Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis
of the Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning,
Progress, and Challenges (29-MAR-06, GAO-06-574T).
The health of our nation's air transportation system is critical
to our citizens and economy. However, the current approach to
managing air transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient
and operationally obsolete. In 2003, Congress created the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to coordinate the federal
and nonfederal stakeholders necessary to plan and implement a
transition from the current air transportation system to the
"next generation air transportation system" (NGATS). JPDO,
although housed within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
has seven partner agencies: the Departments of Transportation,
Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security; FAA; the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. This testimony provides
preliminary results from GAO's ongoing study of the status of
JPDO's efforts. GAO provides information on (1) the extent to
which JPDO is facilitating the federal interagency collaboration
and aligning the human and financial resources needed to plan and
implement the NGATS, (2) the actions taken by JPDO to adequately
involve stakeholders in the planning process, and (3) the extent
to which JPDO is conducting the technical planning needed to
develop the NGATS.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-574T
ACCNO: A50397
TITLE: Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary
Analysis of the Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning,
Progress, and Challenges
DATE: 03/29/2006
SUBJECT: Air transportation
Interagency relations
Program management
Strategic planning
Technology
Stakeholder consultations
Next Generation Air Transportation
System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-574T
* Background
* JPDO Is Engaging in Effective Practices for Interagency Coll
* JPDO Has Articulated a Common Outcome, Established Mutually
* JPDO Faces Challenges in Continuing to Leverage Resources an
* JPDO Established Mechanisms to Involve Stakeholders but Face
* JPDO Is Involving Federal and Nonfederal Stakeholders
* JPDO Faces Challenges in Maintaining Nonfederal Stakeholder
* JPDO Is Using an Iterative Technical Planning Process
* JPDO Has Begun to Use System Performance Modeling
* JPDO Has Taken the First Steps toward Developing an Enterpri
* Concluding Observations
* Contact and Acknowledgements
* GAO's Mission
* Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* Order by Mail or Phone
* To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* Congressional Relations
* Public Affairs
Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTION SYSTEM
Preliminary Analysis of the Joint Planning and Development Office's
Planning, Progress, and Challenges
Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues
GAO-06-574T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing to discuss
the status of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) after its
first 2 years of existence. The health of our nation's air transportation
system is critical to our citizens and economy. However, the current
approach to managing air transportation is becoming increasingly
inefficient and operationally obsolete. In November 2002, the
congressionally chartered Commission on the Future of the United States
Aerospace Industry recommended transforming the U.S. air transportation
system as a national priority.1 Transforming the system to accommodate
what is expected to be three times the current amount of traffic by 2025,
providing adequate security and environmental safeguards, and doing these
things seamlessly while the current system continues to operate, will be
an enormously complex undertaking.
In 2003, Congress passed the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, which created JPDO within the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to manage work related to the creation of a "next
generation air transportation system" (NGATS). JPDO has responsibility for
coordinating the research efforts of its partner agencies-the Departments
of Transportation (DOT), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), and Homeland
Security (DHS); FAA; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). JPDO is also working with its final partner agency-the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy-to coordinate funding with the
Office of Management and Budget. Additionally, JPDO has responsibility to
consult with the public; to coordinate federal goals, priorities, and
programs with those of aviation and aeronautical firms; and to ensure the
participation of stakeholders from the private sector, including
commercial and general aviation, labor, aviation research and development
entities, and manufacturers. JPDO is jointly funded through FAA and NASA.
The JPDO Director reports to the FAA Administrator and to the Chief
Operating Officer of FAA's Air Traffic Organization.2
1Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Final
Report (Nov. 2002).
2The Air Traffic Organization is FAA's business unit that is responsible
for operating, maintaining, and modernizing the nation's current air
traffic control system.
Vision 100 directed JPDO to develop an integrated plan for the NGATS and
to include in the plan, among other things, a vision statement for an air
transportation system that meets potential air traffic demand by 2025; a
description of the demand and required performance characteristics of the
future system; and a high-level, multi-agency roadmap and concept of
operations for the future system. Key tenets of the plan are transitioning
from the current largely ground-based navigation system to one that is
more focused on aircraft and satellite-based navigation, and automating
many of the routine air traffic control functions. In addition, the
integrated plan discusses a strategy to harmonize the NGATS with equipage
and operations around the world to enhance safety and efficiency on a
global scale. As directed by Vision 100, the FAA Administrator provided
this integrated plan to Congress in December 2004 and issued the first
annual progress report earlier this month.
My statement today provides preliminary results from our ongoing study of
the status of JPDO and focuses on three specific questions. (1) To what
extent is JPDO facilitating the federal interagency collaboration and
aligning the human and financial resources needed to define and perform
the centralized planning function for the detailed implementation of the
NGATS? (2) What actions or initiatives has JPDO implemented to ensure
adequate involvement of stakeholders in the planning process? (3) To what
extent is JPDO conducting the technical planning needed to develop the
NGATS? My statement is based on our analysis of documents provided by JPDO
and its partner agencies; the perspectives of agency officials and
stakeholders with whom we have spoken; the results of a panel of experts
that we convened earlier this month; and our review of relevant
literature, including the integrated plan and the progress report. We also
draw upon our prior work on FAA's national airspace system modernization
program, which we have listed as a high-risk program since 1995. To assess
JPDO's prospects for facilitating collaboration among its partner
agencies, we compared its practices to those that we have found to be
effective in facilitating other federal interagency collaborative
efforts.3 We also reviewed the National Research Council's 2005 report on
JPDO, which provided a technical assessment of the research, development,
and technology components of JPDO's integrated plan.4 In addition, we
reviewed relevant documents and interviewed officials and stakeholders
regarding Europe's effort to harmonize and modernize its air traffic
management system. Later this year, we expect to issue a detailed report
that will provide our assessment of the status of JPDO's efforts as it
works to develop the NGATS. We are performing our work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
3GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 21, 2005).
