    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          THE STATE OF AVIATION SAFETY

    =======================================================================

                                    (115-36)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 27, 2018

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    31-404 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 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        EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JEFF DENHAM, California              JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         Georgia
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 Vice Ranking Member
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia           JARED HUFFMAN, California
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan              STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    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........................................   vii

                                   WITNESSES

    Ali Bahrami, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal
      Aviation Administration:

        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Responses to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri..............................    49
            Hon. Mark DeSaulnier of California.......................    54
            Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.........................    61
    Akbar Sultan, Deputy Director, Airspace Operations and Safety
      Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
    John DeLisi, Director, Office of Aviation Safety, National
      Transportation Safety Board:

        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
        Responses to questions for the record from the following
          Representatives:

            Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri..............................    81
            Hon. Mark DeSaulnier of California.......................    82
    Matthew E. Hampton, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation
      Audits, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
      Transportation:

        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    85
        Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Mark
          DeSaulnier of California...................................    97
    Captain Tim Canoll, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
      International:

        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    99
        Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Daniel
          Lipinski of Illinois.......................................   123

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Tennessee, submission of the following:

        Accident Report of the National Transportation Safety Board,
          ``Uncontained Engine Failure and Subsequent Fire: American
          Airlines Flight 383, Boeing 767-323, N345AN, Chicago,
          Illinois, October 28, 2016,'' NTSB/AAR-18/01, PB2018-100344
          \1\
        Flyers Rights Education Fund, Inc. D/B/A FlyersRights.org,
          and Paul Hudson, Petitioners v. Federal Aviation
          Administration, et al., Respondents (D.C. Cir. July 28,
          2017) (No. 16-1101)........................................   124
    Letter of February 26, 2018, from Air Care Alliance et al. to
      Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate et al.,
      submitted by Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Washington...................................   147

    ----------
    \1\ This 91-page accident report can be found online at the National
    Transportation Safety Board's website at https://ntsb.gov/
    investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/aar1801.pdf.

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Written statement from Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo
      Airline Association............................................   155

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          THE STATE OF AVIATION SAFETY

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2018

                      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 come to
    order. And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to
    declare a recess at any time. And I ask unanimous consent that
    members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the
    subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Thanks again for all of you being here today. Today's
    hearing will focus on the subcommittee's number one priority:
    ensuring the safety of the aviation system and the traveling
    public.
        Our system is extremely safe; last year, nearly 850 million
    passengers boarded passenger aircraft within or flying to the
    United States and, due to the hard work of all of you and
    others in the aviation sector, there were no fatalities on
    those aircraft.
        This milestone, however, does not mark the end of our work.
    While the high level of safety we have achieved is a result of
    close collaboration between Congress, the Federal Aviation
    Administration, industry, and labor, we must remain vigilant
    and recognize that we can always do more and be better to
    ensure the safety in our skies.
        I would like to recognize the Colgan Air families who are
    in attendance today, and thank you for your steadfast support
    of safety issues, and we appreciate your being with us once
    again on this ninth anniversary of the tragic crash near
    Buffalo, New York.
        Recent events and near misses remind us of the work that
    remains. Last year we avoided a potentially catastrophic event
    when an Air Canada jet carrying 140 people accidentally lined
    up to land on a taxiway where 4 planes were waiting to take
    off. These planes carried more than 900 people, and the margin
    between a near miss and one of the worst aviation disasters in
    history was less than 25 feet. That is a pretty scary thought.
    This near miss and others have rightfully focused our attention
    on runway safety.
        But while we work to maintain and improve the safety of
    commercial airlines, we must also work to improve safety in
    other segments of aviation. The general aviation community
    makes up a large and diverse part of our national airspace,
    including over 200,000 aircraft and approximately 500,000
    pilots.
        Again, due to the collaboration between Congress, FAA, and
    the aviation community, GA fatality rates have declined
    significantly over the past decade. However, in fiscal year
    2016, there were still over 200 fatal GA accidents and over 350
    total lives lost.
        Helicopter safety also continues to be an area of focus for
    this committee. Too often we see helicopter crashes in which
    occupants survive, only to be injured or killed in post-crash
    fires. Just 2 weeks ago, a sightseeing helicopter at the Grand
    Canyon crashed, killing three, seriously injuring four. In this
    accident, there was a post-crash fire. Crash resistant fuel
    systems on rotorcraft continue to be a safety priority. And
    while the circumstances of the recent accident are still under
    investigation, there is a bipartisan consensus in Congress to
    address this issue.
        Lastly, as drone operations in the national airspace
    continue to increase, the risk of them interfering with the
    safe operation of manned aircraft increases. The risk was
    illustrated on September 21st in 2017, when a small drone
    collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk over New York Harbor,
    damaging the helicopter's rotor and forcing an emergency
    landing. While no one was injured, it is not hard to imagine
    that this kind of accident occurring again could have very,
    very serious consequences.
        Aviation safety is not a destination, it is a never-ending
    process of evaluation, analysis, and course correction. Without
    continuous improvements in safety, the aviation industry as we
    know it would have great difficulty existing.
        And as I said before, aviation safety has continued to
    improve as a result of Government, labor, and industry
    collaboration, but there is always a lot more to be done.
        The FAA has primary responsibility for aviation safety, and
    it must ensure oversight activities that are open and
    transparent, as well as streamlined and efficient. Many safety
    improvements stem from the basic research, the introduction of
    new technologies, and the management of new users making their
    way into the airspace.
        The FAA's Technical Center, located in my district--in case
    any of you did not realize that up to this point--Rick--plays a
    very critical role in the partnership between Government and
    industry. They continue to be a leader in conducting research
    and development, demonstration, and validation of the safe
    integration of new users and technologies into our airspace.
        New technology and new users bring new risk. If not
    properly integrated, they could have an adverse effect on the
    civil aviation safety.
        Each person on our panel has a unique role in ensuring the
    safety of the aviation system. We welcome these varied and
    unique perspectives as we continue to work together to ensure
    the United States continues to have the safest aviation system
    in the world.
        Before recognizing Ranking Member Rick Larsen, I would like
    to ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
    writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
    15 days for additional comments and information submitted by
    Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
    hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I now would like to recognize Mr. Larsen for any opening
    remarks.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling
    today's hearing on aviation safety. This is a very important
    hearing. Our aviation system is safe, safer than it has ever
    been before. No one has died in an accident involving a U.S.
    flight airliner since 2009, when Colgan Air flight 3407 crashed
    near Buffalo and claimed 50 lives.
        Safe is not enough, though. This subcommittee's job is to
    provide the resources and oversight necessary for the Federal
    Aviation Administration to make the system even safer. That
    must be our starting point today. Everyone agrees we have the
    safest system in the history of flight. But what can we do to
    make the system safer still?
        Well, for starters, that means not rolling back safety
    rules. Some have argued for a rollback of the strong pilot
    training rules that require 1,500 hours of flight time that
    Congress mandated after the Colgan Air crash. Those standards
    were the product of focused oversight by this subcommittee, and
    were enacted without any partisan objection.
        If we want to talk about what Congress, the FAA, and others
    can do to make the airline pilot profession even more
    accessible to the next generation of pilots, we should have
    that conversation. But any reduction in the experience
    requirements for airline pilots is a nonstarter. Such a
    proposal has kept the Senate FAA reauthorization bill off the
    Senate floor for nearly a year.
        Congress has never rolled back an airline safety rule,
    simply to respond to the market forces of supply and demand. If
    there is a pilot shortage--and that is a big if--we will find
    ways to address it without sacrificing safety.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what the
    FAA can do to improve safety. I was pleased to join Ranking
    Member DeFazio and Congressman DeSaulnier last week in
    requesting a GAO [Government Accountability Office] study of
    safety in runway environments. Now is the time to take a closer
    look at what steps are necessary to prevent future near misses
    and runway incursions at airports across the U.S. A better
    understanding of current safety gaps would help ensure the
    safety of the 2.5 million people who fly in and out of U.S.
    airports every day.
        Just last year, an Air Canada flight almost landed on top
    of a queue of airplanes waiting to take off at San Francisco. A
    landing Delta flight in Atlanta lined up with a taxiway in poor
    visibility before going around for another approach.
        And a Horizon Air flight actually landed on the taxiway in
    Pullman, Washington, as did an Alaska Airlines flight in
    Seattle. Needless to say, we are fortunate that there were not
    any other planes on those taxiways.
        The NTSB is investigating several of these incidents, and I
    understand the Department of Transportation inspector general
    is assessing runway safety, as well. I look forward to hearing
    more from all of our witnesses about how we can prevent
    recurrences of these events before they lead to accidents.
        I am also interested in hearing from our witnesses about
    what we should do to reduce the risk that a drone may one day
    collide with a conventional airplane. A provision in the 2012
    FAA bill prohibits the FAA from directly regulating the
    recreational operations of drones. But, as recreational drone
    use flourishes, should the FAA be so restricted? What can the
    FAA do to prevent collisions between recreational drones and
    other aircraft?
        Captain, Mr. Hampton, I know you have views on this subject
    and I look forward to hearing from you much more on that.
        Chairman LoBiondo and I have a record of working together
    to improve safety and efficiency. And as the chairman enters
    the last year of his distinguished career in Congress, I look
    forward to continuing that work and moving the needle further.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I look forward to hearing
    from our witnesses.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Rick.
        Chairman Shuster?
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. And I want to
    associate myself with the remarks made by both Ranking Member
    Larsen and LoBiondo. I share their observations, views, and
    concerns about safety in the air.
        I also want to echo Chairman LoBiondo's thanks to the
    Colgan Air families for being here today, and your continued
    engagement in safety in our aviation system.
        As pointed out many times, the United States has the safest
    aviation system in the world. That can never be taken for
    granted. It comes at a cost, it comes from hard work by the air
    traffic controllers, the flight attendants, the pilots, and the
    companies that all engage and work every day to make the system
    as absolutely safe as possible. So I want to thank them for
    that. But it will take all of us working together, Congress
    included, and the administration, to make sure that we have the
    gold standard. And safety is our highest priority.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. DeFazio?
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the 3 years since
    we last held an oversight hearing on safety in this committee,
    there have been 90 accidents involving commercial carriers.
    Thankfully, none of those were fatal. But still, there are a
    number of concerns.
        In December, in my State, a SkyWest plane on approach to
    Medford went way below minimums and almost crashed into terrain
    before they did an evasive climb. Five days later, up in
    Washington State, a Horizon Air plane landed on the taxiway in
    Pullman. And in July an Air Canada A320 nearly landed on top of
    five jetliners with more than 1,000 people on board waiting to
    take off in San Francisco.
        In view of this, Representatives Larsen, DeSaulnier, and I
    have requested the GAO review safety in the runway environment.
    These sort of incidents are not acceptable. And luckily, thus
    far, they haven't caused fatalities. But they could in the
    future.
        I have also raised questions about the evacuation
    standards. We are now--as they jam more and more and more and
    more seats into airplanes, we are not actually physically
    testing the evacuation standard any more. They use computer
    modeling. And I have asked for an investigation of whether that
    is adequate.
        I mean we had one example--and this was a plane that
    doesn't have the more and more and more jammed-in seats, it was
    a 767 at O'Hare--when it took the passengers 2 minutes and 21
    seconds to exit a burning aircraft, as opposed to 90. Imagine
    if that had been one of these low-budget airlines, where you
    can barely get your knees in between the seats, given the
    reduction in pitch.
        You know, we are not going to dictate comfort, but we can
    certainly be concerned about safety. It took me 7 years to get
    a rule to get the overwing exit spacing after that horrible
    fire, where people were burned up trying to get out of a plane
    in Manchester, England. It took them 6 months. We can't be
    complacent about these kind of things.
        For more than--just about a quarter of a century--since I
    had a certified mechanic working on my staff, I have been
    pursuing the whole issue of unapproved parts with the FAA. We
    are going to have the IG report soon, and we have not yet
    tightened up the way we need to tighten up, in terms of
    certifying SUPs [suspected unapproved parts].
        I had the bizarre and absurd argument when I was pushing
    this issue before that if you take a life-limited part that
    could be burnished up to look kind of like new, but was only
    good for scrap, that you couldn't require that it be shredded
    or otherwise indelibly damaged, because it is a property right.
        And I said, ``Well, if the only value is scrap, and they
    are not going to try and sneak it back into the chain by
    burnishing it up, what is the property right that we are
    protecting here?''
        And apparently some airlines are catastrophically
    destroying the parts. My staff witnessed United Airlines doing
    that in San Francisco. But others aren't. And you have got to
    wonder what happens to those parts, which could very easily
    take down a plane. And we have got to get that resolved.
        After the ValuJet crash, my amendment, which I had offered
    a number of times over the years, to strip the FAA of its
    promotional duties and say they should focus on safety issues,
    was rejected in the FAA bill that year and was not in the
    Senate bill. But after the ValuJet crash they called me up and
    said, ``Where would we put this in the bill?''
        I said, ``Well, it is not conferenceable. Wasn't it out of
    the bill? You rejected it.'' Well, most of it ended up in the
    bill in the end, but we still have progress to make there, in
    terms of FAA oversight.
        As was noted by Ranking Member Larsen, we have the
    strongest pilot training rules in history. Unfortunately, it
    took a horrific accident to get to that point, and now there is
    tremendous pushback on that. But when you look at the first
    officer in that case living in her parents' basement, commuting
    across the country because she was earning $15,800 a year, but,
    you know, had probably spent a couple of hundred thousand
    dollars to get her license, they say, ``Oh, that is--we have
    got a horrible shortage here.'' Well, market forces are
    starting to work. Some of these airlines are having to raise
    their salaries.
        Yes, you are going to have a shortage if you try and pay
    them less than a Greyhound busdriver when they paid a quarter
    million bucks to get the certificate to fly the plane. I have
    yet to meet a person in the air that says, ``Geez, if I could
    have got $10 off, I would be happy to have someone who has 250
    hours in the front seat.'' Huh-uh, I don't think so. There is
    some pushback here that has got to be dealt with.
        And then drones. Congress, rather stupidly, adopted an
    amendment in the FAA bill restricting the FAA regulation of
    drones flown by recreational users because the model airplane
    people objected. Well, now there are hundreds of thousands of
    these things out there with people who have been interfering
    with firefighting, they have flown one into a helicopter. We
    have had many near misses with jetliners.
        Finally, FAA, 2\1/2\ years ago, I said, ``Could you figure
    out what happens when a drone hits a plane?'' And their first
    studies are it can cause catastrophic damage because these are
    brittle and hard. And they haven't even done the engine test
    yet, sucking one in and see whether we have an uncontained
    explosion of the engine.
        So, we have got to change that, and we have got to get a
    handle on these recreational drones before they take down a
    commercial airliner and kill people. A lot of work to do.
        Thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Peter, and I want to thank our
    witnesses today.
        We have Mr. Ali Bahrami, Associate Administrator for
    Aviation Safety for the FAA; Mr. Akbar Sultan, Deputy Director
    of the Airspace Operations and Safety Program at NASA; Mr. John
    DeLisi, Director of the Office of Aviation Safety of NTSB; Mr.
    Matthew Hampton, assistant inspector general for aviation
    audits in the Office of Inspector General of the U.S.
    Department of Transportation; and Captain Tim Canoll, president
    of the Air Line Pilots Association.
        I would like to remind and ask each of our witnesses to do
    your best to limit your opening remarks to no more than 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bahrami, you are recognized for your opening statement.
    Welcome.

