Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on The Future of  
Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda (17-MAY-06, GAO-06-778R).	 
                                                                 
This letter responds to Congress's April 26, 2006, request that  
we address questions submitted for the record by Members of	 
Congress related to the March 29, 2006, hearing entitled The	 
Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda. Our responses are 
based on our previous and ongoing work and our knowledge of the  
areas addressed by the questions.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-778R					        
    ACCNO:   A54159						        
  TITLE:     Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on The    
Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda			 
     DATE:   05/17/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Air traffic control systems			 
	     Air traffic controllers				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Technology modernization programs			 
	     Transportation research				 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     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-06-778R

     

     * PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
          * Order by Mail or Phone

May 17, 2006

The Honorable Ken Calvert

Chairman

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

Committee on Science

House of Representatives

Subject: Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on The Future of
Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda

Dear Chairman Calvert:

This letter responds to your April 26, 2006, request that we address
questions submitted for the record by Members of the Subcommittee related
to the March 29, 2006, hearing entitled The Future of Air Traffic Control:
The R&D Agenda. Our answers to your questions are attached. Our responses
are based on our previous and ongoing work and our knowledge of the areas
addressed by the questions. We prepared our responses during May 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Because
our responses are based in large part on previously issued products for
which we sought and incorporated agency comments, we did not seek agency
comments on our responses to these questions.

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Director, Joint Planning and Development
Office. We will make copies available to others on request. This report is
also available on GAO's Web site at www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the responses, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected].

Sincerely yours,

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director

Physical Infrastructure Issues

Enclosure - 1

               Responses to Post-Hearing Questions for the Record

               The Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda

                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                              Committee on Science

                            House of Representatives

                             Submitted May 17, 2006

              Questions for Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director

                         Physical Infrastructure Issues

                        Government Accountability Office

           Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Ken Calvert

1. Several witnesses stated that maintaining support for JPDO from its
participating agencies over the long-run was critical. What organizational
and management changes, if any, do you recommend to enhance long-term
support of JPDO?

To date, the Joint Planning and Development Office's (JPDO) current
organizational structure appears to facilitate the federal interagency
collaboration that is central to JPDO's mission. However, as the
transition to the next generation air transportation system (NGATS) moves
forward, the volume and complexity of the tasks will increase.
Consequently, it is important for JPDO to define and institutionalize the
roles and responsibilities of its partner agencies to ensure the long-term
support for planning and implementing NGATS. The institutionalization of
roles and responsibilities is especially important since the NGATS effort
will extend through eventual changes in agency and JPDO leadership.
Currently, there is no formal, long-term agreement on the partner
agencies' roles and responsibilities in creating NGATS. According to JPDO
officials, a memorandum of understanding that would define the partner
agencies' relationships was being developed as of August 2005, but has not
yet been completed.

Also important to enhancing the long-term support of JPDO are steps to
integrate the NGATS goals into partner agencies' budget processes.
Currently, JPDO is working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to establish a process for identifying the NGATS as a unified program. We
believe that this is a good first step to ensure that NGATS moves ahead in
a coordinated, coherent manner.

In addition, one mechanism for enhancing and sustaining federal
collaborations is to use agencies' strategic and annual performance plans
as tools for establishing complementary goals and strategies. However,
based on our initial assessment of the partner agencies' strategic plans,
we found that only the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) have incorporated the NGATS goals into their
agency-level strategic plans. Although we have not completed our review of
the partner agencies' strategic plans, including the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) strategic plan, more opportunities
exist for integrating the NGATS goals into the partner agencies' plans and
budgets. For example, only NASA's current reauthorization act requires the
agency to align its aviation research projects to directly support the
NGATS goals. This type of congressional action can reinforce
accountability for the JPDO collaboration by aligning agency goals and
strategies with those of NGATS and further institutionalize the NGATS
goals into the partner agencies' plans.