4National Research Council, Technology Pathways: Assessing the Integrated
Plan for a Next Generation Air Transportation System (Washington, D.C.:
2005).
In summary:
o JPDO is implementing a number of practices that our work has
shown facilitates collaboration among federal agencies, but faces
a challenge in maintaining this collaboration over the long term.
These practices include defining and articulating a common
outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to
achieve that outcome, and identifying and addressing needs by
leveraging resources among partner agencies. JPDO's legislation
established a common outcome-a transformed national airspace
system by 2025-that JPDO expanded on in its integrated plan, which
establishes an overarching framework and goals for its activities.
The plan also laid out eight joint strategies for partner agencies
to use as they help develop the NGATS. Additionally, JPDO is
leveraging partner agency resources by staffing its organization
with employees of the partner agencies, many of whom work for JPDO
as a collateral duty. JPDO has also reviewed these agencies'
research and development programs to identify work that could
support the NGATS. By using these practices for facilitating
collaboration, JPDO has gotten off to a positive start. However,
because JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body, it
does not have authority over the partner agencies' human and
financial resources that it needs to continue performing the
centralized, interagency planning function for detailed
implementation of the NGATS. Consequently, leveraging resources
will continue to be critical to JPDO's success, particularly in
future years as partner agencies begin to implement projects on a
larger scale. JPDO was successful in prompting FAA to request
funding to accelerate system development for two key NGATS systems
in its fiscal year 2007 budget request. However, JPDO officials
told us that, while FAA did receive an increase, it did not
receive the full amount requested in the budget formulation
documents submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. Our
work on FAA's current air traffic control modernization program
has shown that receiving fewer resources than planned was a
contributing factor in schedule delays and subsequent cost
increases. To its credit, JPDO is working with its partner
agencies to align their fiscal year 2008 budget requests to
support the NGATS. JPDO has also opened a dialog with the Office
of Management and Budget to develop a systematic means of
reviewing partner agency budget requests so that NGATS-related
programs can be easily identified.
o JPDO has incorporated representatives from federal and
nonfederal stakeholders throughout its organization. Federal
stakeholders from the partner agencies work with JPDO throughout
multiple levels of the organization. The NGATS Institute was
created as the mechanism for involving nonfederal stakeholders and
has obtained their participation and assigned them to work with
JPDO's federal stakeholders. The NGATS Institute Management
Council, composed of top officials and representatives from the
aviation community, provides a means for advancing consensus
positions on critical NGATS issues. However, a critical
stakeholder in the nation's air traffic control system has yet to
become an active participant in this forum. Air traffic
controllers, who work in the current system and will play a key
role in the NGATS, have not been involved in JPDO's efforts. In
the past, FAA's failure to adequately involve air traffic
controllers in its acquisition of new technologies, such as the
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System-a workstation for
air traffic controllers-contributed to costly rework and schedule
delays. A challenge for JPDO could be sustaining nonfederal
stakeholders' participation in an effort where tangible benefits
may not be realized until several years in the future. JPDO also
faces the challenge of convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the
government is financially committed to the NGATS. Additionally,
JPDO could face a challenge in resolving the divergent
perspectives that are represented by its nonfederal stakeholders.
o JPDO is using an iterative process to address the technical
planning needed to develop the NGATS that appears reasonable in
light of the system's complexity. The office has assembled a suite
of models to iteratively analyze and understand the interactions
among system performance parameters, demand, and economic factors,
and has developed an enterprise architecture, or "blueprint," for
the NGATS. JPDO is testing the adequacy of its suite of models,
publishing the results, and seeking peer review opportunities.
However, these modeling efforts, including those addressing human
factors, are currently in the early stages, and more time and
field testing will be needed to increase confidence that the final
range of solutions for the NGATS is based on realistic
assumptions. With respect to enterprise architecture, JPDO has
established the organizational structure for enterprise
architecture development-an important first step-and anticipates
having an initial version of the architecture by the end of fiscal
year 2006. Recognizing that further work will be required, JPDO is
using a multiyear phased planning approach in which the enterprise
architecture will be continuously refined. This "build a little,
test a little" approach is similar to a process that we have
previously advocated for FAA's major system acquisition programs.
FAA, with research assistance from NASA, has had the primary
responsibility for planning and implementing national airspace
system modernization since these efforts began more than 20 years
ago. Recently, FAA placed the modernization program under a new
Air Traffic Organization, headed by a Chief Operating Officer.
JPDO's approach differs from FAA's past modernization efforts in
that its scope is "curb-to-curb," encompassing in-terminal
passenger and baggage security screening and environmental issues.