    TESTIMONY OF ALI BAHRAMI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION
     SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AKBAR SULTAN, DEPUTY
      DIRECTOR, AIRSPACE OPERATIONS AND SAFETY PROGRAM, NATIONAL
     AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; JOHN DELISI, DIRECTOR,
       OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
      BOARD; MATTHEW E. HAMPTON, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
     AVIATION AUDITS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
    OF TRANSPORTATION; AND CAPTAIN TIM CANOLL, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE
                   PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL

        Mr. Bahrami. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LoBiondo,
    Ranking Member Larsen, members of the subcommittee, thank you
    for inviting me to appear today to discuss the current state of
    aviation safety.
        We are proud to say we are in the safest period in history.
    We have achieved this record of safety by working with industry
    to identify and address risks to our system. With the support
    of this committee we have worked to take a more proactive
    approach that instills a culture of safety, both within the
    industry and inside the FAA.
        The result is the safest, largest, most complex, and most
    efficient air transportation system in the world.
        There has not been a fatal U.S. commercial passenger
    accident since 2009. Last year we had the safest year ever for
    general aviation. All of us at the FAA are proud of the hard
    work that has gone into providing a basis for achieving this
    level of safety.
        A number of initiatives led to this safety record, and I
    will discuss a few of them this morning. We are actively
    facilitating policies and management processes that transform
    safety culture, both within the FAA and outside organizations.
        For example, we are restructuring the Flight Standards
    Service. This organization plays a vital role in the safety of
    the U.S. aviation system. We want to make sure we continue to
    provide a high level of service. By moving away from our
    organizational structure based on geographical locations to one
    built around functions, these changes enable flight standards
    to operate with greater accountability, better use of
    resources, and flexibility to adapt to change.
        The FAA expects the restructuring to yield benefits to both
    the agency and aviation community by improving our ability to
    keep pace with changes in the aviation industry. In the area of
    aircraft certification, the FAA has gone beyond the reforms
    that Congress directed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
    of 2012. We are transforming our aircraft certification service
    to meet the demands of today's dynamic aviation environment.
    Refreshing the certification strategy means FAA will take a
    systems approach, allowing us to focus on areas of higher risk.
        The impressive gains in safety are due, in part, to
    voluntary actions by industry and Government. The work of CAST,
    the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, has been extremely
    successful. It has moved beyond the historic approach of
    examining accident data to a more proactive approach that
    focuses on detecting and mitigating risks. Today, using a
    disciplined, data-driven approach, we strive to identify
    hazards before accidents or serious incidents occur. Together,
    Government and industry have adopted nearly 100 voluntary
    safety enhancements.
        We also are expanding this type of cooperation in the
    general aviation community. Together we have been working
    toward a goal of 10 percent reduction in the fatal GA accidents
    by the close of fiscal year 2018. I am pleased to say we
    already surpassed that goal.
        Before I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss if I did
    not acknowledge the support of Chairman Shuster and
    subcommittee chairman Mr. LoBiondo.
        You have been instrumental in providing the FAA with the
    direction and necessary resources to maintain our position as
    the global leader in aviation. Your guidance and insight have
    made a difference in aviation, both here and abroad.
        This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
    of your questions at this time.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Bahrami, for your statement.
        Mr. Sultan, you are recognized for your statement.
        Mr. Sultan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LoBiondo and
    Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster of the committee,
    Ranking Member----
        Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me, can you pull your mic a little bit
    closer?
        Mr. Sultan. I apologize. Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking
    Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio of
    the committee, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    this opportunity to appear before you today to testify on
    NASA's aviation safety research.
        NASA has made decades of contributions to aviation. Every
    U.S. aircraft and U.S. air traffic control facility has NASA-
    developed technology on board. NASA has worked with FAA and
    industry on the long-term research to produce information and
    technologies to fundamentally solve aviation risks.
        For example, in the 1980s, NASA initiated research efforts
    associated with synthetic and enhanced vision systems to allow
    aircraft to land in low-visibility conditions. Today a large
    number of aircraft offer these capabilities and multiple
    manufacturers have developed systems for tablets that can be
    used on board general aviation aircraft.
        Another good example from the late 1970s was NASA research
    that led to the identification of cultural norms within the
    aviation community that resulted in increased vulnerability to
    crew communication errors. NASA developed training methods and
    technologies, techniques to support improved Crew Resource
    Management, or CRM. Since then, CRM has become a global
    standard with training requirements mandated by the FAA, ICAO,
    and EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency.
        Now, as we look forward, aviation is on the verge of a
    significant transformation with a rapid evolution of new
    technologies, vehicles, and operations on the horizon, while
    retaining the high standards for safety to which we are
    accustomed. Maintaining a safe system will require recognition
    and timely mitigation of safety issues as they emerge before
    they become hazards or lead to accidents. A shift toward
    proactive risk mitigation will become critical to meet these
    needs.
        In collaboration with the aviation community, NASA has
    developed a vision for safety assurance that is achieved by
    leveraging growing sources of aviation data, commercial data,
    analytics methods, architecture, and innovative things to
    enable monitoring, prediction, and prognostics capabilities.
        In addition, NASA is addressing difficulties associated
    with assuring the safety of increasingly complex and autonomous
    aviation systems. NASA is developing improved methods, tools,
    and guidance to support cost-effective verification and
    validation and certification of software-intensive and complex
    systems.
        NASA contributes to the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, or
    CAST, Aviation Safety Reporting System, otherwise known as
    ASRS, and Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing,
    also known as ASIAS.
        NASA has delivered technologies to prevent loss of airplane
    state awareness, and is currently completing the research and
    development of cockpit systems with predictive algorithms to
    alert pilots, models for aircraft stall performance to improve
    fidelity of training environments, and specific flight crew
    training methods.
        Special attention is being directed toward assuring safety
    of emerging operations, such as unmanned aircraft. Ongoing
    research is dedicated to understanding hazards unique to these
    vehicles and identifying data needs associated with monitoring
    such operations for potential risks.
        Specifically, NASA's UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] in the
    NAS [National Airspace System] project may enable routine
    access to larger UAS and to regular controlled airspace by
    delivering data to RTCA rulemaking committees.
        In addition, NASA's UTM [UAS Traffic Management] research
    project may enable beyond-visual-line-of-sight access by small
    UAS to the uncontrolled low-altitude airspace below 400 feet
    through technology demonstrations to validate operational
    concepts.
        NASA is building on a long history of conducting research
    that advances state-of-the-art technologies to reduce the risk
    of flying in hazardous conditions. The phenomena that creates
    engine icing issues is not well understood. NASA has conducted
    flight tests to better characterize the environment, and has
    emulated these conditions in a ground facility that has already
    proven to be very beneficial to industry.
        NASA and FAA have established Research Transition Teams, or
    RTTs. The RTTs have been a best-practice mechanism between NASA
    and FAA in ensuring effective coordination in transition of
    research to implementation. Through the RTTs, NASA works
    jointly with FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center on joint
    simulation and testing of assurance tools to help FAA assess
    aviation systems.
        NASA has a long and successful history of aviation safety
    research that has made a real difference in the remarkable
    safety record that our system enjoys. And we are constantly
    looking for ways to continue to contribute, with a major
    emphasis on more prognostic approaches that will allow the
    aviation community to get out in front of issues before they
    become safety risks.
        Let me conclude by thanking you again for this opportunity
    to appear before you to discuss NASA's research and to answer
    any of your questions.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
        Mr. DeLisi?
        Mr. DeLisi. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
    Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    the National Transportation Safety Board to testify before you
    today.
        The NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by
    Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in
    the United States, and issuing safety recommendations aimed at
    preventing future accidents. We investigate about 1,300
    accidents per year.
        The U.S. aviation system is experiencing a record level of
    safety. Since the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407 in 2009,
    there have been no passenger fatalities on board U.S. part 121
    air carriers providing scheduled service.
        However, there were 412 aviation deaths in 2016; 386 of
    those fatalities occurred in general aviation accidents, and 26
    occurred in part 135 commercial operations. Although we would
    all like to see no fatalities, the good news is that the
    general aviation accident rate fell below one fatal accident
    per 100,000 flight hours for the first time in the NTSB's 50-
    year history.
        The number one cause of general aviation accidents
    continues to be loss of control in flight, leading the Board to
    place this issue on our current most wanted list of
    transportation safety improvements. We are working with
    stakeholders to increase awareness, education, and training to
    address the risk of these events. In April we will hold a
    roundtable with industry and Government experts to discuss
    technologies and training to combat loss of control.
        I want to highlight several accidents we have investigated
    in the last 2 years that have raised safety issues.
        In 2016 the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in almost a
    decade occurred in Lockhart, Texas, when a commercial hot air
    balloon pilot and his 15 passengers died when the balloon
    struck power lines. The investigation found that the pilot had
    been previously diagnosed with medical conditions known to
    cause cognitive deficits, and had taken a number of impairing
    medications. However, commercial balloon pilots are exempt from
    the requirement to hold a medical certificate. The NTSB
    recommended that the FAA remove that exemption.
        In July 2015 a helicopter crashed after takeoff in Frisco,
    Colorado. The pilot was fatally injured, and the other two
    occupants were seriously injured. We found that the impact
    forces of the accident were survivable. However, the post-crash
    fire contributed to the severity of the injuries. The NTSB made
    recommendations that continue to push for the installation of
    crash-resistant fuel systems in helicopters.
        In November 2015, a part 135 air taxi crashed on approach
    to Akron, Ohio, and all nine people on board died. We found
    that the flight crew failed to follow a number of company
    standard operating procedures, and operated the airplane in an
    unsafe manner. However, the airplane was not equipped with any
    type of recording device that would have allowed for the
    company to monitor daily operations and identify deficiencies
    such as noncompliance with procedures. As a result, the NTSB
    recommended that all part 135 operators install flight data
    recording devices capable of supporting a flight data
    monitoring program.
        In October 2016, an American Airlines flight experienced an
    engine failure and caught fire during takeoff at Chicago O'Hare
    International Airport. Although everyone evacuated the airplane
    with only one serious injury, our investigation found that the
    evacuation was hindered by a lack of communication between the
    flight deck and the cabin crew, as well as by numerous
    passengers retrieving their carry-on baggage.
        In July an Air Canada flight was cleared to land on runway
    28 right in San Francisco International Airport, but instead
    lined up on a taxiway where four air carrier airplanes were
    awaiting their takeoff clearance. The flight descended below
    100 feet before executing a go-around as it overflew the other
    aircraft on the taxiway. We are continuing to investigate this
    incident.
        Advances in aviation technology, such as unmanned aircraft
    systems, are posing new safety challenges. The NTSB just
    completed the first investigation of an incident resulting from
    a mid-air collision between an aircraft and a drone, which
    occurred near Staten Island, New York, in September. The drone
    pilot intentionally flew his drone far beyond visual line of
    sight and was unaware that it had impacted the helicopter.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to
    discuss the work that the NTSB is doing to investigate
    accidents and make aviation safer. I will be happy to answer
    any questions.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeLisi.
        Mr. Hampton, welcome.
        Mr. Hampton. Thank you. Chairmen Shuster, LoBiondo, Ranking
    Members DeFazio, Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for inviting me to testify today on aviation safety.
        As the committee is well aware, FAA and the industry have
    achieved a remarkable and impressive safety record. My
    statement today will address the key aviation safety challenges
    that were highlighted in our recent report on the top
    management challenges facing the Department.
        First, regional airlines now serve about 20 percent of all
    airline passengers, rely on a unique business model, and
    operate in a highly competitive environment. Our work shows
    that FAA can provide better guidance and tools to its
    inspectors so they can proactively identify risks due to
    changes at airlines and adjust oversight accordingly.
        For example, FAA's main risk-assessment tool does not yet
    account for severity of risks such as key staff turnover or
    rapid service expansion.
        Second, addressing concerns about suspected unapproved
    parts, or SUPs. As we recently reported, FAA lacks the
    mechanisms needed to have a full and complete picture of risks
    with unapproved parts throughout the industry. For example, we
    found multiple inaccuracies in the database FAA uses to capture
    such cases, and the agency does not ensure all reports of
    suspected unapproved parts from its local inspection offices
    make it to the central hotline office at headquarters.
        Furthermore, once unapproved parts are identified, FAA does
    not take action to confirm that airlines and repair stations
    actually take them out of the supply chain. We recently learned
    that FAA closed one case, but we are looking into how the parts
    actually made it back into the supply chain.
        Third, we are concerned about the number of close calls in
    the air and the ground at the Nation's airports. This includes
    the Air Canada flight 759 incident at San Francisco Airport
    last summer, which the safety board is currently investigating.
    Our work focuses on runway incursions, which have seen an
    overall increase.
        FAA has taken several efforts over the last decade to
    address runway safety issues. Our results thus far show that
    FAA has made progress on educating pilots on visual aids at
    high-risk airports and communicating more with the aviation
    community. However, FAA faces challenges with other
    initiatives, including some new technologies that were very
    promising. The key to addressing the upward trend in recent
    incidents is for the industry to continue setting priorities
    and measuring the effectiveness of initiatives. History has
    shown that FAA can, with sustained attention, successfully
    address runway safety issues. But a sense of urgency is needed
    at FAA.
        Finally, UAS presents one of the most vexing and rapidly
    evolving safety challenges FAA has faced in decades. As UAS
    operations have increased, so too have sightings and concerns
    by pilots and others, with over 2,100 events reported in 2017.
    We are currently assessing FAA's efforts to grant waivers, a
    process the agency established to accommodate some high-value
    operations not covered in the small UAS rule published in 2006.
    FAA has received more than 15,000 applications for waivers to
    date. Thus far, the agency has granted about 1,500 of them,
    most of them for nighttime operations.
        There are over 6,500 applications still pending review, and
    the backlog continues to grow. FAA is working on rulemaking for
    expanded UAS operations, but these are complicated endeavors,
    and it is unclear when they will be completed.
        Our work shows that FAA can take steps now to advance
    elements of a risk-based system for UAS. This includes, among
    other things, completing a comprehensive system to track and
    analyze UAS sightings, and giving inspectors more guidance and
    information. Also, FAA is reaching an inflection point, where
    education must give way and be bolstered with more effective
    oversight and enforcement.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
    to answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee
