounds within visual line of
sight and with some other restrictions. We have also put in
place in those rules the ability to provide waivers if an
operator can demonstrate that they can mitigate risk of going
beyond visual line of sight, for example, or operating at night
with technologies.
Mr. Lewis. Have you incorporated a growth factor in all of
this? I mean this is, I mean, becoming much more frequent----
Ms. Gilligan. Yes.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. In every neighborhood.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes. We believe that the rules that we have
put in place are flexible enough to address the growing demand.
Again, the rules right now, though, are up to 55 pounds. For
larger aircraft right now, those are going through
certification, and Ms. Baker can comment on how many projects
we have to actually certify meeting our full set of standards,
these larger aircraft that will be used for larger missions.
Dorenda?
Mr. Lewis. We have only got about 20 seconds, so----
Ms. Baker. OK. Just--we have assigned that to our Los
Angeles ACO, and currently they have 12 different projects
working on certification of unmanned aircraft.
Mr. Lewis. My time is just about up, but I would like to
revisit this, as it seems to be certainly a growth industry. I
thank you all for coming today, and I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And
Ms. Gilligan, we wish you well. I am sorry I haven't had the
opportunity to get to know you, but your reputation precedes
you in the work that you have done for this Nation. So thank
you.
The FAA's Organization Designation Authorization program
appears, really, to be critical to allowing the agency to keep
up with its certification process. In fact, the industry is
calling on you to expand it.
But can you speak more to the funding issues that plague
the agency, and how those issues hinder your labor force and
prevent you from expanding the ODA program?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. And I will ask Ms. Baker to
supplement it, as well.
Actually, the delegation program allows us to be more
effective with the resources that we are provided, because we
can take advantage of the technical expertise within a company
to work on our behalf, and to make those kinds of safety
findings.
But, Dorenda, perhaps you would like to speak about the
staffing?
Ms. Baker. Yes. As Peggy said, it is very important for us
to use the opportunities like the Organization Designation
Authorization, because it does leverage us. We have about 700
engineers, whereas Boeing has approximately 900 UMs, people
that are working on our behalf.
So, this is something that is really important, and it does
help us to utilize the resources that we do have efficiently
and effectively.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. And, you know, to the panel, but
based on testimony by Dr. Epstein, you know, is the industry
open, you know, to additional user fees that would give the FAA
more budgetary cushion to expand its labor force to meet the
increasing demands of the certification process?
Dr. Epstein. This is the most cost-conscious of industries,
since we are so highly competitive. So we certainly have to
examine what the impact would have on the competitiveness of
products and exports as to what that fee schedule might be.
Mr. Payne. OK. And Mr. Hamilton, we all understand Boeing's
global reach. And I would like to know your experience in
dealing with the EASA, and how it compares to your experiences
with the FAA, particularly in the certification process. Where
do they have--that we meet, and vice versa?
Mr. Hamilton. EASA, E-A-S-A, is the European equivalent of
the FAA. And they are a newer organization. It just really came
about a little over a decade ago to cover one European
regulatory [sic].
Because they are newer, they--I will say--are starting from
a position of trying to be more efficient, more nimble. They
are a much smaller organization than the FAA. And as we have
talked here today, when you have critical resources, it is how
do you use those resources most effectively.
We find that EASA has a delegation authorization with the
manufacturers over in Europe that takes it to a--I will say a
further extent beyond today's ODA that we have over in the U.S.
With it, again, comes certain requirements for oversight. But
it is a--it tends to be a little bit more efficient, in terms
of working with them.
I think, from a rulemaking--the FAA has done a lot over the
years to harmonize on rules. I think really it gets down to--
and we talked on it earlier--was about interpretations of those
rules, where there can be different interpretations of how the
same rule is applied. And that is kind of an ongoing effort
that we have to work through.
Mr. Payne. OK, thank you.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will yield
back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Westerman?
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the distinguished panel for being here today.
Ms. Gilligan, this is a milestone for you and me. It is
your last Aviation Subcommittee meeting, my first Aviation
Subcommittee meeting. So I am reminded that a lot of people
have come before us and a lot of people will come after us. And
I trust they will do good work.
I have heard it said before that the best illustration of
trust is to step on an airplane, where you are trusting the
people who certified that airplane, you are trusting the
engineers, the people manufacturing, the whole system, you are
trusting them with your life. And it is so important that we
maintain that trust.
As there has been a lot of discussion on the importance of
improving efficiency of the top of certification process by
using risk-based approaches and applying safety continuum
principles to better focus FAA's limited resources, can you
talk about how you apply your risk-based approach to
certification projects, such as determining the level of FAA
involvement and the use of delegation, which has already been
talked about a little bit?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. But I would ask that Ms. Baker
provide that information. She actually runs the organization
responsible for these certifications and has provided quite a
bit of leadership in that area.