Additionally, JPDO's approach will require unprecedented consensus
and cooperation among many stakeholders-federal and
nonfederal-about necessary system capabilities, equipment,
procedures, and regulations. JPDO seeks to leverage the resources
of NASA and the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense,
and Homeland Security, each of which has expertise and technology
that will play a part in the NGATS. For example, the Department of
Defense has deployed "network centric" systems, originally
developed for the battlefield, which are being considered as a
framework to provide all users of the national airspace system-FAA
and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security-with a common
view of that system.
Concurrent with JPDO's efforts, the European Commission5 is
conducting a project to harmonize and modernize the pan-European
air traffic management system. Known as the Single European Sky
Air Traffic Management Research Programme (SESAR), the project is
being managed by the Air Traffic Alliance, an industry partnership
that was awarded the management contract by the European
Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol).6
Eurocontrol develops, coordinates, and plans for the
implementation of pan-European air traffic management strategies.
While the U.S. and European efforts are both directed at
modernization, Europe faces the additional challenge of
harmonizing its air traffic control system-currently operated
through a patchwork of national air navigation service providers.
The work of the SESAR effort, which was scheduled to officially
start this month, is being done by a 30-member consortium of
airlines, air navigation service providers, airports,
manufacturers, and others. The consortium is receiving 60 million
euros ($73 million)7 to conduct a 2-year definition phase and
produce a master plan for SESAR. The next steps following the
definition phase, from 2008 to 2013, are currently under
discussion. One proposal would develop the technologies for the
new system and would be funded annually at 300 million euros ($363
million) per year, with equal contributions being provided by the
European Commission, Eurocontrol, and other parties.
Our work to date shows that JPDO has engaged in practices to
facilitate federal interagency collaboration, including defining
and articulating a common outcome; establishing mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies; and beginning to leverage the
partner agency resources needed to perform the centralized,
interagency planning function for the detailed implementation of
the NGATS. However, JPDO faces a challenge in leveraging resources
because it is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that
lacks authority over the key human and financial resources needed
to continue developing plans and system requirements for the
NGATS. Additionally, JPDO faces the challenge of clearly defining
roles and responsibilities among its partner agencies. Our work
has shown that collaborating agencies should work together to
define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities,
including how the collaborative effort will be led. To its credit,
JPDO is taking some actions to mitigate these challenges.
JPDO's integrated plan provides a vision statement that elaborates
on the broadly stated common outcome set forth by the Vision 100
legislation-an air transportation system that meets potential air
traffic demand by 2025. In working together to develop JPDO's
integrated plan, the partner agencies agreed upon a broad
statement of future system goals, performance characteristics, and
operational concepts. Our research shows that, for interagency
collaborative efforts to overcome significant differences in
agency missions, cultures, and established ways of doing business,
the agencies must have a clear and compelling rationale to work
together. JPDO's partner agencies agreed to a vision statement: a
transformed air transportation system that provides services
tailored to individual customer needs, allows all communities to
participate in the global economy, and seamlessly integrates civil
and military operations.
The plan also provides eight strategies-again developed by the
partner agencies-that broadly address the goals and objectives for
the NGATS. JPDO has formed eight integrated product teams (IPTs),
one for each strategy. Our work has shown that mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies help in aligning the partner
agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish
the common outcome. In addition to jointly identifying the
strategies for the NGATS, the various partner agencies have taken
the lead on specific strategies. (See table 1.) JPDO is currently
reevaluating whether all of these IPTs should be expected to
create products. For example, the IPT that is addressing the
global interoperability strategy might be more likely to have
cross-cutting influence over the other seven IPTs, rather than
developing a product of its own, according to JPDO officials.
Table 1. JPDO's Strategies and Responsible Agencies
Source: GAO presentation of JPDO data.
The National Research Council, in its recent study of JPDO, noted
the IPT structure is oriented by discipline, which the Council
believes works against a product orientation. The Council
recommended that JPDO reorganize into three IPTs that parallel the
way FAA currently organizes its operations-airport, terminal, and
en route/oceanic. JPDO officials do not agree with this
recommendation. They told us that the existing airspace
segmentation by phase of flight-airport , terminal, and en
route-creates inefficiencies. As aircraft transition from one
phase of flight to the next, they encounter a "speed bump." For
example, operations are slowed as en route air traffic controllers
transfer responsibility for aircraft to terminal controllers. This
segmentation is not part of JPDO's vision for the NGATS. In our
view, if JPDO's IPT structure begins to show evidence that it is
hindering rather than promoting progress toward achieving NGATS
goals, JPDO might look again at the Council's recommendations to
determine whether a different structure or fewer IPTs would help
it achieve its goals. In the end, the progress and outcomes
achieved by the structure are as important, if not more important,
than the organizational model selected.
JPDO has begun leveraging the resources of its partner agencies,
which is another practice that we have found helps facilitate
interagency collaboration. Our research shows that collaborating
agencies should identify the human, information technology,
physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or sustain
their collaborative effort. To leverage human resources, JPDO has
staffed its organization with partner-agency employees, many of
whom work for JPDO as a collateral duty. The JPDO board, which
provides coordination between partner agencies and JPDO, is
composed of key executives of the partner agencies who can
facilitate bringing agency resources to bear on NGATS development.