[Chairman Calvert]

2. What critical policy decisions must be made by the Senior Policy
Committee before the JPDO can start down a particular technology and
architecture path? For example, do decisions need to be made on the degree
to which responsibility for aircraft can be handed over to automated
systems, or whether some airplanes will be allowed to fly using "Visual
Flight Rules" instead of filing a flight plan, or how NGATS will treat
commercial aviation vs. general aviation? What significant policy issues
do you think fall into this category?

Before the JPDO can start down a particular technology and architecture
path, the Senior Policy Committee (the Committee) must first approve the
budget guidance that the JPDO provides to the partner agencies. That
document recommends specific research initiatives, technologies, and
schedules for implementation and deployment. For fiscal year 2007, the
JPDO's Integrated Product Teams (IPT) identified a number of "Jump Start"
initiatives, including putting Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B) and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) on the fast track.
These initiatives were included in agency budget guidance that was
approved by the Committee. In the future, such decisions will flow from
the enterprise architecture. JPDO plans to have an early version of the
enterprise architecture available by the end of this fiscal year, with
significant IPT input.

The policy decisions suggested in the question above are among those that
the Committee could decide. For example, the Committee could address
policy issues surrounding how roles and responsibilities for handling
increased traffic may shift as a result of the increased reliance on
automation envisioned in NGATS. Concerning general aviation, JPDO
officials noted that NGATS has the potential to provide significant
benefits to this community. However, they said that it is difficult to
specify exactly what decisions the Committee would have to make concerning
general aviation. Officials said that most of these decisions, when they
occur, will be tied to the requirements of the enterprise architecture. In
any event, it is likely that decisions on concepts and policies relating
to general aviation would be made in concert among JPDO, the Committee,
and FAA to address concerns such as visual flight rules vs. instrument
flight rules. New technologies would require testing or demonstrating for
use in the national airspace system (NAS). Also, FAA would have to start
developing the regulation for implementation at the appropriate point so
that the regulation would be available at the appropriate time.

[Chairman Calvert]

3. What are your views about the wisdom of having JPDO contract out much
of the development work for NGATS to a lead systems integrator? What are
the advantages and disadvantages of bringing in a lead systems integrator
for NGATS?

Determining whether using a lead systems integrator (LSI) would be
advantageous or disadvantageous in planning NGATS depends on a number of
considerations. According to criteria developed by the National Academies,
Committee on Systems Integration for Project Constellation, using an LSI
could

           o  provide better systems integration knowledge, experience, and
           capabilities;
           o  recruit more talented personnel and manage complex
           organizational and international relationships;
           o  better identify and obtain advanced technologies from many
           sources;
           o  provide more experienced and disciplined project management
           experience; and
           o  bring greater credibility (public and political) to the
           project.

Determining whether the use of an LSI is the most efficient and effective
way to achieve these goals for NGATS should be a major consideration in
JPDO's decision whether to engage an LSI. However, our work has shown that
using an LSI does not guarantee success. For example, the Department of
the Army (Army) has used an LSI for the Future Combat Systems because the
program was the most significant technology and integration challenge that
it had ever undertaken. Because of the complexity of this program, the
lack of knowledgeable personnel, and the need for more management and
acquisitions flexibility than could be obtained through normal contracting
procedures, the Army selected an LSI. However, we reported that the
program was behind schedule and over budget despite its use of an LSI.

        Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Mark Udall

1. Would a requirement-enforced by OMB-that the agencies involved in the
JPDO develop an annual, coordinated, cross-agency budget laying out the
resource allocations by agency and by JPDO-defined goal make the JPDO
planning process more credible and help overcome the intrinsic weakness of
a JPDO that doesn't actually control budgets?

Yes, we believe that an annual, coordinated, cross-agency budget request
would be beneficial in trying to realize the goals of JPDO. We have
previously stated that JPDO faces a challenge in leveraging resources
among its partner agencies because JPDO is fundamentally a planning and
coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human and financial
resources needed to continue developing plans for NGATS.