Ms. Baker. Thank you for the question. We are very proud of
what we have been able to accomplish in the area of utilizing
the risk-based decisionmaking. We have actually implemented
tools that will help standardize the way that our engineers
will evaluate an individual project. And then it identifies
areas where we would expect that it be delegated. And if it is
not delegated, then there needs to be a justification as to
what the certain circumstances are that would be different from
the norm.
You mentioned the safety continuum. That is something that
we also feel is very helpful in our evaluation of how to put
the right amount of rigor in the right areas. Many of you are
familiar with our experimental aircraft certification, which is
someplace where society accepts quite a bit of risk. It is
maybe a recreational application. So what you can compare it to
is something like a motorcycle. And then you can go up to the
top of the continuum, where you have transport category
aircraft like the Boeing aircraft, where society accepts zero
risk. The tolerance is very, very low.
And so, when we are looking at our projects, we want to
make sure that we are putting our efforts in the area where we
have the greatest level of risk if we don't take care of the
issues at that area. Society does not accept any risk, we need
to focus our efforts in that area.
Mr. Westerman. So have you classified airworthiness
requirements based on risk or impact or safety of flight?
Ms. Baker. Yes. We actually went through all of our
regulations. Some of them are relatively simple. You stress
something until it breaks. Other times it is a very
sophisticated analysis. And so things that are very simple to
apply and have low probability of being applied inappropriately
and the consequence of that failure is protected by some
redundancy in the system, that would be a low-risk area. And
then there are other areas where we are very sensitive to the
risk.
Mr. Westerman. So you mentioned low-risk areas. That would
be, like, cabin interiors and seats. Do you measure the
effectiveness of implementation by monitoring whether there is
a lot of technical workforce involvement in those areas?
Ms. Baker. We do look at that, but I think I need to
clarify. There is a misconception that interior items are a
very low-risk area. What we want to assure is that the
passengers are protected in the event of an accident. And so
there are complexities in the design as the airlines try to
specialize their interiors to suit their customers.
So we have a lot of complex interiors, as you may have
seen, with video cameras and videos at the stations, and
sometimes doors in between different compartments. And so it
gets more complex than I think the average person really
appreciates.
Mr. Westerman. OK. And, Mr. Hamilton, you mentioned that
not only are 90 percent of Boeing's 148,000 high-tech, good-
paying jobs U.S. jobs, but there is also an additional 1.5
million U.S. jobs in your supply chain, which--some of those
come from my hometown and my congressional district.
And you also noted that the FAA must remain global leaders
in aircraft certification, and you listed some bullet points.
The last one was that the FAA must fully support and promote
U.S. exports of aerospace products and services. Can you
elaborate on what actions you believe FAA should be taking in
this regard?
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. I think when we talk about
promoting, it is about being a leader, driving relationships,
being present. ``Promote'' used to be in the FAA charter. It
was taken out years ago. It is in the EASA charter. We talked
about EASA earlier. And EASA, they work hand in hand with the
European manufacturers to promote their products to sell. And
they are out there trying to engage with other countries even
around how they can help them.
We want the FAA to help promote American jobs, as well, and
support the products that are built in the U.S. by helping us
with the exports where we need it, or helping with key
campaigns, and being there, working with the Government
agencies on Government-to-Government contracts, making sure we
have good, strong bilaterals that allow for ease of validations
or other export requirements.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
I think I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. You are more than out of time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Carson?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman. I am very concerned that,
as introduced, this new private panel does not include one of
the largest users of the U.S. airspace, which is the Defense
Department.
I would like to hear from any of the witnesses their views
about how privatizing air traffic control could impact the
coordination that currently takes place, and what the impact
would be for our national security.
[No response.]
Mr. Carson. OK, next question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carson. I am interested to hear--I actually introduced
a bill--I am reintroducing a bill. I am curious about your
views on the addition of a physical barricade outside the
cockpit. I have heard proponents point out this measure could
be effective and not especially expensive, but I have also
heard objections.
I am planning to offer an amendment to add a secondary
barrier to all U.S. passenger carriers manufactured going
forward. What are your thoughts? Is it an inconvenience? A
security concern? Yes?
Ms. Gilligan. Mr.----
Mr. Carson. Yes.
Ms. Gilligan. Congressman, FAA actually issued standards
for a secondary barrier. And so it is available for designers
to design against and for operators to request to have that
installed. So it can be done.
I do think there are some real questions about the location
of it, depending on the configuration of the aircraft and the
aircraft exits. And obviously, we would want to assure that it
doesn't interfere with any emergency egress that would affect
passenger safety in some way. But the standards do exist and a
designer can design to those standards, and an operator could,
in fact, request that.