JPDO's eight IPTs, which are developing the plans and requirements
for the NGATS, include staff from the partner agencies.
Additionally, Vision 100 created the Next Generation Air
Transportation Senior Policy Committee, composed of partner agency
senior executives, to provide ongoing policy review and identify
resource needs from the partner agencies. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: JPDO Organization Chart
To further begin leveraging resources, during the past year JPDO
conducted an interagency program review of its partner agencies'
research and development programs to identify the work that could
support the NGATS, as well as identify areas for more effective
interagency collaboration. Through this process, JPDO identified
early opportunities that could be pursued during fiscal year 2007
to produce tangible results for the NGATS. For example, JPDO noted
that FAA had amassed considerable technical expertise in the
standards, protocols, and near-term air traffic applications for
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). ADS-B is a
technology through which an aircraft broadcasts information on its
position to ground-based transceivers, rather than having its
position detected by ground-based radars. JPDO envisions FAA
beginning to purchase ADS-B transceivers, decommission obsolete
ground-based radars, and develop air traffic procedures that would
permit ADS-B-equipped aircraft to obtain near-term operational
benefits such as routings that save fuel.
Although JPDO's legislation, integrated plan, and established
governance structure provide the framework for institutionalizing
collaboration among multiple federal agencies, JPDO is
fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that lacks
authority over the key human and financial resources needed to
continue developing plans and system requirements for the NGATS.
Consequently, leveraging resources on a continuing basis will be
critical to JPDO's success. Our research has also shown that
agreement on roles and responsibilities facilitates interagency
collaboration. However, in JPDO's situation, some important roles
and responsibilities have not yet been clearly defined.
The challenge of leveraging resources will likely intensify
beginning in 2008, when JPDO expects a significant increase in the
workload of its IPTs. JPDO anticipates needing more resources for
the IPTs to, among other things, plan demonstrations of potential
technologies to illustrate some of the early benefits that could
be achieved from the transformation to the NGATS. JPDO officials
told us that, although the partner agencies have not yet expressed
concerns over the time that their employees spend on JPDO work, it
remains to be seen whether partner agencies are willing to allow
their staff to devote larger portions of their time to JPDO as the
office develops more detailed plans and requirements for the
NGATS. Partner agencies have a variety of missions and priorities
other than supporting the NGATS. Some partner agency employees,
including some IPT directors, have been told by their partner
agencies that their work for JDPO is approved so long as it does
not interfere with their regular assigned duties. Such resource
issues would ultimately go to the Senior Policy Committee for
resolution. However, the role of the committee's members, as
stated in Vision 100, is only to make recommendations to their
respective agencies for the required resources.
The challenge of leveraging financial resources has already
manifested itself. As JPDO requested, FAA included in its fiscal
year 2007 budget request to the Office of Management and Budget
funding to accelerate systems development of ADS-B and System Wide
Information Management (SWIM),8 which are two key systems
identified for the NGATS. However, JPDO officials told us that,
while FAA did receive an increase, it did not receive the full
amount requested in the budget formulation documents submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget.9 Our past work on FAA's
national airspace modernization program has shown that, among
other factors, receiving fewer resources than planned contributed
to delays in implementing technologies and significant cost
increases. For example, reduced funding was one factor that caused
FAA to reduce the initial deployment of its ASR-11 digital radar
system from 111 systems to 66 systems, and defer decisions on
further deployment pending additional study. In the meantime, FAA
will have to continue to maintain the aging analog radars that the
new system was intended to replace.
JPDO also faces the challenge of clearly defining roles and
responsibilities among its partner agencies. Our work has shown
that collaborating agencies should work together to define and
agree on the respective roles and responsibilities, including how
the collaborative effort will be led. In JPDO's case, there is no
formalized long-term agreement on the partner agencies' roles and
responsibilities in creating the NGATS. According to JPDO
officials, a memorandum of understanding that would define partner
agency relationships was being developed as of August 2005, but
has not yet been completed.
Defining roles and responsibilities is particularly important
between JPDO and FAA's Air Traffic Organization, since both
organizations have responsibilities related to planning national
airspace system modernization. JPDO's planning must build upon the
Air Traffic Organization's existing modernization program, while
the Air Traffic Organization must ensure that its ongoing
modernization efforts are consistent with JPDO's plans. JPDO's
former director served concurrently as the Air Traffic
Organization's Vice President for Operations Planning, which
helped with coordination between the two organizations. However,
FAA now plans to establish separate positions for the JPDO
Director and the Air Traffic Organization Vice President for
Operations Planning. Doing so increases the importance of having a
clearly defined relationship between these organizations.
Ultimate decisionmaking authority is another role and
responsibility that has not been clearly defined. According to
JPDO, decisions are the collective responsibility of the
government agencies. The Senior Policy Committee makes decisions
through consensus of the members. If there are any issues that the
committee cannot resolve among themselves, JPDO officials expect
that the Secretary of Transportation would elevate these issues to
the appropriate White House-level policy council, such as the
Domestic Policy Council. Although JPDO strives to make decisions
and resolve disputes through its collaborative bodies, its
experience thus far is limited. It is not clear whether this
process will be effective as the NGATS planning and implementation
effort moves forward. As part of our ongoing work, we will further
explore the decisionmaking and dispute resolution mechanisms
within JPDO.