    may have.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Hampton.
        Captain Canoll, you are welcome.
        Mr. Canoll. Thank you and good morning, Chairman LoBiondo
    and Ranking Member Larsen and the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to be here today.
        Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Shuster, this may be my last
    time testifying before both of you. On behalf of ALPA's more
    than 60,000 members, please let me express our sincere
    appreciation for your leadership in advancing aviation safety.
        I have been an airline pilot for 28 years. I keep current
    and I fly the MD-88 as often as I can. I am also proud to have
    served in the United States Navy Reserve as an F-18 strike
    fighter squadron commanding officer. And I can tell you, after
    flying for more than three decades, that experience counts when
    operating complex equipment in a changing environment. So does
    constantly maintaining and sharpening your skills and judgment
    through training.
        Flying experience enables pilots to learn how to gather
    information through their senses about their environment and
    their aircraft. It cannot be simulated in training. It is
    learned only from time spent at the controls. The examples of
    the value of real-world experience are almost infinite. An
    airline pilot might encounter multiple aircraft talking on the
    radio at the same time, unexpected turbulence, or an engine
    malfunction, or all three at once. Today's simulators simply
    can't replicate the complexity of commercial flight. Real-world
    experience is essential.
        ALPA pilots know this, know that this subcommittee
    recognizes the value of flight experience, qualifications, and
    training for airline pilots. You led Congress in passing the
    Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010, the set of
    regulations that resulted in improved pilot training and
    updated certificate and type rating requirements. The results
    speak for themselves.
        In the 20 years prior to the congressional action, more
    than 1,100 passengers lost their lives in U.S. part 121 airline
    accidents. Since Congress acted, that number has been reduced
    to zero.
        ALPA is aware that some believe we can reduce training
    hours, substitute simulator or unstructured class time for
    experience, and still keep our skies safe. To put it plainly,
    we disagree. The current system allows for credit hours for
    different levels of training and experience. This system is
    working. It is keeping our passengers, crews, and cargo safe.
        Let me be clear. No one is more committed than ALPA to
    ensuring that we have enough pilots to keep the U.S. airline
    industry strong and competitive. Today we have more fully
    qualified pilots than there are commercial positions available
    in this country. But how do we make sure we have the pilots we
    will need in the future?
        One important element is protecting our industry safety
    record. Our union is helping lead the way. For example, we are
    pushing to do more to safeguard the transportation of lithium
    batteries by air. For similar reasons we are also working to
    eliminate the risk of undeclared dangerous goods.
        In addition, ALPA is driving hard to reduce the safety
    threat from unmanned aircraft systems. We commend recent action
    by Congress to enable the FAA to require UAS operators to be
    registered. This allows us to locate responsible individuals,
    if needed. But we also must fix the loophole that prevents the
    FAA from regulating UAS used by hobbyists. Congress must repeal
    section 336 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012.
        Attracting new pilots to our industry in the future also
    means that U.S. airlines must offer aviators good salaries, a
    healthy work-life balance, and a predictable career
    progression. And there is more we can do.
        For example, we can reform the Federal student loan
    programs to encourage young people to pursue our profession.
    Our industry can also step up efforts to reach new audiences
    and inspire them to work in aviation. At ALPA, we are building
    on decades of outreach to students of all ages. Hundreds of
    ALPA volunteers visit schools every year, and we have helped
    launch Aviation Works 4U, a one-stop shop website for exploring
    a career in our industry.
        We are also focused on doing more to provide reliable air
    service to communities all across America, including in rural
    areas. With safety always the priority, there is more work to
    be done there, too.
        I hope you share my optimism today as we consider the U.S.
    airline industry's incredible safety record. Take it from us,
    your pilots, experience saves lives. We look forward to working
    with this subcommittee to make aviation even safer. And I would
    be glad to take any questions that the subcommittee has.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Captain.
        Chairman Shuster?
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. LoBiondo. My question
    is directed at the NTSB, the FAA, and NASA, and it is
    concerning space and travel--space travel.
        I watched a couple weeks ago the Falcon Heavy take off, and
    Elon Musk said it was a 50/50 chance it was not going to
    succeed, and it did. It was quite impressive. But as we saw
    last year, there were 18 launches into space. This year they
    are projecting 20. And I have seen estimates that in the next
    several years it could be 100, over 100 launches every year,
    and that is critical, with the FAA, NASA--coming to work
    together to make sure that the airspace is safe.
        And so, just wanted to first ask, starting probably with
    NASA, how has your relationship been with the FAA? And then,
    from there, move to FAA, but also then to--and the NTSB and
    talk about how do we--how do you investigate and how has it
    worked with these two other agencies when you go there?
        So, Mr. Sultan, if you would be----
        Mr. Sultan. Thank you for the question. In regards to a
    relationship between NASA and FAA, I would describe it as it
    has been the closest it has ever been. We work very well, and
    this is the best in the history that we have ever worked
    together.
        Currently between the two agencies, we have established
    these--we call them the RTTs, the Research Transition Teams.
        Mr. Shuster. Can you move your mic a little closer to you?
        Mr. Sultan. Yes.
        Mr. Shuster. That whole box will shift. There you go.
        Mr. Sultan. Thank you. Between the two agencies we have
    established these RTTs. We call them the Research Transition
    Teams. And right now we have six of them active on very
    specific, unique, and tangible products that the two agencies
    cooperate, and what we are doing is making sure that the work
    that we do as a research is, first, well coordinated with the
    implementing agency so that it is put on their implementation
    timeline well before we do the handoff, and then FAA knows
    actually what to do with it, and also do the implementation.
        Furthermore, at the executive level, we hold, you know,
    extensive quarterly meetings. This is at Associate
    Administrator levels between the FAA's AVS [Aviation Safety]
    group, Air Traffic Organization, the NextGen Office, as well as
    international environment and energy, where the Associate
    Administrators do coordinated work to make sure that our
    efforts are fully aligned with each other's needs.
        Mr. Shuster. So the bottom line is it has--from your point
    of view, it has been working extremely well.
        Mr. Sultan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Shuster. All right. And Mr. Bahrami?
        Mr. Bahrami. Mr. Chairman, let me highlight what you
    already mentioned, which is the increased number of launches.
    And one of the issues that we are taking very seriously is
    collaboration with other Government agencies that have
    tremendous experience, including NASA.
        And on the other part of the work that we are doing is a
    thorough risk assessment prior to each launch, and using the
    expertise that we have in-house, and using the safety
    management principles to make sure, in the event we have an
    issue that we are protecting other aircraft and vehicles in the
    airspace.
        So, as was mentioned by Mr. Sultan, we have a good working
    relationship, we continue to work together and improve things
    as we move forward.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And Mr. DeLisi, if you could, also
    just comment on what you have seen in the interaction and then
    investigations and how you would operate in that environment.
        Mr. DeLisi. Sure, thank you. Commercial space is certainly
    a game changer. It is something that didn't exist when our
    agency was founded, but we stand at the ready now to
    investigate the commercial use of space.
        A few years ago we completed the investigation of the
    Virgin Galactic scaled composite SpaceShipTwo fatal accident.
    It was our first fatality involving a commercial space vehicle.
    But we have a relationship with the FAA's Office of Commercial
    Space Transportation, and our party process allowed us to form
    an investigation using our normal procedures, making some
    recommendations to both the FAA and the Commercial Spaceflight
    Federation regarding the design of the cockpit switchology in
    commercial space vehicles.
        One big difference, however, would be the definition of an
    accident. For a commercial space vehicle that carries a command
    destruct system, we would not consider it to be an accident if
    a launch were going off target and a command destruct were
    initiated. As long as the debris fell in the cleared area, that
    would be--the substantial damage to the vehicle would not
    trigger an NTSB investigation. We would only get involved if
    there were fatalities or debris that ended up outside the
    expected pattern.
        Mr. Shuster. Well, thank you. My time has expired, but I
    think we got to watch this very closely, because we are going
    to see more and more of this, and making sure, from a policy
    standpoint, that the right agencies are in the right place
    making these decisions, and not trying to set up new and
    different agencies that don't have the experience that you
    three do. So thank you very much.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Peter?
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, and talking about agencies that don't
    have experience, we have the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Safety Administration, so-called, as the principal regulator of
    lithium batteries on commercial aircraft. Now, isn't that
    interesting? And that is, you know, at the behest of this
    administration.
        And then, of course, Congress has prohibited the regulation
    of lithium batteries beyond any weak rules that ICAO might
    adopt, which doesn't seem really wise to me--Captain Canoll,
    you obviously raised this concern, and you certainly know that
    UPS flight 1307 in 2006, UPS flight 6 in 2010, and Asiana
    Airlines cargo flight 991 in 2011 all were destroyed because of
    lithium batteries.
        Now, is there anybody on this panel who thinks that
    Congress should prohibit the FAA from investigating the dangers
    of lithium batteries, and proposing more stringent regulations
    than those adopted by the international consensus authority,
    ICAO? Anybody want to raise your hand, say that that is a
    prudent thing we are doing here?
        OK, thanks.
        How about the other prohibition that Congress has adopted
    because of the clout of the model aircraft lobby? Now, I know
    model aircraft operators, people--I used to build little planes
    when I was a kid. My brother did, too. You know, they are
    generally responsible, knowledgeable people.
        But there's a few hundred thousand of them, and there are
    now millions of people with these little, crappy recreational
    drones flying around, and we have already talked about those
    problems. Anybody on the panel want to raise their hand and say
    that we, Congress, should continue to restrict the FAA from
    regulating beyond ``we are going to educate you'' about where
    you should fly your drone?
        Anybody want to raise their hand on that one?
        OK, well, maybe----
        Mr. Bahrami. Mr. DeFazio, may I make a comment on that?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
        Mr. Bahrami. Absolutely. We agree that something needs to
    happen to give us better control of the situation.
        And we also want to acknowledge that the work that modelers
    are doing from the perspective of STEM and promoting aviation
    within the younger generation is really important. And as we
    move forward, it is very important that we work with you and
    your staff to find out what is the best way to go forward.
        I absolutely agree with you; we need to do something. And I
    do not know what that is at this point. But we are certainly
    willing to work with you to make that happen.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right. Well, we had that core challenge, and
    now we can't even require registration and/or licensure for
    these things. I mean in my hometown someone was using a UAS as
    a peeping Tom device and someone managed to bring it down. But,
    of course, we have no idea who it belonged to, because we can't
    trace them back. It seems to me that is pretty minimal, that we
    would require, you know, that they be registered and/or
    potentially licensed.
        I want to go back to the suspected unapproved parts. Mr.
    Hampton, I mean I have been working on this for so many years.
    And you mentioned at the end something that--it was something
    about the--I don't think it was in your testimony, exactly,
    about some--a SUP that got back into the supply chain that is
    being investigated.
        Mr. Hampton. Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr. DeFazio.
    During the course of our review there was a case. A gentleman
    put a number of parts, 65,000 Boeing parts, on the internet.
    And FAA investigated it and found out that he was not going to
    sell 65,000 parts. And we thought it was taken care of, and the
    issue was put to bed.
        We subsequently opened another case, and we are looking
    into it. It appears they have now been reintroduced into the
    supply chain, and we are going to find out what happened to
    those parts.
        So, it is a perfect example. It is not just the instance of
    what happens to a suspected unapproved part, but it has to be
    taken out of the supply chain. The problem is, as you well
    know, in many of the cases, a suspected unapproved part doesn't
    affect civil aircraft, it can affect a military aircraft. Some
    aircraft, like in the Boeing series, can go back and forth to
    military and civilian fleets.
        So the trick there is--and it is very important--to make
    sure they don't make their way back into the supply chain.
    Because you know the term ``pedigree of the part,'' once it is
    back in, it is very hard to trace.
        So we will keep the committee apprised. We are trying to
    figure out what happened. We don't know exactly whether these
    things will be used in an aviation mode; we just don't know.
    But we are concerned about that. And that illustrates the
    importance. And we have an open recommendation: FAA is
    finalizing how they will get their inspectors to make sure that
    the parts are actually taken out of the supply chain.
        Mr. DeFazio. How about we all follow the United Airlines
    model and they are shredded? I mean I have never understood
    this property right argument that, gee, well, I don't know,
    maybe somebody wants to take this part that could be burnished
    up to look like brandnew, and turn it into a lampholder. And
    so, therefore, it is more valuable than scrap metal. So gee,
    you know? But I mean what is the deal? Seriously.
        Mr. Hampton. We understand that FAA can't destroy it, but
    they have to have the person who is in possession of it take
    care of it and destroy the part. But your point is well taken.
    And that is the importance of getting rid of the part actually
    out of the supply chain.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Captain Canoll, ALPA has endorsed
    the 21st Century AIRR [Aviation Innovation, Reform, and
    Reauthorization] Act, and has said that the bill improves the
    safety of our transportation in the United States. Can you tell
    us how you believe that will happen, and why it does improve
    safety?
        Mr. Canoll. So the act, in general, has many provisions
    that would enhance safety, one being the enhancement to our
    voluntary reporting systems, which--a lot of our improvements
    recently have been based upon the concept that voluntarily
    disclosing a problem in the system and, in return receiving a
    level of immunity, has given us a volume of information far
    beyond what we had before to anticipate problems before they
    actually occur in the system.
        We can see a particular airport, for example, has higher
    examples or higher incidents of unstable approaches. Then we
    can modify our training syllabus to address that particular
    approach so that the fleet of aircraft and pilots out there
    operating to that airport know that that is a known hazard and
    have been trained to deal with it. That is one example. The----
        Mr. LoBiondo. Can you--excuse me. Can you address how ALPA
    believes that the air traffic control reform and modernization
    contributes to the improvement of air safety?
        Mr. Canoll. So, in all proposals with regard to reform of
    the ATC system, we approach it incrementally. And the first
    step is an analysis of: is the proposal deemed to provide an
    equivalent level of safety that we have today, which, of
    course, as we all know, is extremely high. Our analysis of this
    proposal that is currently in the House does just that, it does
    provide an equivalent level of safety that we are experiencing
    today, a very high one.
        Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
        Mr. Sultan, can you describe how NASA uses Research
    Transition Teams to hand off NASA aeronautical research at the
    FAA Technical Center?
        Mr. Sultan. So the hand-off occurs to multiple
    organizations within the FAA. What we do is we work jointly
    with the FAA Tech Center in New Jersey on the simulations and
    the evaluation of and validation of the concepts in an
    integrated fashion with the real-world systems. So the tech
    center offers us that unique capability.
        Likewise, on the systemwide safety assurance RTT, we work
    jointly with the FAA Tech Center researchers on the V&V of
    complex and software-intensive systems in developing algorithms
    and testing those algorithms in order to help certify and speed
    up the certification process of software-intensive systems.
        Mr. LoBiondo. OK, thank you very much.
        Mr. Larsen?
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Captain Canoll, would you support the FAA reauthorization
    bill that we have been discussing if the ATC privatization was
    not in it? Would ALPA support it without the ATC privatization?