Mr. Hamilton. I would like to just share----
Mr. Carson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. Our thoughts on that. And again,
I applaud the words that were in the FAA reauthorization bill.
But I caution you about putting prescriptive requirements in
there like a secondary barrier.
Mr. Carson. OK.
Mr. Hamilton. I think we should step back and really look
at what are we trying to achieve. You want to keep the bad
people off the airplanes, first. You know? Make sure TSA has
strong procedures, keep them off the airplane.
Secondly, I think you have to look at what we have done
already. There are part 121 regulations that govern the
airlines on how to--when a pilot comes out of the flight deck.
And those are quite effective today. I have been on flights
where I have been asked, as an able-bodied passenger, to assist
in case of an emergency.
Mr. Carson. Absolutely.
Mr. Hamilton. And I have been willing to do that.
Third, you have to look at the secure flight deck door that
we instituted after 2001. It has been extremely effective.
So, I think the risk is--really has decreased
significantly, between what TSA has done, what the part 121
rules govern, and the flight deck door. As Ms. Gilligan said,
we have had airlines request a secondary barrier, and they have
actually put it on and then taken it off because they found
that the options through part 121 give them a little bit more
flexibility and more efficiency in how to control the security
of the airplane.
Mr. Carson. All right. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Webster?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to follow
up on a question the Chair asked about cybersecurity with Ms.
Gilligan.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has a
framework for cybersecurity. Does that in any way benefit your
concerns or problems, or does it fit in any way the ones that
would be specific to the aviation industry?
Ms. Gilligan. Congressman, I do believe that NIST is a part
of the interagency work that is underway to look at standards
for cybersecurity and those kinds of things. I apologize, I
don't have the details, and we can certainly provide that back
to you.
I don't know, Ms. Baker, if you are familiar with any of
that work.
Ms. Baker. No.
Ms. Gilligan. No. So if we could get back to you on the
role of NIST and their standards, clearly, they always inform
much of the work we do in security and other areas. I am just
not particularly familiar with the work we are doing with them
in this area.
Mr. Webster. It seems like the--those that are perpetrating
cyber crimes and so forth are very aggressive, and that their
abilities are moving along at a very fast speed. Does the
bureaucracy in any way hinder the counter to that, in your
particular aviation authority?
Ms. Gilligan. First, I am pleased to say that any reports
that we have received of cyber attacks on aircraft have been
investigated by FAA, along with the FBI. And we have not been
able to sustain that any attack has successfully occurred. And
we believe that is because of the design standards we have in
place.
But to your point, Congressman, we do know that that
community that is looking to hack into things is always looking
for new ways. They are very creative. And so that is why we
have brought together an interagency group to start to
anticipate where might the threat be coming from, and what more
do we need to do as we look at design and maintaining the
continued safety of the fleet that is already in operation. So
we have a very extensive effort in that regard, and I don't
believe that that will be slowed down as a result of
bureaucracy. We understand the risk is too high.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start out
by asking Ms. Gilligan about a bilateral with the EU. I
understand there is important revisions to the technical
implementation procedures of this bilateral that are pending.
It is my understanding this will help improve the validation
process surrounding aviation products. When do you think that
these revisions will be adopted?
Ms. Gilligan. Congressman, Ms. Baker actually negotiated
those revisions, so I will ask her to respond to you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Ms. Baker. You are probably familiar with our validation
improvement roadmap. And we were working through that to rely
more heavily upon each other, and in some cases fully on each
other.
The latest revisions we had gone forward to try to take a
pretty aggressive approach, and had to take a bit of a step
back so that we could think through some of the things that we
wanted to do that were much more ambitious. So we are going to
be issuing what we call a TIP Rev 5a in the near term, in the
next few weeks. And then we will, by the end of March, issue a
TIP Rev 6. And in those what we are trying to do is, again,
rely more heavily upon each other, avoid the redundant work.
And, as we move forward past what were very basic, complex
modifications to aircraft, we are going to start incorporating
full reliance on each other for things like engines and
propellers and then, later, small airplanes.
Mr. Lipinski. And that is something that is very important
and gets done as quickly as possible, because it would be very
helpful to the American aviation industry.
I want to check with the chairman. I think the clock didn't
restart at the beginning of my question time, because I don't
think I am that far along. So I just want to check with--make
sure that was the case. OK. I won't take another full 5
minutes, don't worry. Thank you.
The FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise
program, also known as the CLEEN program, is a Government-
industry research partnership which has leveraged millions of
dollars of private money to develop and demonstrate certifiable
aircraft technologies that are at high states of technology
readiness. This program has worked very well, in terms of
helping to actually produce aircraft that have lower noise,
greater efficiency.