To its credit, JPDO, in concert with the Air Traffic Organization,
has begun to address these challenges. To assist with leveraging
resources, JPDO has issued guidance to its partner agencies
identifying areas that JPDO would like to see emphasized in their
fiscal year 2008 budget requests. The Air Traffic Organization, in
recognition of the need to align its plans with the 20-year
planning horizon of JPDO, has extended its planning horizon.
Finally, JPDO is working with the Office of Management and Budget
to develop a systematic means of reviewing partner agency budget
requests so that the NGATS-related funding in each budget request
is easily identified. Such a process would help the Office of
Management and Budget consider NGATS as a unified program rather
than as disconnected line items across partner agency budget
requests. To better define roles and responsibilities, JPDO
planned to transmit the proposed memorandum of understanding to
the JPDO board this month.
As required by Vision 100, JPDO developed and implemented
mechanisms for soliciting the expertise and views of federal and
nonfederal stakeholders as it plans the NGATS. Although JPDO has
obtained the involvement of over 180 participants from over 70
organizations for the IPTs, the current air traffic
controllers-who will play a key role in the NGATS-have not been
involved in JPDO's efforts. In addition, JPDO may face challenges
in sustaining stakeholder involvement over the long term.
JPDO has structured itself in a way that involves federal and
nonfederal stakeholders throughout its organization. Vision 100
directed JPDO to involve federal and nonfederal stakeholders as it
fulfills its mission. Our work shows that involving stakeholders
can, among other things, increase their support for the
collaborative effort. Federal stakeholders from the partner
agencies participate with JPDO through the Senior Policy
Committee, the JPDO board, and the IPTs. To incorporate the
expertise and views of stakeholders in private industry, state and
local governments, and academia, the NGATS Institute (the
Institute) was created by an agreement between the National Center
for Advanced Technologies and FAA.10
Within the Institute, the Institute Management Council (the
Council), composed of top officials and representatives from the
aviation community, oversees the policy and recommendations of the
Institute. The Council provides a means for advancing consensus
positions on critical NGATS issues. It is co-chaired by the
president of the Air Transport Association, which represents
commercial airlines, and the president of the Air Line Pilots
Association, which represents airline pilots. The Institute has
solicited participation from nonfederal stakeholders and assigned
them to each IPT. Additionally, the Institute planned to hold its
first public meeting on March 28, 2006, to solicit information
from other interested stakeholders who are not involved in the
Council or the IPTs.
JPDO officials are generally pleased with the quality of
stakeholder participation. Through the Institute, JPDO obtained
the participation of over 180 stakeholders from over 70
organizations for the IPTs. The Institute received positive
feedback from IPT directors on the skills, insight, and expertise
of the private sector volunteers. Additionally, an official
affiliated with the Institute told us that the collective quality
and breadth of expertise of applicants for the IPTs has exceeded
expectations.
However, JPDO has experienced difficulties with soliciting the
participation of current air traffic controllers, who will play a
key role in the NGATS. The current air traffic control system is
based primarily on the premise that air traffic controllers direct
pilots to maintain safe separation between aircraft. In the NGATS,
this premise could change and, accordingly, JPDO has recognized
the need to conduct human factors research on such issues,
including how tasks should be allocated between humans and
automated systems, and how the existing allocation of
responsibilities between pilots and air traffic controllers might
change. JPDO is tapping the expertise of former air traffic
controllers, but current air traffic controllers are not yet
involved with JPDO.
Specifically, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA)-the labor union that represents air traffic controllers-is
not participating in the development of the NGATS. In July 2005,
FAA terminated the controller liaison program, wherein active
controllers were assigned to, among other things, provide input on
national airspace modernization projects. At that time, the union
disengaged from participating on all FAA workgroups and
technological projects, including JPDO. Although the Institute
Management Council includes a seat for the union, an official of
that union told us that the union's head had been unable to attend
the Council's meetings. According to JPDO officials, the Council
has left a seat open in hopes that the controllers will
participate in the NGATS effort at the end of the contract
negotiations between FAA and NATCA.
The lack of current air traffic controllers' participation could
result in future problems. The input of current air traffic
controllers who have recent experience controlling aircraft is
important in considering human factors and safety issues. Our work
on FAA's current national airspace modernization program has shown
that early and continuing stakeholder input is important,
particularly concerning human factors, in avoiding costly rework
and schedule delays late in system development efforts. For
example, as FAA procured new air traffic controller workstations
(known as Standard Terminal Automation Replacement Systems
(STARS)), not adequately including stakeholders during the
development phase contributed to unplanned work which, in turn,
contributed to cost growth, schedule delays, and eventually a
reduction in the number of systems to be deployed.11
Another method for stakeholder involvement is through JPDO's
facilitation of technology transfer in its requests for studies to
be contracted out through the Institute. For example, at JPDO's
request, the Institute plans to analyze trade-offs between
potential technologies to narrow the range of options that are
most critical for the NGATS. JPDO has sent to the Institute its
first request for studies, including an analysis of satellite
navigation backup technology.
The Institute also creates industry-government partnerships
through advanced-technology demonstrations. These demonstrations
provide a mechanism for collaboratively testing operational
concepts, refining requirements, and sharing technology between
the public and private sectors. To date, two demonstration
projects have been conducted by JPDO partner agencies, including
demonstrations on the Small Aircraft Transportation System and
Network Enabled Operations.