        Mr. Canoll. I hadn't contemplated it, but, you know----
        Mr. Larsen. Well, contemplate it. Would you support it
    without----
        Mr. Canoll. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
        Mr. Canoll. We would, because it has many other factors
    that advance safety.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
        Mr. Bahrami, the FAA bill--I am sorry, the FAA budget
    proposes $197 million in cuts, including $27 million to the
    FAA's operation account, $69 million to the F&E, and $101
    million to the FAA's research, engineering, development
    accounts. That is the proposal for 2019.
        What specifically would you do to ensure that these cuts,
    if enacted, would not adversely affect safety?
        Mr. Bahrami. As you know, this is not the first time we are
    faced with these types of cuts. We typically reprioritize. We
    look at the sense of urgency, we look at the type of research
    that can only be done by Government agencies, including the
    FAA, and we also try to rely on those types of researches
    happening in industry, and try to promote and advance those
    types of activities.
        And bottom line, we are going to have to reevaluate our
    work. We have to figure out where the priorities are, and fund
    those activities that are critical to our safety mission.
        Mr. Larsen. And you would choose a safety mission first,
    then?
        Mr. Bahrami. Safety mission and enabling activities. And in
    terms of enabling activities, fortunately, in a lot of areas
    industry takes the lead, and we will make sure that we can work
    with them closely in those areas.
        Mr. Larsen. Mr. Hampton, based on that, what would you
    say--it is kind of tough to pick and choose, there is plenty of
    issues that we are dealing with on aviation safety, but what
    would be the biggest threat, in the IG's view, to aviation
    safety?
        Mr. Hampton. Thank you for the question, Mr. Larsen. We
    wonder back at the IG--we talked to Mr. Scovel on what keeps
    the inspector general up at night--and I think right now the
    safety of unmanned aerial systems is the big concern. It is not
    when but if there is a collision with a commercial aircraft.
    And we just hope there are no passenger injuries or fatalities.
        That is our top safety concern, followed closely by the
    close calls at airport runways and taxiways right now.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. And in your recommendations with regards
    to UAS, could you reiterate those recommendations?
        Mr. Hampton. Sure. Most of our recommendations focus on
    helping FAA become more risk-based and getting their
    information systems lined up: a single depository for tracking
    all their sightings; another one for getting their systems in
    place. Another one is having better guidance to their inspector
    workforce--information to better position the agency to respond
    to the impact of technology on FAA and the industry.
        The UAS is probably one of the most difficult and cross-
    cutting things that is going to affect the agency. So those are
    two of the recommendations we think that they can move out
    forthwith and make some progress on.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes. Thanks.
        Mr. Bahrami, do you think the FAA has that authority to
    move forward on those particular steps, or do you think that
    you need a direction from Congress?
        Mr. Bahrami. We are working on a number of initiatives.
    When we talk about UAS and the risk of UAS in aerospace,
    basically the issue is being able to validate and verify the
    sightings. This is a huge problem. We know that we started an
    ARC [Aviation Rulemaking Committee] that looked at the ID,
    remote ID. So until such time we are able to go forward with
    that, we are going to continue to have challenges identifying
    and enforcing the rules.
        Mr. Larsen. That is fair.
        And Mr. Sultan, the role that NASA plays in developing a
    traffic management system with UAS, can you tell us where NASA
    is on timelines to get us to a point where we can start, you
    know, if you will, seeing that in the sky?
        Mr. Sultan. Thank you for the question. So we have two
    different projects. One is focused on the larger class, higher
    altitude controlled airspace access----
        Mr. Larsen. Right.
        Mr. Sultan [continuing]. And one is on the low altitude,
    below 400 feet, small UAS. In regards to the UTM, which is the
    lower altitude one, we have a set of high-fidelity field trials
    conducted almost on an annual basis, which will look at
    integration of these vehicles in higher density operations.
        So we started off with just operating in rural areas. The
    next level was with some additional, you know, people and
    objects nearby. And the third one is operating beyond visual
    line of sight with additional vehicle integrations, manned
    operations. And of course, the fourth one, which will be
    conducted in 2020, is mainly focused on dense, urban
    operations, or a simulated environment of that.
        The key is that this industry is still very much in
    infancy, in terms of the data needed in order to certify these
    vehicles and generate the regulation. So what NASA is doing in
    both of their high altitude, as well as the low-altitude UAS
    projects, is generating that data and delivering it to the FAA,
    as well as the standards organizations, such as RTCA, so that
    they can make informed decisions on what the regulations and
    certifications ought to be.
        In a nutshell, we don't know what we don't know. That is
    what it boils down to in regards to, you know, the UAS
    operations. And that is the gap that NASA is trying to fill.
        Mr. Larsen. Yes, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Davis [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    witnesses for appearing with us here today and for your
    expertise. Just a couple of things.
        Mr. Hampton, I wanted to direct to you here, I come from an
    extremely rural district in northern California, and wanted to
    see if you can update on the issue of contract towers versus
    the regular ATC towers. A 2012 study at your office had shown
    they were just as safe and effective as a regular ATC tower--
    that being the contract towers.
        So, you know, it is a good cost-saving measure, it helps
    our rural airports, rural areas, to hang on much longer than if
    they had higher costs.
        And so, again, having so many rural airports in my district
    or a lot of districts like it in the West, I just wondered.
    Does that remain a priority or a good tool? Do you have any
    findings on contract towers?
        Mr. Hampton. Thank you for the question. Historically, we
    have looked at the contract tower program, and it has been a
    very cost-effective and safe program. We recently received a
    request from this committee to update our work, and we intend
    to start that assignment in the not-too-distant future and
    complete it. Probably some time next year.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Are those that are questioning them or wanting
    to do away with them, is there any movement that way you are
    aware of?
        Mr. Hampton. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, good, good, just making sure you keep
    funding.
        Mr. Bahrami, do you have any input on it, as well?
        Mr. Bahrami. Sir, I just want to point out that we are
    supportive of contract towers, and we are currently revising
    our cost-benefit analysis for contract towers. And my role, my
    organization's role, is to oversee ATO. And we are making sure
    that those particular towers are safe and operating. And at
    this point I have to tell you that everything is working fine,
    and it is safe.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. Let me follow up on the drone
    question, as well. You know, coming back to the very rural
    needs we have, and remoteness, it is a great tool, used
    properly, for inspection of hard-to-get-at power lines and, you
    know, some roadways, or maybe under bridges. A lot of
    infrastructure, where it is a very handy tool.
        So, what are your thoughts that we can--instead of--in
    certain areas I see what the issue is. But others, we need
    expanded use of this. We need better permission to use them,
    maybe even an out-of-sight basis, as is appropriate, because we
    have a lot of issues with timber, timber that could be--you
    know, we have 129 million dead trees and counting in
    California, with the interface of that--with power lines or
    just other issues.
        So it is certainly a lot better way to keep abreast of what
    is going on with dead trees and other infrastructure issues.
        So what do you think we can do to expand the use of that,
    where appropriate, in those types of very rural situations?
        Mr. Bahrami. I fully agree with you, that we have to use a
    risk-based approach to deciding on operational applications,
    and using it in areas that are not heavily populated makes a
    lot of sense. And we are doing that. When you look at the
    process that we have in place through the waiver process under
    part 107, we have issued many waivers for those types of
    operations.
        Also, on the integration pilot program, we are soliciting
    input from those interested applicants who want to introduce
    new and innovative applications. The idea behind it is, of
    course, to continue to promote the UAS and also make sure that
    we learn from those experiences and apply it appropriately.
        Also, as I mentioned earlier, we are in the process of
    proposing a rule that facilitates operation over people and at
    night, and that will significantly reduce the number of waivers
    that we have currently in house, and working on that. Going
    forward with ID, remote ID, we could actually address the
    concerns that we have from our security partners, and we can
    move forward. All of that----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Quickly, quickly----
        Mr. Bahrami [continuing]. Is going to help.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Quickly, quick question on--just a quick one
    on do we want to have States and locals have their own sets of
    rules, or do we want to keep this kind of a more broad approach
    with one Federal jurisdiction, instead of multijurisdictions
    having their own rules?
        Mr. Bahrami. One of the important benefits of the IPP
    [integration pilot program] is to actually evaluate what needs
    to be done with the State and local authorities with respect to
    their jurisdiction, and what we can do under Federal rules and
    regulations. What we learn from that actually is going to help
    us, moving forward, with the very same issue that you
    highlighted.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. I appreciate----
        Mr. Davis. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
    recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really do
    appreciate the perspectives of the--at NASA on the importance
    of aviation safety research, and the partnerships that are
    required between the Federal Government and industry.
        As ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology, I believe that research is absolutely essential to
    developing unbiased practices and techniques that we can deploy
    to mitigate risk.
        Can you, Mr. Sultan, speak more to the value of these
    partnerships between the Federal Government and industry, and
    identify areas where the Federal Government could benefit from
    additional resources to address the emerging challenges in the
    aviation space?
        Mr. Sultan. Thank you for the question. So in regards to
    the partnerships between Government and industry, it is
    absolutely critical. Because for us in the NASA research, first
    of all, we use it as a guiding principle in trying to determine
    what are actually the community needs, what are the tall poles
    that the eventual users of our systems will need and will
    apply? So, getting that feedback is critical.
        In addition, as we develop these systems, it is critical to
    be able to constantly evaluate the benefits of our research
    products in the operational environments as exercised by the
    users.
        A good example I can give is, for instance, on our
    development of prognostic tools for data mining, using the data
    mining of the data that is within the ASRS data--we work
    extensively, for instance, with Southwest Airlines out in
    Dallas, where they exercise our algorithms and provide feedback
    in terms of how useful they are and what additional safety
    issues those tools and algorithms unearthed that were otherwise
    unknown. So these are kind of examples that I can provide.
        Likewise, when it comes to UAS, these small operators, they
    have tremendous capability in terms of being able to provide
    capabilities, in terms of detect and avoid and communication
    capabilities that already exist in other realms, not just
    aviation, that can be brought to bear. So we work quite
    extensively with--I mean you can look at it in terms of the IT
    sector on how far advanced certain capabilities are, and can we
    leverage those to essentially apply it towards the aviation
    community.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bahrami, we have probably the safest system in the
    world, in terms of our safety record and our complex aviation
    system. Your testimony speaks to investing in the right safety
    enhancements by aviation industry. It is my belief that
    probably Congress should not dictate whether to invest in a
    particular technology. Rather, it should encourage the FAA to
    establish technology-neutral standards for industry to pursue.
        Given that the United States has already deployed a
    comprehensive network of ground-based ADS-B receivers, and
    there is a mature ATC modernization outlined in the NextGen
    roadmap, what is the benefit of space-based ADS-B for the
    United States? And how does that benefit, compared to the
    projected cost of space-based ADS-B on the annual basis?
        Mr. Bahrami. Thank you for the question. As you know, this
    was one of the mandates, that we have to study the benefits of
    the space-based ADS-B. And that work has been going on for some
    time. And I think, once we have the information, and through
    the NextGen Advisory Committee, and recommendations that will
    come to the FAA, we will decide what we can do.
        At this point I can see how you may feel that there would
    be duplications. We already have a system in place. But until
    we have the experts taking a look at that to see if there are
    other places that we are--we do not have coverage and we could
    get that through the--space-based ADS-B, at this point I can't
    make any more comment beyond that.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Mitchell, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Captain, let me ask you a couple of questions, if I can,
    please. My colleague gave you an interesting question, a closed
    choice between an FAA reauthorization without ATC modernization
    of the current system, which, of course, isn't necessarily the
    choice, so I am going to ask you a different question.
        If you had the choice between the 21st Century AIRR Act
    with ATC privatization, simply FAA reauthorization without
    ATC--leaving it the way it is, or the progression it is on now,
    and the current system, which one do you want to have?
        Mr. Canoll. From a safety perspective, it is neutral for
    us. We believe that with or without the reform, we are going to
    maintain the safest system we have. If the question is not
    based on safety, we are looking at a profound need for a long-
    term, stable source of funding for our air traffic control
    system. We believe the one that is being offered now will
    provide that in the current House action.
        Mr. Mitchell. Which is the 21st Century AIRR Act, correct?
        Mr. Canoll. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mitchell. OK. Mr. Bahrami, I am confused, but I believe
    your agency actually supported the 21st Century AIRR Act, did
    it not?
        Mr. Bahrami. Administration, yes.
        Mr. Mitchell. That would be the pertinent question.
        Mr. Bahrami. Yes.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.
        A question for you, if I can, Mr. Hampton, before I have to
    leave for another--quite some time ago, after 9/11, the FAA was
    directed by law to update and upgrade the identification
    process for A&P and pilots, so they had more information in
    terms of photos, biometrics to better secure access to
    airports.
        To date, to the best of my knowledge, that really hasn't
    been--let's put it this way--significantly undertaken, let's
    put it that way. And I guess--I know there is another committee
    on which I serve is going to get into detail. Can you give us
    an outline as to--I think that is a safety risk that we need to
    look at.
        Mr. Hampton. I would have to get back to you on the
    biometrics. Most of our work is focused on the updates on the
    pilot records database, which is currently underway. And we
    will get back to you on the biometrics.
        Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate--well, I appreciate that, in
    terms--and additionally, in terms of identification, their
    identification information and for A&P and mechanics, which
    appears to me to be a significant safety risk, where you have
    the ability for----
        Mr. Hampton. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mitchell [continuing]. People to access----
        Mr. Hampton. Yes, sir. We will get back to you. We focus
    mostly on the pilot records database.
        Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Hampton. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Mitchell. I think it is a significant safety concern we
    need to be concerned about, is the safety of our----
        Mr. Hampton. Interesting. We just had a discussion with
    another committee about that. I will get back to you, sir.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, sir.
        I yield back, thank you.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
        As a followup, Captain, to Mr. Mitchell's question, you
    mentioned a stable funding source that you believe the 21st
    Century AIRR Act would provide. That stable funding source,
    would you agree, would allow more safety upgrades and
    technological upgrades, to make it safer for everybody in the
    industry?
        Mr. Canoll. I don't necessarily agree that more funding is
    going to make us more safe. I think we are safe now. The
    funding would be more along the lines of expanding and making
    it more efficient. The safety is going to be maintained. That
    is an absolute, and it is an absolute requirement. We are not
    looking for new ways to be safe. But if we are going to
    continue to have the safety we experience today with increased
    volume, which is the objective of a new system, then, yes, we
    will need more funding.
        Mr. Davis. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brownley for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Captain, I would like to also ask you a question with
    regards to pilot shortages, or not having pilot shortages. But