So I know that both Boeing and then Pratt & Whitney have
been participants in a CLEEN program and Dr. Epstein had
mentioned it in his testimony. So, Dr. Epstein and also Mr.
Hamilton, can you speak about how these investments can serve
as a catalyst for acceleration of new technology and its impact
on American competitiveness in aviation manufacturing?
So Dr. Epstein?
Dr. Epstein. These get to the heart of the competitiveness
of our products. Airlines buy aircraft because of their fuel
efficiency. Communities welcome aircraft because of the lack of
noise. And these are both focuses of the program.
Many of these technologies are just entering service now.
And I see that the output from the CLEEN I program, which is
just finishing up, will probably be in the next new airplane
that will enter service in the next decade. And, in fact, as we
speak we are running an engine down in West Palm Beach
demonstrating very low noise capabilities and very high
efficiency of new types of turbofan engines.
So, it is--we put up a lot of money for part of this
program. So I think it is a great example of the catalytic
effect that a relatively small Federal investment can make on
this industry. And the FAA investment is focused on the
relatively near term, which, for us, is 8 to 10 years, which is
what it takes to prove a technology and then develop a product
from it.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton, you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Hamilton. I would agree that I think it is a great
partnership with industry and the Government in terms of really
promoting new technologies. We have flown an eco-demonstrator
roughly every year with--to go prove out these technologies.
And it allows us to accelerate the incorporation of those into
new products.
So similar, the Europeans have a very similar-type
investment plan over there, and I think this is a good product.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, this program has to be reauthorized,
and I am hopeful that it is something that we are going to be
able to do in the FAA reauthorization. I think it is something
that has been very helpful to the American aviation industry,
helped the competitiveness. And so I think it is something we
need to continue.
So, with that, I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
Ms. Gilligan, why are you leaving? You are much too young to
retire.
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, sir. But it seems it is time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you for your work. I am interested
in a lot of things. But I just want to ask about one thing. And
this has been a long-time concern of mine. But 3 years ago this
month we had testimony in this subcommittee that the--by Calvin
Scovel, the inspector general, that the NextGen program had an
original cost estimate of $40 billion, but that it was more
likely to run two to three times that much. And it seems to me
you are talking about some awfully big money if you are talking
about getting up into costs possibly as much as $120 billion.
And I am just wondering, can you tell us where we stand
today, 3 years later? And are costs still spiraling out of
control, and what is the latest estimate or guesstimate as to
the end cost of that program?
Ms. Gilligan. Sir, under Administrator Huerta, what we have
done is reach out to industry to align our program with their
priorities. We have a NextGen Advisory Committee, which is
chaired by one of our major airlines, and all of the
stakeholders who have a part in the system are members of that.
And within the last 2 years--2 or 3 years now--we have
requested that set of priorities from industry, and we have met
all of their requests. So we are working very closely with
industry. There are already measurable benefits for Delta, for
example, at Atlanta, and a number of other major airlines at
major airports. They are seeing the benefits of the
efficiencies that come with the NextGen system. We can provide
for you all of the detailed cost and benefit numbers, but I do
believe industry would concur that we are on the right path,
and that, in fact, the system is beginning to demonstrate the
benefits that we have all anticipated.
Mr. Duncan. Well, you also testified that many of the key
parts of the program that had original goals of being done by
2025 were going to have to be extended out to 2030 and even
2035. Do you--are we back on a better schedule than that, or--
--
Ms. Gilligan. Sir, I apologize, I am not familiar with the
inspector general's testimony that you are referring to in the
safety organization, I don't manage that program. But we work
very closely with the NextGen program. And again, over the last
several years, we have been delivering new systems and new
technologies. The most recent one is the data communications
technology, which is, in many locations, ahead of schedule.
So again, I think we would like to offer for you, our
staff, the details of exactly how the program has been managed
over these last 3 to 5 years, and show you the progress that we
are making.
Mr. Duncan. All right. What I think would be good or
helpful for the committee is to have somebody take a look. This
testimony is mentioned in the briefing paper that we got, and
it was testimony that--in a hearing on February 5th of 2014.
And I would like to know where we stand, particularly on the
costs and other issues that Mr. Scovel raised at that time, and
whether it has gotten better or worse since then, and some of
the specifics.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. We can certainly provide that. I
believe there has been additional work by the inspector general
since then, and very detailed responses by FAA to the inspector
general recommendations. So we will make sure that you and your
staff have all of that information.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell [presiding]. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaMalfa
for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, we know
the importance of the aviation manufacturing industry in this
country for many decades, and what an economic as well as
technological advancement that means for all of us here. So
being a California Member, I have seen how we have been
devastated in our economy by the departure of much of the
industry. And so I am concerned about the regulatory load on
that.