Although JPDO has developed the mechanisms for involving
stakeholders and brought stakeholders into the process, JPDO faces
challenges in sustaining nonfederal stakeholder participation over
the long term. Much as with the federal partner agencies, JPDO has
no direct authority over the human and financial resources of its
nonfederal stakeholders. To date, these stakeholders' investment
in the NGATS effort has been through their pro bono participation
on the IPTs and the Institute Management Council. The nonfederal
stakeholders' participation varies from approximately 10 to 25
percent of their time per week on the IPTs and involves
approximately one meeting per month for members of the Council.
The challenge for JPDO is to maintain the interest and enthusiasm
of these nonfederal stakeholders, who will have to juggle their
own multiple priorities and resource demands in order to maintain
this level of participation, when some tangible benefits may not
be realized for several years. For example, stakeholder support
will be important for programs such as SWIM, which is a necessary
prerequisite to future benefits, but may not produce tangible
benefits in the near term.
Rather than obtaining voluntary, pro bono participation from
nonfederal stakeholders, several members of our expert panel
suggested JPDO should outsource the NGATS planning efforts, as
Europe has done. As previously noted, the European SESAR effort is
led by an industry consortium under a contract with Eurocontrol.
The contract calls for the consortium to deliver a master plan at
the end of a 2-year definition phase. JPDO officials told us that
they considered various ways to structure their work, such as
having the government formulate plans with industry comment, or
having industry formulate plans and provide them to the
government. JPDO settled on the existing model, which is a hybrid
that involves initial government work with close industry
participation. Because of the different circumstances surrounding
the U.S. and European approaches (such as the European need to
harmonize various national systems), we have not taken a position
on which approach might be more effective.
In the wake of past national airspace modernization efforts, JPDO
also faces the challenge of convincing nonfederal stakeholders
that the government is financially committed to the NGATS. While
FAA's major air traffic control acquisitions programs are
currently on track, earlier attempts at modernizing the national
airspace system encountered many difficulties. In one instance,
for example, FAA developed a controller-pilot datalink
communications system that transmitted scripted e-mail-like
messages between controllers and pilots. One airline equipped its
aircraft with this new technology, but because of funding cuts,
FAA ended up canceling the program.12 In a similar vein, we have
reported that some aviation stakeholders expressed concern that
FAA may not follow through with its airspace redesign efforts and
are hesitant to invest in equipment unless they are sure that
FAA's efforts will continue.13 One expert with whom we spoke
suggested that a way to mitigate this issue would be for the
government to make an initial investment in a specific technology
before requesting that airlines or other industry stakeholders
purchase equipment.
Finally, JPDO could face a challenge in resolving the potentially
divergent perspectives that are represented by its nonfederal
stakeholders. The range of nonfederal interests that JPDO has
solicited for this effort is broad and varied, and potentially
conflicting (for example, the interests of commercial airlines
versus the interests of general aviation aircraft owners and
pilots). While the intent is to ensure that all stakeholders are
given the opportunity to participate in developing the NGATS,
dissension among these stakeholders is nevertheless possible. A
large portion of the nonfederal stakeholder participation is
through the IPTs. JPDO officials told us that they expect IPT
directors to resolve potential disputes among stakeholders and
obtain a "convergence of opinion," which is defined by JPDO as
working toward as close to a single position as possible while
recognizing that the IPT director might need to make a final
decision. JPDO officials told us that depending on the issue, the
IPT director may elect to elevate the different views to the
collection of IPT directors and senior JPDO officials for
resolution. In such a situation, JPDO will be challenged to settle
the dispute without alienating those nonfederal stakeholders who
might believe themselves to be adversely affected by the decision.
JPDO is using an iterative technical planning process that appears
to be reasonable in light of the complexity of the NGATS. The
planning process includes conducting modeling-a technique that
mathematically represents the NGATS' system performance
parameters, demand, and economic factors-as well as developing an
enterprise architecture-a blueprint to guide NGATS development.
JPDO has formed an Evaluation and Analysis Division (EAD),
composed of FAA and NASA employees, and contractors, to assemble a
suite of models that mathematically represent the interactions
among system performance parameters, demand, and economic factors
for the NGATS. These models iteratively test the relationships and
interactions among factors based on a set of assumptions. For
example, using models based on broad assumptions concerning fleet
mix and passenger and flight demand, EAD has evaluated how the
current air transportation system and proposed NGATS alternatives
react. EAD has also used modeling to determine whether current
airport capacity is sufficient to support a tripling of air
traffic. The modeling results will help JPDO further refine its
plans for the NGATS, leading to additional modeling that uses more
precisely defined assumptions, all the while narrowing the range
of potential solutions. In addition, EAD is modeling costs and
benefits of proposed NGATS solutions, as well as interactions
among system performance parameters, demand, and economic factors,
to demonstrate to JPDO management and the Office of Management and
Budget that the proposed solutions are a cost-effective way to
meet strategic goals and objectives.
Rather than creating its own models, EAD is assembling a suite of
existing models from FAA, other agencies, and contractors. To
assess the adequacy of these models, EAD has compared the results
obtained from them to known previous conditions. For example, to
assess how accurately a model reflects the impact of adverse
weather on airport capacity, EAD has compared the model's results
to what actually happened in a previous bad-weather event. In this
case, the model proved to be accurate, thereby validating its
further use.