    we do continue to hear from our regional carriers about a pilot
    shortage, although the FAA data seems to paint a different
    picture, in that there has been a 200-percent increase in pilot
    licenses that have been issued since 2009.
        Yet we continue to hear about it, and from both large and
    small carriers leaving their market. So I was wondering if you
    could explain a little bit more in further detail about how you
    think business economics are driving airline service issues in
    smaller communities.
        Mr. Canoll. So, ma'am, you are absolutely correct. There is
    no present-day pilot shortage. The FAA data is very clear.
    There are almost two pilots for every job available out there.
    The challenge is that the industry went through a rather
    dramatic downturn in the previous 10 to 15 years, many
    bankruptcies. And it, quite frankly, wasn't a very desirable
    profession for almost an entire generation coming through.
        The good news is we have seen a turnaround in the industry,
    from a profitability standpoint. And when our employers are
    profitable, our members make more money. So that is now
    attracting a new generation of fliers. And we have seen
    enrollment at the flight schools up dramatically over the last
    2 years. We have seen the production of airline transport pilot
    and restricted airline transport pilots increase, so the trend
    is very positive on the long-term picture.
        For those who are having troubles attracting pilots today,
    they just need to look at those airlines that are not having
    troubles attracting pilots. And it is the free market at work,
    which we fully support. We fully support the activity of the
    free market. And while some are having no problems, we can see
    clearly why they pay a good wage and they have a good work-life
    balance and they have good career progression options for the
    incoming pilot. And those who are having trouble do not, in
    almost all areas. It is almost that simple: supply and demand
    market economics.
        Ms. Brownley. And is there a certain profile of the new
    pilot coming on board?
        Mr. Canoll. So the pilots that we see today coming into the
    part 121 carriers are products of the new rule, since it has
    been in place for almost 5 years now, and that new rule calls
    for very structured academic training, and then a certain
    baseline, depending on which form of structured academic
    training you had. Let's say it was a 2-year aviation degree.
    You would need 1,250 hours of experience. A 4-year aviation
    degree, you would need 1,000 hours of experience. But if you
    came from the military, you could obtain a restricted ATP
    (Airline Transport Pilot] with 750 hours. So we are finding
    that those structured programs and that experience is producing
    a very high-quality candidate.
        We went through a transition period right after the rule
    came in, where we had some people coming back into the industry
    who already had ATPs, but hadn't flown for many, many years,
    who struggled a little bit in the air carrier training course.
    But we have seen that wane away, and now we are seeing a very
    high-quality candidate.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that. And there has been a lot
    of discussion today on unmanned aircraft in our national
    airspace. And I am just wondering, from your perspective--I
    haven't heard your perspective yet, although I heard you make
    comments in your testimony. But how do you see the Federal
    Government's role in developing, you know, flight standard,
    certification, air traffic requirements for the use of drones
    in our airspace?
        Mr. Canoll. So the Air Line Pilots Association is fully
    supportive of the development and deployment of these
    technologies, just as quickly as possible, as long as safety is
    not compromised.
        From a systematic approach to it, we look at it very
    simply. If the vehicle under consideration is intended to fly
    into the national airspace--which I define as airspace shared
    by our general aviation community and our airlines in the
    military--or the vehicle has the capability to do it in a lost
    link concept, then the development of procedures,
    certification, and operation of that vehicle must be very much
    aligned with what we do today in manned aviation. It shouldn't
    be a new set of standards. The standards exist for operating in
    the national airspace. We need to have those same standards.
        One example would be collision avoidance technologies that
    are mandated on all the airliners my members fly. That type of
    equipment must be installed on any unmanned vehicle that is
    intended to fly in the national airspace, as well.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you, sir. My time is up. I yield back.
        Mr. Davis. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Minnesota, Mr. Lewis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to everyone
    who is appearing in front of the committee today. We do
    appreciate it.
        Administrator Bahrami, I have got a question on the 21st
    Century AIRR Act and how it applies, or some of the criticism
    that has been expressed on the other side of the aisle from
    moving air traffic control from the FAA to a nonprofit private
    entity. And I would reiterate the point that this particular
    piece of legislation has nothing to do with privatizing
    profits. They don't go to the stakeholders, they are reinvested
    back into the system. But it is just a more nimble way to make
    certain that air traffic control is up to date, and just merely
    the model of so many other nations.
        But nevertheless, some of my--our colleagues on the
    committee have expressed concern about managing airspace and
    aviation operations, and doing that the right way.
        Now, I want to ask you a question about how the FAA
    currently contracts with private general aviation pilots. I
    understand there is a couple of contractors that we already use
    that are outside the realm of Government. Is that true?
        Mr. Bahrami. Sir, I am not familiar with the specific
    contracts you are referring to.
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Bahrami. If you want to either elaborate or give me the
    questions, I will make sure that I provide you the response.
        Mr. Lewis. Right now the FAA contracts with folks like
    Leidos, which has a presence in my district, in Minnesota, to
    run the flight services center which aids all general aviation
    pilots in planning and executing flights in the national
    airspace.
        And I guess my question is, if that is good enough for
    that, what would be the fear in the 21st Century AIRR Act for
    moving to a similar model?
        Mr. Bahrami. Earlier there was a question with respect to
    the contract towers, and we mentioned that this is something
    that we support. We are supportive of the contract towers. And
    my focus is on safety.
        And I want to point out that, from the safety perspective,
    the ATC reform that is included in the proposed act, there
    would not be any adverse impact to safety. That is my belief.
    And I base that on the fact that there are 60 or so countries
    that have already done that, and the level of safety, based on
    various studies decided that it stayed the same or has
    improved.
        Mr. Lewis. So there are these successful examples. I
    believe, additionally, the FAA recently established the LAANC
    [Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability]
    program, is that right, that approves private-sector, third-
    party companies to manage unmanned aviation in specific other
    areas to make certain that our national airspace is safe?
        So there are examples of non-Federal entities operating
    portions of the national airspace in a very proficient and safe
    manner, correct?
        Mr. Bahrami. LAANC, you mentioned, is a good example of
    that. It has been working very well. And we are looking forward
    to expanding it to 50 other airports.
        Mr. Lewis. And the FAA still retains safety oversight of
    these programs, as it would the ATC, if it were operated
    independently. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bahrami. That is correct. The responsibility of
    oversight is always with us, sir.
        Mr. Lewis. Very good, thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady
    from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
        Captain, in your testimony you talk about how we need to
    ensure that safety regulations should not be driven by economic
    decisions. Can you elaborate on that?
        Mr. Canoll. I think the easiest example is if you listen to
    some of the chatter in town, and certainly in this subcommittee
    as well, about those who believe there is a need to reduce the
    number of hours required or the structured training that is
    currently required for an ATP or restricted ATP. Those are
    attempts to address a market forces issue with regard to pilot
    supply with a safety provision, which I do not believe is what
    the flying public wants us to do.
        If you look more on the economic side, it is a problem for
    the industry that we are going to have to work through together
    to provide service to small communities at an affordable rate.
        We are not blind to the fact that if the airplanes cost
    more, the fuel costs more, the pilots cost more, eventually the
    cost of that operation to a small community will make it
    unaffordable for those who want to access that. Hence the
    Essential Air Service and other programs that are meant to
    offset some of that cost.
        So I think, you know, a lot of attention could be focused
    on that, to see if we can find ways to make it more affordable
    to fly into those things. But reducing safety--and, by the way,
    we are firm believers that just reducing the number of hours or
    reducing structured flight training will not address the
    problem of attracting pilots to the job. That is not going to
    solve the problem, no matter what anyone says. I know what
    attracts pilots to the job, and it is a good work-life balance,
    career progression, and a fair wage.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Captain, I want you to know that I agree
    with you. And so many things that--so often, when Government
    looks at associations or unions or labor groups, they are
    labeled as the other side, where you are the ones--you are
    flying that plane, you are in that seat. You have the ability
    to speak at a level of expertise that we need to hear. And I
    just want you to know I do appreciate you, and because all of
    us fly a lot, we are so appreciative of your service, sir.
        I want to ask this question to the panel. I don't think it
    is an exaggeration to say that the hurricane response--we will
    look back on it as a landmark evolution of drone usage in this
    country. The University of Michigan's College of Engineers is
    building an outdoor fly lab for testing autonomous aerial
    vehicles called the M-Air.
        I wanted to ask this panel what are some of the challenges
    faced by educational institutions today, as they look at R&D in
    the UAS airspace?
        Mr. Bahrami. I will start. In terms of challenges, I think
    there are tremendous innovative ideas out there. And often what
    we are learning is the best way to go forward is through
    prototyping, and actually put those ideas in place and document
    what lessons we learned, and identify those things that maybe
    we did not know prior to conducting that particular research.
        And to some degree, collaboration with the Government
    agencies, industry, will help identify the research
    requirements, going forward. And I think that is how we can
    take what is happening in academia, and actually transfer it
    into regulatory and safety requirements.
        Mrs. Lawrence. And in that vein, to ensure that we do not
    stifle this industry, what are some of the recommendations that
    you have when it comes to regulations, the timeframe? We often
    hear that our regulations stifle the growth. And this industry
    is moving very rapidly. Do you have any recommendations for us?
        You all are not into the drone industry?
        Mr. Canoll. Ma'am, I sit on the Drone Advisory Committee. I
    am a member of the Drone Advisory Committee.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
        Mr. Canoll. And we struggle with that question every day.
        Mrs. Lawrence. OK.
        Mr. Canoll. The industry wants a lot of things. They want
    flight beyond visual sight, they want flight at night, they
    want flight over populations. These are all very desirous of
    the industry to make more money. But we also have to take a
    focus on all the challenges to doing that safely.
        The most recent example of success is the UAS ID and
    Tracking ARC results on--in that ARC--we were a member of that
    Aviation Rulemaking Committee, as well. It went wonderful, and
    now the FAA has those recommendations, and we should be seeing
    rulemaking in very short order, which will enable a lot of the
    things the industry wants to do. That is the first and most
    present example of if we are actually making progress. As long
    as the industry and the FAA keep coordinating at the very high
    level they are doing right now, I think we are going to get
    there. You know, we are going to have to be measured, but we
    are going to get there.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much. My time is up and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Davis. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair
    begrudgingly recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Perry, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    indulgence, begrudging indulgence.
        Gentlemen, thanks for being here. I am going to stick with
    the line of questioning from the gentlelady from the great
    State of Michigan. And let me just say before I start that I
    was encouraged that the committee adopted an amendment I had
    last year, the reauthorization bill which provided the
    Administrator the authority to part 107 waivers for UAS
    carrying property beyond the line of sight.
        And I will also tell you, as a rotary-wing guy who operates
    in the low-altitude airspace, I am particularly concerned about
    getting this right here on a regular basis, especially from my
    friends in the EMS community about close encounters, because
    they seem to just--you know, they are headed to an accident,
    and so is everybody else, right? And they want to have their
    own view of it, and so on and so forth.
        At the same time, I think that potentially we are getting
    behind, we are behind, we are missing opportunities in this
    space. And I just want to encourage us to continue safely in
    this regard, but diligently.
        I was pleased to know that the DOT and the FAA place strong
    emphasis on the application and the roll-out of the new UAS
    integration pilot program, so I just want to--UAS IPP is the
    acronym, just to be clear here.
        Mr. Bahrami, acknowledging package delivery is, for the
    time being, prohibited under part 107. How does the FAA
    envision enabling delivery operations in the pilot program? Do
    you know if that is part of that, and how that is being worked
    out? Or where does that stand?
        Mr. Bahrami. At this point I am not familiar with all the
    proposals. We are going through the process, as you know. We
    are following a very strict process. But I can tell you that,
    even outside the IPP, there are companies that have already
    approached the FAA. And we are going to be working with them to
    identify the operational rules that need to be in place for
    those types of operations.
        And there are two ways we could deal with this situation.
    One would be for us to start looking at the regulations and
    come up with a proposal that goes out for public comments and
    all that. But the other way would be to engage with industry
    and let them propose ideas that are workable, given their
    nature of designs, and put the safety requirements,
    performance-based rules, that then actually can go forward and
    design their vehicles to those type of requirements.
        We have chosen the latter. We want to work with them
    because we believe that would be the quickest way for us to
    learn some of the challenges that we are going to be facing.
        Mr. Perry. Right. And I agree with you. I hope they are not
    mutually exclusive. I think that we should engage with industry
    as the experts on this. But at the same time, I think the
    public comment is important. As a person who is fairly
    familiar, I consider myself, having flown for 30 years,
    familiar with the aviation process and so on and so forth, but
    I am also concerned about privacy, about the airspace
    incursions, whether for safety or for privacy, what have you.
    And I think those are important conversations to have. I would
    encourage you to continue.
        I understand that DOT is required to enter into UAS IPP
    agreements with at least five jurisdictions by early May. That
    is my understanding. So if I am wrong, just please correct me.
    Do you anticipate a program being announced by then, or not?
        Mr. Bahrami. I can tell you that we are on schedule.
        Mr. Perry. OK.
        Mr. Bahrami. And I can also tell you that Secretary Chao
    recently announced that the number would be 10. We are doubling
    the numbers.
        Mr. Perry. Excellent, OK. So on schedule, doubling the
    numbers. I think this is good news for those of us that are
    interested in this. And whether--just like you said, Captain
    Canoll, we are concerned for safety and the airspace and
    interoperability and a traffic management system. Nobody wants
    a 50-pound metal object coming through the windscreen at
    whatever hundred miles an hour you are headed. It is going to
    be catastrophic, right? So we can't afford those kind of
    incidents. But at the same time, we need to move forward with
    technology and the things that are in our world today, and just
    do the best we can.
        So I appreciate your answers today, sir, and I thank you
    for your diligence, gentlemen. Thank you.
        Mr. Chair, I yield.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you to my good friend, Mr. Perry. The
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. This has been the greatest
    period of safety in civil aviation, I think, in our history.
    And yet we have got the largest, most complex system. So thank
    you for that. But we still have to remain vigilant to maintain
    those high safety standards which we have established in the
    United States.
        Mr. DeLisi, if I can ask you on--if you recall, October 28,
    2016, American Airlines flight 383 experienced an uncontained
    engine failure and subsequent fire. There were 161 passengers,
    7 flight crew on the plane, 168 people. Several injuries were
    sustained, and NTSB subsequently issued an extensive
    investigation.
        First, Chairman, can I have entered into the record the
    investigative report on that record, without objection?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Cohen. Without objection? Thank you.
        Mr. Davis. Yes.