And then I also hear in committee here about people
concerned about the plane sound. I live on a farm in my real
life, and nothing makes me happier than hearing a nine-cylinder
Pratt & Whitney radial going over my fields in the spring. So--
and that and the stuff--the airplanes don't drive me crazy, it
is the sirens all night long here in town. So--but I am not
used to that. So, anyway, keep hanging in there.
But for Mr. Epstein, I met you in California there. And so
much of the aerospace has left the State. And primarily--you
know, there was a downturn in the economy, but also they are
showing up in other States. So can you reflect a little bit on
what you have seen with the regulatory load in the State of
California that has caused--I think your last facility, you
know, had pulled out a couple years ago that was making the
auxiliary power units for aircraft. And what made California
less competitive elsewhere, and what lesson can we learn that
doesn't completely chase the industry out of the country,
which--I sure hope that we can maintain domestically built
aircraft and all its related components.
Dr. Epstein. Well, the engine business is more constrained
in size in the aircraft certification. So the engine
directorate is based in Burlington, Massachusetts. And we
almost exclusively deal with them, as opposed to the aircraft
directorate, which is more broadly based around the country,
including Los Angeles. So I can't really comment on that.
UTC has very extensive facilities, I think 140 acres in San
Diego on the waterfront, where we are, I believe, the world's
oldest manufacturer of nacelles, and continue to do that. The
APU business was moved within UTC from UTC aerospace systems,
which is when it was in San Diego, to Pratt & Whitney. And it
was essentially--it was a very small facility. And so it was
moved to----
Mr. LaMalfa. Don't take me wrong, sir. I am not faulting
you for your business decisions that may or may not be made. I
am just--in general, if you are finding an atmosphere of
regulation that is not conducive, whether it is California,
anywhere. I mean what lessons can we apply from what you or
some of your colleagues have had to do on trying to find a more
friendly place of doing business, and what could we apply
towards national policy we would make here?
Dr. Epstein. The engine directorate is, I think, a jewel
for this country. And I think what we can do as a policy issue
is make sure that in any FAA reorganization its deep expertise
in the peculiar requirements of the engine business not be
diluted or otherwise lost.
The organizational development authority was a step
forward, and I think the certify design organization, which Mr.
Hamilton mentioned, is another process by which there is more
delegation to qualified industry, reducing the load on the FAA,
and allowing industry to be more flexible. And then we would be
more aligned with the European regulators, and, in particular,
the flexibility they give to European manufacturers.
Mr. LaMalfa. So flexibility from FAA would be pretty key.
Dr. Epstein. Oh, it always has been.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Hamilton, do you care to touch on that, as
well?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, again, I think it is how do you best
use the total resources that are available around
certification, whether they are in the industry or whether they
are at the FAA. And I think we have got to constantly look at
how to best efficiently use those limited resources, given the
production rates are going up, given that there is development
programs going on constantly. We are doing a lot more
certification work than we have ever done before.
With respect to California, sir, though, I just want to,
you know, for the record just state we are very proud of the
folks that we have in California that continue to support and
to do design work in California to fly airplanes.
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate you hanging in there. It is a
hard State to do anything in, so I know you are trying.
Real quickly, a one-liner, Ms. Gilligan. We have a
situation in an airport up my district, the Tulelake Airport,
which has been required to do a perimeter fence as per safety
regulations. It has been running into some issues with that. I
would just like to ask if you could look into that, please, and
help expedite, so that the airport people know what to do and
how to complete that for their safety requirements.
Ms. Gilligan. Certainly, Congressman. I will take that
request back to our Associate Administrator for Airports, and
make sure that they are focused on that issue.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you so much.
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rokita for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chair and I thank the witnesses for
their testimony. Apologies, I was in another hearing and just
got here recently, but wanted to have maybe what would be some
followup questions with regard to what was said and asked
earlier on today.
Ms. Gilligan or Ms. Baker, with regard to the part 23
rewrite, I am reading your testimony and I see that it is going
pretty good, in your view, and it seems that industry is
basically saying the same thing. And I am reading in your
testimony where you describe how you are now taking the part 23
rewrite not just to new design sheets of aircraft, but to
equipment, avionics and such. You mentioned in your testimony
that you are focused on equipment that actually improves the
safety, especially in general aviation aircraft, and that is
fair.
But then you talk about a prototype you are working with
industry on in bringing that--the same rewrite features to
avionics that are just generally better. And by better, you
intuitively also get safer, right?
So my question would be how is this prototype program
going? What results can we see, and when? And how do you define
what category of avionics you are going to focus on next?