EAD recognizes the importance of human factors in designing the
NGATS, but has just begun studying this issue. Specifically, EAD
has used modeling to study how possible changes in the duties of
key individuals, such as air traffic controllers, could affect the
workload and performance of others, such as airport ground
personnel. NGATS could shift some tasks now done by air traffic
controllers to pilots. However, EAD has not yet begun to model the
effect of this shift on pilot performance because, according to an
EAD official, a suitable model has not yet been incorporated into
the modeling tool suite. According to EAD, addressing this issue
is difficult because data on pilot behavior are not readily
available to use in creating such models. Furthermore, EAD has not
studied the training implications of various NGATS-proposed
solutions because further definition of the concept of operations
for these solutions has not been completed. As the concept of
operations matures, it will be important for air traffic
controllers and other affected stakeholders to provide their
perspectives on these modeling efforts.
EAD plans to use outside experts to review the adequacy of its
work. EAD will continue to publish results of its work in
peer-reviewed journals. EAD officials said they are also exploring
the possibility of pursuing a peer review relationship with SESAR
officials. So far, however, EAD's modeling efforts are in the
early stages and more time will be needed to conduct additional
modeling and field testing to increase confidence that the final
range of solutions for the NGATS is based on realistic
assumptions.
An enterprise architecture is a tool, or blueprint, for
understanding and planning complex systems. It can facilitate
NGATS planning by providing a strategic and integrated approach to
decisionmaking. For example, enterprise architecture can help
planners decide between various scenarios that involve flight
takeoff, flight landing, and en route flight in bad weather. The
NGATS enterprise architecture will provide the means for
coordinating among the partner agencies and private sector
manufacturers, aligning relevant research and development
activities, and integrating equipment. The enterprise architecture
will describe the current national airspace system, the NGATS, and
the sequence of steps needed to transition between them.
JPDO has taken the initial steps towards developing an enterprise
architecture and plans to have an early version by the end of
fiscal year 2006. The office has established and filled a chief
architect position and established an NGATS Architecture Council
composed of representatives from each partner agency's chief
architect office. This provides the organizational structure and
oversight needed to develop an enterprise architecture. While this
is an important first step and consistent with effective practices
that we have identified in enterprise architecture development,
JPDO's enterprise architecture development is currently a work in
progress. JPDO is working toward completing two tasks that we have
also identified as effective practices. First, JPDO is planning to
use the Federal Enterprise Architecture Security and Privacy
Profile, currently under development by the Federal Chief
Information Officer Council, to help ensure effective integration
of security and privacy requirements across NGATS enterprise
architecture. Second, JPDO is developing metrics that are to be
compliant with guidance from us and the Office of Management and
Budget to measure the enterprise architecture's progress in
development and effectiveness-in-use by the end of fiscal year
2006. JPDO recognizes that the development of the NGATS
architecture will be a multiyear process that will involve a
series of interim architectures.
JPDO's phased "build a little, test a little" approach for
developing and refining its enterprise architecture is similar to
a process that we have advocated for FAA's major
system-acquisition programs. After completing the initial version
of its enterprise architecture, JPDO plans to undertake a
comprehensive assessment to determine if additional efforts are
necessary to improve the architecture and address any gaps that
may have been identified. In addition, this phased development
process will allow JPDO to incorporate evolving market forces and
technologies in its architecture, and thus, to better manage
change.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, ultimate responsibility for the success
of JPDO and the broader NGATS effort is shared among JPDO and its
partner agencies, nonfederal stakeholders, and the Congress. JPDO
and its partner agencies have responsibility to develop a plan,
test technologies through demonstrations, and implement
technologies to transform the current national airspace system in
a timely and cost-efficient manner. Nonfederal stakeholders,
including industry representatives, state and local government
officials, and members of academia, must actively participate in
developing the plan. Some of these stakeholders-such as commercial
airlines and general aviation operators-will have to follow
through by equipping their aircraft to realize the benefits of the
NGATS. Finally, the success of the NGATS will undoubtedly require
support from Congress to obtain the resources and authority
necessary to complete the planning and testing stage, acquire the
necessary technologies, and develop procedures. Consequently,
Congress will face difficult decisions on how to prioritize
funding to support the NGATS with other national priorities. These
responsibilities are substantial, but failure in any one of these
areas will significantly affect JPDO's chances of achieving a
three-fold increase in airspace capacity by 2025.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have
at this time.
For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald
Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at [email protected] .
Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include
Nabajyoti Barkakati, Colin Fallon, David Hooper, Heather Krause,
Elizabeth Marchak, Edmond Menoche, Faye Morrison, Richard Scott,
and Sarah Veale.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
the performance and accountability of the federal government for
the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
to Updates."
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
(202) 512-6061
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
Background
5The European Commission is a politically independent institution that
prepares and implements legislative instruments.
6Eurocontrol is an autonomous organization established in 1963 with the
intention of creating a single upper airspace.