            [The 91-page accident report referenced by Congressman Cohen
            entitled ``Uncontained Engine Failure and Subsequent Fire:
            American Airlines Flight 383, Boeing 767-323, N345AN, Chicago,
            Illinois, October 28, 2016'' is available on the website of the
            National Transportation Safety Board at https://ntsb.gov/
            investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/aar1801.pdf.]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        Mr. DeLisi, you are familiar with the NTSB's investigative
    report regarding the flight? There were 168 people on board.
    Was that the capacity of that plane?
        Mr. DeLisi. I would have to check into that. I don't recall
    if that was a full flight.
        Mr. Cohen. So you don't know how many passengers could have
    flown that plane or a similar flight. Not necessarily.
        Mr. DeLisi. I could find that.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        Mr. Bahrami, let me ask you this. In the investigative
    report following the accident, the NTSB recommended--some
    passengers evacuated and they took their carry-on bags, and
    that is a problem. They shouldn't have done that. Does the FAA
    consider the efficient, timely evacuation of planes an
    important factor in passenger safety, and how to accomplish
    that?
        Mr. Bahrami. Absolutely. We have specific rules that--
    emergency evac must be completed within 90 seconds. And when we
    conduct that test, we have the maximum passenger loading on--
    and adverse situations, such as some of the exits are closed
    and those kinds of situations, to make sure that we get as
    realistic as possible to potential scenarios that may happen in
    service.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Ninety seconds is what current
    Federal law requires all passengers to be able to evacuate.
        In the case of flight 383 it took 2 minutes and 21 seconds
    to evacuate the passengers. Three exits were operable. The
    flight was below passenger capacity, yet it took 51 seconds
    longer, or 63 percent more time than is permissible under
    Federal regulations.
        Subsequent to that, post to that, a U.S. circuit court
    decision was issued in July of 2017. And Mr. Chairman, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record the U.S. court of
    appeals decision of July of 2017.
        Mr. Davis. You didn't get me this time. Without objection.