Ms. Gilligan. So, Congressman, let me start and I will ask
Dorenda to give you more detail. But I think you are familiar
with the efforts that we have had so far have been to enable
what we call nonrequired safety equipment to be able to be
installed. Because it is not required, it is a much lower level
of certification or certitude. But it is to give pilots
situational awareness. The new prototype is looking at how can
we streamline the process for certified systems to be able to
get those into general aviation at a lower price point.
Mr. Rokita. Oh, so you are not even in the certified space
yet. You are--certified space as it regards that angle of
attack indicator, but you haven't moved beyond that in the
certified world?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, we have. So let me ask Dorenda to give
you the details.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
Ms. Gilligan. Because, as you know, it always gets
complicated.
Ms. Baker. What we are trying to do is to find out, again,
back to that safety continuum, how much rigor needs to be
applied. She mentioned the nonrequired safety-enhancing
equipment, and we recognized that we were applying too much
rigor to equipment that wasn't even required. So we wanted to
get that into the aircraft as quickly as possible, because it
is very important for loss of control and controlled flight
into terrain to give the pilots a situational awareness.
Things that we are looking into now is scaling the
production of those appliances and parts, because it makes a
difference on how much scrutiny they undergo in the production
of the part. And I think it has been mentioned before. And
Michael might even have some first-hand knowledge of some of
the things that we are doing, along with the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association and the Experimental Aircraft
Association, one representing people who want to fly these, and
the other the manufacturers that have the higher end equipment.
But we are coming together and finding ways that we can work
both parts of the industry, such that we can come up with a
good solution for both----
Mr. Rokita. Are you finding tension in the manufacturing
world between those that went through the process under the
legacy certification processes, and therefore invested a lot of
money, and they need a return on that investment--that is how
you hire people and stay in business--versus this new way of
doing things? Is there that tension? And how are you resolving
it as the Government referee, so to speak?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes. Well, actually, it is interesting, you
are right. There was tension because there were--one, not
because I did it and I had to go through the hard process, but
more that we know that the process that we have today provides
a safe product, and we don't want the reputation of the
industry degraded.
And so, instead of being a referee, I actually asked them,
``Why don't you guys go sort it out together and find an area
where you both agree that it is beneficial for both?'' And they
came back to us with some proposals, which were very helpful.
Mr. Rokita. OK. So I am always a little bit schizophrenic
when I see the word ``prototype'' coming from an agency,
because on one hand it looks like you are thinking outside the
box, and that is wonderful, but then it also means that it is a
prototype, which means it may always be a prototype.
When do we go full-scale with this kind of thinking?
Ms. Gilligan. We are actually seeing results today. What we
continue to do is just keep pushing it. I know we call them
prototypes, but it is really kind of the entrance of the things
that we are doing----
Mr. Rokita. Pushing it, when can I see that this works, and
that you guys are embracing this less rigorous kind of
situation because it is not needed----
Ms. Gilligan. Again, I think you already should see results
from, like, the angle of attack indicator and some of the
things that----
Mr. Rokita. No, no, no, I see results, but when are we full
scale? You are in prototype mode. When are we going to make
this the practice.
Ms. Gilligan. It is the practice.
Mr. Rokita. OK.
Ms. Gilligan. We are still trying to assure that we have
got the checks and balances that are in place to make sure that
we don't go too far.
Mr. Rokita. You are talking out----
Ms. Gilligan. That is what I----
Mr. Rokita. You are saying two different things to me.
Ms. Gilligan. I know, I know. But what I wanted to share is
why we call it prototype is in one case we went--what industry
felt we went too far. We issued something that everybody was
very, very excited about. But, in retrospect, we realized that
that was maybe just a little bit too far out of the box, so we
scaled back. So we are pushing forward, but in some cases we do
need to reassess what we did and whether or not that pushed the
envelope beyond what was acceptable to industry.
Mr. Rokita. So I am going to ask a question on the record
for you to follow up with. I just--perhaps because I missed
some of the hearing, and I apologize again--I would like more
detail on that pushback so I understand the issue better.
Ms. Gilligan. It would be great to talk to you privately on
that. So that would be----
Mr. Rokita. No, could you just----
Ms. Gilligan. In the record?
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. Send me a letter? Yes.
Ms. Gilligan. OK.
Mr. Rokita. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Gilligan. OK, will do.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Meadows
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of
you--Ms. Gilligan, and thank you for your service, and
congratulations on your upcoming retirement. And so I am not
going to ask a bunch of detailed questions. I would like to
make two comments.
One is with regards to the implementation of NextGen. If
you will carry the message back is that we continue to have
hearing after hearing after hearing with no specificity in
terms of benchmarks and how we are going to accomplish it,
other than the request for more money. And so, in doing that, I
looked into it in a much more detailed way than ever before,
and it is too segmented to actually, at this point, have any
real results, even though you may mention that it is having
great results in Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport, perhaps not as much in Charlotte, North Carolina.