JPDO Is Engaging in Effective Practices for Interagency Collaboration, but Faces
Challenges in Leveraging Resources and Defining Responsibilities
JPDO Has Articulated a Common Outcome, Established Mutually Reinforcing or Joint
Strategies, and Begun to Leverage Resources
7A portion of this funding is in-kind services from Eurocontrol. To
convert euros to U.S. dollars, we used 1.2098, the foreign exchange rate
for Tuesday, March 21, 2006, as published in The Washington Post.
Strategy Lead agency
Develop airport infrastructure to meet Federal Aviation Administration
future demand
Establish an effective security system Department of Homeland Security
without limiting mobility or civil
liberties
Establish an agile air traffic system that National Aeronautics and Space
quickly responds to shifts in demand Administration
Establish shared situational Department of Defense
awareness-where all users share the same
information
Establish a comprehensive and proactive Federal Aviation Administration
approach to safety
Develop environmental protection that Federal Aviation Administration
allows sustained aviation growth
Develop a systemwide capability to reduce Department of Commerce
weather impacts
Harmonize equipage and operations globally Federal Aviation Administration
JPDO Faces Challenges in Continuing to Leverage Resources and Defining Roles and
Responsibilities
8SWIM would support the transition to network-centric operations by
providing the infrastructure and associated policies and standards to
enable information sharing among all authorized users, such as the
airlines, other government agencies, and the military.
9FAA's fiscal year 2007 budget request for research and development
includes about $18 million for JPDO, which is supplemented by matching
funds from NASA. NASA has committed to continuing this match in the
future, according to a JPDO official. JPDO uses these funds to conduct
planning and studies. Outyear funding plans for JPDO show a slight decline
through fiscal year 2010. Vision 100 authorized $50 million annually for
seven years for JPDO.
JPDO Established Mechanisms to Involve Stakeholders but Faces Challenges
JPDO Is Involving Federal and Nonfederal Stakeholders
10The National Center for Advanced Technologies is a nonprofit unit within
the Aerospace Industries Association.
JPDO Faces Challenges in Maintaining Nonfederal Stakeholder Support Over the
Long Term
11GAO, National Airspace System: Transformation will Require Cultural
Change, Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available Management
Tools, GAO-06-154 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2005).
12JPDO noted that FAA used this technology to conduct an operational
datalink demonstration that will provide valuable information for
developing future requirements and reducing development and implementation
risks.
13GAO-06-154.
JPDO Is Using an Iterative Technical Planning Process
JPDO Has Begun to Use System Performance Modeling
JPDO Has Taken the First Steps toward Developing an Enterprise Architecture
Concluding Observations
Contact and Acknowledgements
(540121)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Congressional Relations
Public Affairs
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-574T .
To view the full product, click on the link above. For more information,
contact Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, at (202) 512-2834 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-574T , testimony before the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives
March 29, 2006
NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Preliminary Analysis of the Joint Planning and Development Office's
Planning, Progress, and Challenges
The health of our nation's air transportation system is critical to our
citizens and economy. However, the current approach to managing air
transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally
obsolete. In 2003, Congress created the Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO) to coordinate the federal and nonfederal stakeholders
necessary to plan and implement a transition from the current air
transportation system to the "next generation air transportation system"
(NGATS). JPDO, although housed within the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has seven partner agencies: the Departments of Transportation,
Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security; FAA; the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA); and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. This testimony provides preliminary results from GAO's
ongoing study of the status of JPDO's efforts. GAO provides information on
(1) the extent to which JPDO is facilitating the federal interagency
collaboration and aligning the human and financial resources needed to
plan and implement the NGATS, (2) the actions taken by JPDO to adequately
involve stakeholders in the planning process, and (3) the extent to which
JPDO is conducting the technical planning needed to develop the NGATS.
JPDO is implementing a number of practices that GAO's work has shown
facilitates collaboration among federal agencies, but faces a challenge in
sustaining this collaboration over the longer term. These practices
include defining and articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve that outcome, and identifying
and addressing needs by leveraging resources among partner agencies.
However, JPDO faces a challenge in leveraging resources because it is
fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over
the key human and financial resources needed to continue developing plans
and system requirements for the NGATS. To its credit, JPDO is working with
its partner agencies to align their fiscal year 2008 budget requests to
support NGATS and is working with the Office of Management and Budget to
develop a budget review process that easily identifies partner agencies'
NGATS-related programs.
JPDO has involved federal and nonfederal stakeholders throughout its
organization. Federal stakeholders from the partner agencies work with
JPDO throughout multiple levels of the organization. The NGATS Institute
has been established as the mechanism for involving nonfederal
stakeholders. The Institute has obtained participation from industry and
other nonfederal stakeholders and has assigned them to work with JPDO.
However, JPDO has experienced difficulties with soliciting the
participation of current air traffic controllers, who will play a key role
in the NGATS. Additionally, JPDO could face a challenge in sustaining
nonfederal stakeholders' participation in an effort where tangible
benefits may not be realized until several years in the future.
JPDO is using an iterative technical planning process that appears to be
reasonable in light of the NGATS' complexity. The process includes
iterative modeling-a technique that mathematically represents the NGATS'
system performance parameters, demand, and economic factors-to narrow the
range of potential options. This fall, JPDO plans to have an initial
version of its enterprise architecture-a blueprint to guide NGATS
development-and will refine the architecture as the NGATS effort moves
forward.
Seven Partner Agencies Form the Joint Planning and Development Office
*** End of document. ***