            [Flyers Rights Education Fund, Inc. D/B/A FlyersRights.org, and
            Paul Hudson, Petitioners v. Federal Aviation Administration, et
            al., Respondents (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2017) (No. 16-1101) is on
            pages 124-146.]

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
        You are familiar with that decision, I presume,
    FlyersRights versus U.S.A.?
        Mr. Bahrami. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Cohen. In that decision the panel remarked that the
    FAA's justifications to reject the public petition to review
    airline seat safety as a matter of safety risk was vaporous.
    Even after the dangerous accident involving American Airlines
    flight 383, even after the NTSB's clear recommendation to
    review passenger deplaning times, the FAA took no significant
    action.
        Now the U.S. court of appeals has ordered the FAA to take
    action to review the safety impact that changes in seat size
    and pitch may have. I am concerned the FAA has not taken
    seriously the concerns of the National Transportation Safety
    Board, or even the U.S. court of appeals decision, or this
    committee, which included a study.
        Can we expect some study soon on pitch size and width of
    seats that are getting smaller and smaller and smaller?
        Mr. Bahrami. As you mentioned, we have the court order to
    respond, and we are working on that response. It is a
    coordination. And I think, once that is made public, we know
    what type of work we need to be doing in order to satisfy the
    directives that we have.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, I hope you will do it quickly, because
    lives could be in the balance. I am deeply concerned about the
    flight safety for the flying public. We shouldn't wait until
    somebody dies to respond and to take action to make our planes
    evacuatable within the 90 seconds that is required by law.
        Seat size and pitch continue to shrink, while the average
    American gets larger and larger and taller and taller. And
    while I care about comfort, my bill, the SEAT [Seat Egress in
    Air Travel] Act, is focused squarely on the risk of the flying
    public and safety. This was part of the FAA reauthorization
    package.
        Even if airlines did not oppose the amendment, which they
    didn't--everyone is for safety--I think it should be a grave
    concern of the American public that the FAA has repeatedly
    failed to act in accordance to the guidance and recommendations
    of not only the National Transportation Safety Board, but even
    the U.S. court of appeals. It is clear to me the American
    public is on our side in urging your agency to issue standards
    to keep Americans safe in our skies. And pitch and width is
    part of that, Mr. Bahrami, and I hope this administration will
    do that.
        If I can have just an extra second, Captain, I want to
    thank you for your service----
        Mr. Davis. No.
        Mr. Cohen [continuing]. And ask you this. Do you carry a
    gun in the cockpit?
        Mr. Canoll. No, sir, I am not an FFDO [Federal flight deck
    officer].
        Mr. Cohen. OK----
        Mr. Davis. The gentleman's time has expired, thank you.
        Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Davis. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada
    for 5 minutes, Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow
    up on the question earlier about package delivery. I know that
    you say that there are some plans that are going to be
    announced in May. You don't want to tell me if Nevada is going
    to get one of those proposals, do you, so I can go back with
    some good news?
        But I just worry that all of this is kind of conditional,
    and it is all in the future, and you are all studying and
    planning. As the FAA reauthorization continues to be
    controversial and held up over that one provision about
    privatization--all the rest seems to have pretty much
    bipartisan and industry agreement--is there anything that we
    can be doing to help speed along this drone package delivery?
        We just see it happening every day right now, it is a
    reality in Europe, and we seem to be falling further and
    further behind.
        Mr. Bahrami. Let me start by highlighting that we are
    leading when it comes to integration of drones into airspace.
    Many countries have chosen to segregate. But what we are trying
    to do is integrate, which is the--which is--puts us ahead of
    other countries.
        Having said that, as it was mentioned several times, there
    is tremendous amount of energy, passion, and enthusiasm amongst
    the companies to move forward with these types of initiatives.
    Frankly, FAA does not have a choice than to continue to work
    with those parties and move things forward.
        So, we are at the point right now that the demands are upon
    us to respond, and we are doing so. We are doing it in terms of
    partnerships for safety plans with specific companies that are
    in that particular business. We are trying to learn from their
    work and see what we could do as we move forward.
        And at this point I could tell you that that is a high
    priority for us.
        Ms. Titus. Well, I am glad to hear that. And Nevada has one
    of the test centers in the State, and there is a lot of
    potential use for drones there. I know some of our utility
    companies would like to see them used in remote areas, because
    that would be very helpful--out of line of sight.
        Some of the casinos would like to use drones to deliver
    drinks poolside. I mean that is--let's be creative. I noticed
    even in one of the big fashion houses during fashion week they
    had drones going down the runway, carrying ladies' purses. So,
    I mean, it is endless. But I appreciate that you all have made
    that a priority.
        One thing, too, that concerned me was this rule of the
    administration, this two-for-one Executive order on the
    development of regulations, and how that affects the drone
    industry. I wrote Mr. Mulvaney about that, to ask him, and he
    wrote me back and he said that he thinks maybe that the--he
    says that the OMB believes that maybe the rulemaking that
    expands the use of drones would be considered deregulatory, so
    it wouldn't come under that arbitrary two-for-one elimination.
        I wonder if you all have accepted that. Have you received
    that directive? And does the DOT agree with it, and the FAA?
        Mr. Bahrami. Yes, we are following the directives outlined
    in Executive order. And when you view the requirements in
    there, or the draft, you are looking at two things: first,
    safety; and the other one is enablers, rules that are enablers.
    In those cases, we are moving forward with those.
        And in the area of what--the rules that are considered
    deregulatory, which--there are a number of them identified by
    both industry and other sources. In those cases we have to
    answer two questions: what is the impact on safety if we go
    forward with that action, and what is the impact on FAA's roles
    and responsibilities? Can we still do that job? Those things go
    into the consideration. And at this point we are following that
    guidance.
        Ms. Titus. So you don't feel like that two-for-one
    Executive order is hindering you in the development of drones
    or regulations that are needed?
        Mr. Bahrami. Not so far. I think what it does is that it
    forces us to do a lot more planning, because we need to know
    what rules we have got going and what are some of the
    deregulatory items, and be able to match them together so that
    the net effect is a positive, in terms of benefits, or neutral.
    And that is the work that we have to do in advance before our
    regulatory agenda is published.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Davis. The gentlelady's time is expired. Glad I get a
    chance to ask my questions. You know, many that I had actually
    have been asked already. So it has been pretty interesting to
    listen to some of my colleagues. My good friend, Mr. Larsen,
    and I, we kind of stopped when we heard about technology
    delivering drinks to the pool. So we would like to get some
    opinions on--can you push that technology to the head of the
    line with your risk-based approach, sir? A simple yes or no is
    good.
        Mr. Bahrami. We will do our best.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Davis. Thanks. Speaking of--a lot of this hearing I
    don't think many originally thought would center on drone and
    UAS technology, but I just want to let you know I appreciate
    the FAA's risk-based approach on UAS, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you.
        As you may know, and many on the panel may know, I
    introduced an amendment to the 21st Century AIRR Act that would
    create a microdrone category. And I would hope that that
    language is being utilized as part of your risk-based approach,
    as part of any advisory committee that you may be a part of,
    Captain, because my feeling is that manufacturers will begin to
    manufacture that technology in a much more safer way for our
    air system if they know what the minimum standards are. And
    that, to me, would ensure that we would keep that technology
    moving forward.
        Mr. Bahrami, I also wanted to ask you for an update on a
    piece of legislation that was signed into law back in 2016. It
    is section 2309 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
    of 2016. I had a provision based on my legislation, the
    Families Flying Together Act, which required DOT to review and,
    if appropriate, establish a policy requiring air carriers to
    enable children to sit with a parent or an accompanied family
    member.
        The deadline for implementation was July 15, 2017. Do you
    have an update on this?
        Mr. Bahrami. Sir, consumer protection issues are handled by
    the Department of Transportation, and I will be glad to take
    the question and provide you with an update.
        Mr. Davis. All right. And in--thank you for doing that, I
    appreciate your relaying that to the DOT Aviation Consumer
    Protection Division. If you could, would you ask them to reach
    out to my office? And I would love to schedule a meeting to get
    a personal update from that team.
        Mr. Bahrami. Absolutely.
        Mr. Davis. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Bahrami. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis. Captain, you mentioned something. I don't
    remember--the hearing has gone on long--if it was your opening
    testimony or if it was in response to one of the initial
    questions, but you mentioned student loans and the debt that
    pilots may incur. Do you know what the average student loan
    debt is for a pilot going into aviation, coming out of
    training?
        Mr. Canoll. No, sir, we don't. I don't. We don't keep those
    statistics. We do know it is expensive. And the problem with
    the traditional student loans is the current system of caps and
    forbearance.
        So in the higher education bill, we are urging a broader
    look at how student loans could help an individual interested
    in, let's say, being a pilot, factor in the higher cost that
    flight training is going to have to be included. And that would
    mean higher caps for that particular profession, like it has
    provided in other professions, and then maybe a different
    mechanism for forbearance on the repayment of those loans.
    Still a loan construct, still not the best way to do it,
    because loans are expensive. But nevertheless, the only way for
    a lot of people.
        Mr. Davis. Well, I appreciate your comments on the
    forbearance issues and the Higher Ed Act, but I want to bring
    your attention to a bill that I have introduced called the
    Employer Participation in Student Loan Assistance Act. And what
    it does, it sets up a voluntary, private-sector approach that
    would allow for a company to receive a tax benefit to offer up
    to a little over $5,000 per year to an employee. And the
    benefit would be the employee wouldn't be taxed on it, either.
        So it is something that could get us to pay down student
    debt even more, and allow it to be negotiated as part of a
    benefits package. So I would love for ALPA and any other
    organization, the Allied Pilots Association, and Southwest
    Airlines Pilots Association, and all of the different pilots
    organizations to take a look at that, because it is an idea
    that I think could help get much of that debt off the plate of
    some of your youngest pilots, and give them a chance to go into
    your profession easier.
        And if you look at polling, millennials right now, the
    biggest concern they have is student loan debt.
        Mr. Canoll. Yes.
        Mr. Davis. And they are not going to go into an expensive
    profession to get that education like aviation if we don't give
    them this assistance. So take a look at that. I appreciate the
    opportunity to bring that up. Thanks for your comments.
        Mr. Canoll. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis. And I will yield back the balance of my time to
    Mr. Larsen, very quickly.
        Mr. Larsen. So Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would
    like to enter a letter into the record with 443 signatories of
    folks who oppose any attempts to privatize the air traffic
    control system, including the Washington Pilots Association
    from the great State of Washington, just to show the wisdom of
    this move. So I would like to enter this into the record.
        Mr. Davis. No.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Davis. Without objection.