And so, when we look at those, if you would carry that
back, that it is critically important that we have more defined
benchmarks and, really, timetables as it relates to some of the
implementation. Talking to some of your folks, it seems like we
are moving some of the money from NextGen into other areas of
FAA that would actually, in my mind, be a problem from an
appropriator's standpoint. And I am not making an accusation, I
am just saying if you would ask them to look at that.
And Ms. Baker, let me come to you. Because what Mr. Rokita
was just talking about, it is critically important, from a
certification standpoint and a general aviation standpoint,
that we get it right. So what I would like for you to do is
give this committee five recommendations on how we can get the
Government out of that and allow the certification process to
go in a more streamlined and expeditious manner, so that we are
not going back and forth on the timelines that he is talking
about with prototypes and what is success and what is not
success.
So could both of you do that?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. Ms. Baker?
Ms. Baker. Absolutely. And we didn't get a chance to make a
plug for our blueprint. We are working on a blueprint which
will provide a lot of recommendations, and we are doing that in
collaboration with industry.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Ms.
Lawrence for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sure that
everyone in this room will agree when I state that in today's
global economy, a modern transportation infrastructure network
is critical. I represent the 14th District of Michigan. My
district directly employs over 25,000 employees in
manufacturing, and tens of thousands indirectly. The aerospace
manufacturing industry directly employs more than 200 employees
in my district, and 1,000 more through indirect partnerships.
So my question is for Ms. Gilligan. While we discuss the
current state of civil aviation manufacturing, including the
regulatory and the general health of the industry, I want to
talk about the workforce of the industry. FAA's primary mission
is ensuring aviation safety. The more than 14,000 FAA air
traffic control specialists do a great public service.
So my question is, while FAA works through this surge in
the hiring process, I want to know if your agency has the
capacity and infrastructure in place to train these new works.
How are you managing this surge in hiring? And what are the
challenges you currently face?
Ms. Gilligan. Congresswoman, I can provide you some of
those details, although I am not responsible for the air
traffic service provision, and we can get you additional
details.
But I can tell you that FAA has planned for the hiring
surge, and they have continued to hire, even while we are under
the continuing resolution, for example, and through these early
months of the new administration. We have been authorized to
continue to hire air traffic controllers, as well as other
safety technical specialties, and that hiring continues. We
have a training facility down in Oklahoma City. Those classes
are prescheduled, and they are filled, and we will be able to
continue to meet the hiring requirements for this year.
Mrs. Lawrence. With that being said, Mr. Epstein, in your
written statement you mention the demand for the next
generation of aerospace engineers. I cochair the Congressional
Investment in America's Skilled Workforce Caucus, and our
mission is to scale up the American workforce. Can you
elaborate on the need for a skilled workforce in this critical
aerospace industry, as well as in U.S. manufacturing?
Dr. Epstein. Yes. The aerospace industry in particular has
a bimodal age distribution, where there is a large cohort close
to retirement with vast skills, a hole reflecting lack of
hiring for decades----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Dr. Epstein [continuing]. And then a group of enthusiastic
young people. This extends from the more technical aspects of
aerospace engineering, which is working with universities, but
also to trained workers on the factory floor, who are just as
important.
And so, you will see that the industry is starting--which
has long worked with universities around the country, as has
the FAA and NASA, in terms of fostering engineering education--
is now working with the community colleges to increase training
available--and encourage young people.
Aerospace is so successful in the U.S. because we have had
some of the best engineers the world has ever seen build up our
capacity. If we can't get the same quality of both----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Dr. Epstein [continuing]. Engineers and manufacturing
workers to go into this business, we won't have the same future
that we have had in the past. So industry is critically focused
on this, because we really are our people.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton, can you comment on what Boeing's effort is to
invest in the skilled trade workforce, please?
Mr. Hamilton. Thank you. Yes. So the bimodal distribution
of aerospace workers, I think we have been talking about that
since I was on the early bimodal stage back 32 years ago. It
exists, and we do have retirements. But luckily, people space
out their retirements.
Some of the STEM activities that are in efforts across the
country, I think, are very effective. I think we are seeing a
lot more interest in engineering, in the sciences and
technologies, from women, from very diverse populations, and it
is great. And I will tell you that the younger workforce that
we are bringing in is highly capable. And I am excited for
them, because I think when I look at what they are capable of
doing----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton [continuing]. I think they will carry on.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just want to close with this. We recognize
that the average age of a skilled trade worker is 53. We do
have a gap, and it is very encouraging to hear that you
understand it has to be a partnership between the industry who
is producing the jobs and have the need for the skilled
workforce, and for us in Government to support that and nurture
that, and for these community colleges.
So thank you so much, and I yield back, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Woodall for 5 minutes.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Chairman Mitchell. I appreciate
that and I appreciate you all spending an extended morning with
us.
Dr. Epstein, I particularly appreciate your mentioning
Columbus, Georgia, and your work down there. Mr. Thacker has
some work going on in Columbus, Georgia, as well. But when you
spend an extra $300 million to put in more capacity, when you
recognize that you have an incredibly talented workforce, an
incredibly robust training system as we have there in Columbus
State, it means a lot to us in the community, and I appreciate
you recognizing that for the entire panel today.
My question is actually for our panel member that we won't
have back here again. Ms. Gilligan, leadership is hard. Being
an agent of change is hard. Setting expectations, as the
article I branch of the article II branch, is hard. Help me to
set my expectations. When you have a leadership change, as we
will soon have, should I expect the reforms we have talked
about today to be employed more rapidly because folks are not
invested in the status quo, they are able to get out there and
lead, make all their mistakes in the first 90 days? Or should I
expect things to be much slower than if we had a continued and
steadied hand on the till?
Ms. Gilligan. I think you can expect that things will
continue to move along the plans and programs that we have
established with industry. So, as Ms. Baker mentioned, we have
agreements with our industry of what we will do and when we
will do it on both sides, what we will do as the FAA and what
they must do in order to meet their responsibilities and be
accountable, as well.
I have a very strong management team in the aviation safety
organization, and we have strong support from the
Administrator, who continues his 5-year term until next
January. I don't expect you will see a ripple in our continued
success in this area. Very much as they describe it, it will be
like the fist in the bucket of water. It will fill the space
quickly, and I think you will see that we are committed to
these improvements, and we will continue to work with industry
to accomplish what we have committed to do.
Mr. Woodall. Can I ask that question of our industry
witnesses, too? Depends on which poll you look at. Are folks
optimistic about the future? Do they have anxiety about the
future? Certainly we have a big leadership change going on,
haven't had one like this in 8 years. What is industry going to
tell me?
Do you share Ms. Gilligan's confidence that it is just
going to be the fist in the bucket of water and you won't
likely detect any ripple at all? Or, is there real opportunity
to either get this right or get this wrong as the new
administration takes over?
Mr. Thacker?
Mr. Thacker. I would be happy to comment on that. I do
think that the actions that are in place give us the
opportunity to carry the momentum forward. But I do think it is
important that this committee and Congress overall continue to
provide the support and impetus to make sure that we carry them
forward to conclusion.
And the articles that were in the proposed bills last year
provided a great framework for us to be able to move forward,
and we would like to see those same sorts of proposals put on
the table this year, and put into the reauthorization act.
Mr. Woodall. The Boeing nod of approval there?
Mr. Hamilton. I echo those comments, as well.
Mr. Woodall. All right. And the largest employer on the
panel from the great State of Georgia? Dr. Epstein, is that
also a nod of approval?
Dr. Epstein. It is, indeed, sir.
Mr. Woodall. Well, I am very grateful to you for being here
today and, again, spending the morning and now into the
afternoon with us.
So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Larsen for a couple of questions.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Mr. Thacker, just to--for the record,
the greatest--what would--what changes would have the greatest
effect in the shortest amount of time, from Textron Aviation's
perspective, at the FAA?
Mr. Thacker. So again, from an impact standpoint, full
utilization of the designations that we already have in place
is the fastest path to be able to make a difference for us and
for the FAA. Beyond that, to carry forward the philosophy that
has been put in place with the part 23 rewrite, and take that
philosophy, albeit maybe not in exactly the same manner,
forward into part 25 and other parts applicable to other
aircraft categories would be a great move forward, in terms of
streamlining the overall regulations to make the entire process
less prescriptive and more appropriate.
Mr. Larsen. OK, thanks. And I will get the honor of asking
your last question in front of this committee. And it is going
to be easy. All I want is--you don't even have to answer it.
I just want to request that you all prepare a briefing for
us to look at the consistency of the application of
certification and regulation from region to region within the
FAA. That is one of the issues we discussed a couple years ago,
and I wanted to get an update on that, what we were doing to
train and retrain folks so that folks aren't forum-shopping, if
you will, for the best deal.
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, sir. Ms. Baker will be glad to
present and prepare that for you. And it very much feeds in to
the air transformation that we have underway. Much of what
drives that decision is to make sure we can provide consistent
guidance and application of the standard. So thank you very
much.
Mr. Larsen. Great. Thanks a lot. Thanks.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell. If there are no further witnesses or
questions today, I want to thank the witnesses for their
testimony and their time.
I want to wish Ms. Gilligan all the best in retirement. I
tried that; look what happened.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mitchell. And I thank the Members for their
participation.
This subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]