            [The letter referenced by Congressman Larsen is on pages 147-
            154.]

        Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
        Mr. Davis. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    California, Mr. DeSaulnier, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank the chairman of this subcommittee, the ranking member,
    and the ranking member of the full committee on their opening
    comments in mentioning an issue that is very important to me
    and the residents of the San Francisco Bay area, and
    acknowledging those incidents there.
        And I want to also thank, first, the captain and your
    association for being so great for myself and my staff to work
    with. I have had a lot of input from your members individually
    and when you have come to see us on the issue of runway
    incursions and near misses. I have learned a lot.
        Then I want to acknowledge both the NTSB and the FAA. My
    initial contacts, to be honest, were not as productive as I
    thought. But subsequent to that, I really appreciate the
    meetings.
        So I say this in a tone, first of all, acknowledgment that
    there is a problem. And although I get now in regular--still
    followed very closely by the bay area media, it was on two
    stations this past weekend--and trying to put it in context,
    that we should acknowledge the safety record. But on the other
    hand, we should be doing everything to make sure that what is
    happening is not a regression of the means, that we are so
    comfortable with our safety record that we are not looking at
    these near misses and learning from them.
        So, Mr. DeLisi--and thank you for your career. I have great
    admiration for what you have done and the value you have given
    to the traveling public. So I want to talk a little bit about
    your most wanted list issue area. First, you mentioned that
    expanding use of recorders, both audio visual and voice and
    other recorders, are on your wish list. So could you expand on
    that?
        And what is the cost for us to be able to get that, either
    the private sector or the Federal Government, to help you with
    that? And how would that help with these near misses and the
    runway incursions?
        Mr. DeLisi. Well, thank you. Certainly in the part 121
    airline operation realm, aircraft are equipped with flight data
    recorders and cockpit voice recorders, the cockpit voice
    recorders only capture 2 hours' worth of information. They are
    designed with an impacts, which--they are really a tool for
    accident investigation. If the airplane is involved in an
    accident, it will stop recording and preserve the data.
        However, in an incident in which the airplane is undamaged,
    likely power will remain on as passengers disembark, and the
    next load of passengers will get on board and, very quickly,
    that data is going to be overwritten. So we know that ICAO is
    looking at a new standard for 2021 to go to a 25-hour recording
    standard for CVRs [cockpit voice recorders]. We think that
    would be very helpful.
        In the part 135 realm, we see accidents in which airplanes
    fall below the threshold of being required to have a flight
    data recorder. And in airplanes like that, when there is not an
    optional flight data monitoring recorder, there is no way for a
    company to understand how that flight is being operated. There
    is no way to monitor procedural compliance and stabilized
    approach criteria being met. There is no insight. And the
    accidents that we have investigated recently, like the one in
    Akron, Ohio, and a more recent one in Teterboro, New Jersey,
    show that those airplanes are not being flown in accordance
    with company procedures.
        So the push on the part 135 operators is to require a low-
    cost, lightweight flight data monitoring recorder to allow that
    sort of monitoring.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So just the jurisdictional issues of
    looking at these near misses and what the triggers are--we have
    talked to you and looked at, is it specifics of the airport,
    why this--at SFO we are pushing, we are very busy, we are happy
    about that--the design of the airports?
        But it does seem that, given all the proper restrictions
    for privacy and for the good relationships between the
    operators, the pilots, it--from a lay person's standpoint, if
    you made sure all of those were consistent, as they are for the
    voice recorders, you can go to Best Buy right now and get a
    device that would record the last half hour, so you at least
    know that conversation and what the human factors were
    happening in that cockpit when it happened. Could you comment
    on that?
        Mr. DeLisi. Yes. We are seeing companies--operators that
    are voluntarily equipping their fleets with a device like an
    Appareo Vision 1000 recorder that does video, audio, and some
    parameters, and it is a great tool for monitoring flights, and
    it certainly comes in handy, should those aircraft be involved
    in an accident or an incident.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So it would be helpful?
        Mr. DeLisi. Yes.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. OK. Anything from the FAA in this regard,
    either the incursions or getting more information from the
    cockpit?
        Mr. Bahrami. Well, as was mentioned by Mr. DeLisi, we
    definitely would like to see as much information as possible,
    in order to transpire what occurred prior to accident. And
    recorders--in this case, voice recorder--is one of those tools.
    And there are other ways to be able to decipher what
    transpired. And at this point I think we know, historically,
    any kind of a visual recording has been quite controversial.
    And if we decide to go that route we have to go through the
    process and deliberation and discussions before we make any
    policy decisions.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, thank you. I want to thank the
    chairman, too. I recognize again--and I know I have run out of
    time--the amazing safety record. However, if that 59 feet had
    finalized in a tragedy, and if it happens in the future, we are
    all going to be held to account, which I think would be
    appropriate. So we want to avoid that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Perry [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentleman from
    California. The Chair now recognizes Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bahrami, I keep hearing about our outmoded radar-based
    system, and how good it could be, and about the space-based
    ADS-B. Have we deployed an operable, currently operating ADS-B
    system that covers the entire continental United States and
    Alaska and part of the Gulf of Mexico?
        It is a simple question. Have we? Is there such a system
    today that operates?
        Mr. Bahrami. Yes, yes, of course.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. So we have that.
        Mr. Bahrami. Yes.
        Mr. DeFazio. Why aren't all the commercial airlines using
    it? Oh, because they haven't purchased the equipment to use it,
    is that correct?
        Mr. Bahrami. Well, it is also the rule is not in effect.
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes, we didn't mandate it until 2020.
        Mr. Bahrami. Yes, it is----
        Mr. DeFazio. That is correct. But it isn't like--that we
    can't develop the system, it doesn't exist, you know, and we
    are so far behind. We have it, and we are not using it, because
    the airlines haven't invested in the equipment because we
    didn't make them invest until 2020. OK?
        Mr. Bahrami. That is right.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thanks. So that is one of the myths here that
    is a bit disturbing.
        Now, Captain Canoll, I understand the frustration and I
    understand the frustration of others, because of idiots in
    Congress who adopt things like sequestration and shutdowns and
    apply it to programs that are fully funded. That is easily
    solved. All we have to do is take the current system of funding
    off budget.
        But you are supporting a bill that actually reduces the
    revenues by $8 billion over 10 years to support the air traffic
    control system. The pilots will have a place at the table, the
    airlines will have a place at the table to determine what new
    fees will be paid by passengers or airlines.
        How are you going to raise $8 billion? The ticket tax goes
    away, 80 percent of it. That is how we fund the system now.
    That is $9.9 billion over 10 years. Eighty percent goes away.
    We have just lost $8 billion. And the airlines are going to
    raise their tickets by 7.5 percent, just like they did when
    then-Congressman Mica let it go when we temporarily suspended
    the tax because of some dispute he was having. For 3 weeks,
    every airline in America, except Alaska, raised their tickets
    7.5 percent, got a windfall of $400 million. That didn't go
    into the trust fund. This time they are going to get a windfall
    of $8 billion when they raise their ticket taxes.
        How do you, as, you know, your organization, as one of the
    organizations supporting this bill, intend to raise the $8
    billion from passengers or airlines after privatization takes
    effect?
        Mr. Canoll. So our concept, or our policy, requires that
    the test be applied to ensure that any fee structure that is
    put in place in a successor organization is fair. And we----
        Mr. DeFazio. Would a head tax on passengers be fair? The
    airlines have just claimed the $8 billion of new windfall, and
    now they are going to say, ``Well, gee, I think we are going to
    have to say everybody that gets on a plane pays $25 to use the
    national airspace.'' Would that be fair?
        Mr. Canoll. That and many other ways might be fair.
        Mr. DeFazio. Great. So we pay for higher tickets, and you
    pay to use the airspace every time you fly. And somehow this is
    an improvement over the current system?
        The only problem with the current system is the idiots I
    work with. That is the only problem. We are raising more than
    enough money, we have deployed the new system. The airlines
    haven't bought the equipment. They are not using it. And here
    we are, saying, oh, we need to privatize.
        I mean, seriously. I know that there are some who are
    saying, ``Oh, gee, we might be considering pilot training if--
    oh, OK, well, all right, we won't consider it.''
        You know, I don't like the way this place is working right
    now. And I think there is some groups supporting this
    privatization who really, in their hearts, don't support it.
        With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Oregon.
    Before we adjourn, Mr. Bahrami, can you just--in keeping with
    the recent testimony and questioning, what is the current
    general aviation ADS-B equipage rate? Do you have any idea
    where they stand?
        Mr. Bahrami. We are--I don't have the exact number, but I
    can tell you that it is not where we would like it to be.
        Mr. Perry. Can you get back to us with the exact number----
        Mr. Bahrami. Absolutely.
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. At this time?
        Mr. Bahrami. Of course, of course, we will do that.
        Mr. Perry. All right. I appreciate that.
        If there are no further questions, I would like to thank
    the witnesses for being here this morning. We appreciate it.
    Gentlemen, this has been informative and helpful, and we
    appreciate your time and willingness to come and sit in the hot
    seat.
        With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]