JPDO is currently working with OMB to develop a systematic means of
reviewing the partner agency budget requests so that NGATS-related funding
in each is easily identified. We plan to further explore these budgetary
issues with JPDO and OMB as part of our ongoing work, and to report our
findings later this year.

[Ranking Member Udall]

2. What do you consider to be the most important R&D challenges that will
have to be overcome if the JPDO is to successfully deliver a Next
Generation Air Transportation System?

Identifying important research and development (R&D) challenges will
depend to some extent on the development of the NGATS enterprise
architecture. However, it is already known that one important R&D
challenge that must be overcome to deliver NGATS is to fully understand
and address the human factors challenges associated with automation. For
example, using automation raises questions about the extent to which the
system will be automated and whether controllers will have the ability to
accept or reject automated commands. Additionally, the human factors
issues related to changing the workload of air traffic controllers and
pilots is critically important because NGATS envisions a shift of some of
a controller's workload to pilots. Although JPDO has begun to model how
shifts in air traffic controllers' workloads would affect their
performance, it has not yet begun to model the effect of how this shift in
workload to pilots would affect pilot performance. According to a JPDO
official, modeling the effect of changes in pilot workload has not yet
begun because JPDO has not yet identified a suitable model for
incorporation into its suite of modeling tools.

Another important challenge facing JPDO's delivery of NGATS will be
obtaining the resources necessary to complete the R&D of technologies that
NASA has initiated. With NASA's new focus on fundamental aeronautics
research, the agency does not intend to develop technology to the level
that it did in the past. JPDO will have to fill this gap by leveraging the
resources necessary to further develop, validate, and demonstrate these
technologies. We plan to explore how NASA's new focus on fundamental
aeronautics research will impact the transition to NGATS as part of our
ongoing work.

[Ranking Member Udall]

3. How well are the various agencies' R&D programs aligned with the
requirements of the NGATS? What will it take to ensure that the R&D
programs are properly aligned?

For alignment of R&D programs with the needs of NGATS, JPDO must identify
the R&D projects across partner agencies that support NGATS and encourage
the agencies to fund and develop these projects. These efforts are already
under way, as JPDO is examining the partner agencies' R&D programs to see
if they are consistent with NGATS goals. As part of these efforts, JPDO
has identified five early opportunities-R&D programs in the fiscal year
2007 budget that it can focus on immediately. These programs include
network-enabled operations to strengthen national security, cooperative
surveillance via ADS-B to increase security and safety, the development of
SWIM, defining NGATS Required Total System Performance (RTSP), and
aligning levels of service to match RTSP.

The NGATS enterprise architecture, when completed, will be a key tool that
helps partner agencies align their R&D programs. Because it will provide a
blueprint for NGATS, partner agencies will better understand what R&D is
needed to allow their systems to interact with those of other partner
agencies in meeting the goals of NGATS. It will also help private sector
manufacturers align their R&D activities to support NGATS.

[Ranking Member Udall]

4. Is the current structure and authority of the JPDO adequate to meet the
responsibilities given the Office to develop and implement the NGATS, and
if not, what changes are needed? If you think changes are needed, how soon
do they need to be made?

To date, JPDO's current organizational structure appears to facilitate the
federal interagency collaboration that is central to JPDO's mission.
However, JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that lacks
authority over the key human and technological resources needed to
continue developing plans and system requirements for NGATS. Consequently,
the ability to continue leveraging resources of its partner agencies will
be critical to JPDO's success, especially as partner agencies' will need
to commit more resources for further refining and implementing NGATS.

Under its current structure, JPDO has begun taking critical steps to
achieve its mission and align the resources of its partner agencies. These
steps include efforts to identify opportunities for coordinating and
leveraging partner agencies' research and development efforts, using staff
from the partner agencies to support JPDO work, and begin aligning its
partner agencies' budgets to support the NGATS. However, JPDO could be
doing more under its current structure. For example, the
institutionalization of roles and responsibilities is especially important
since the NGATS effort will extend through eventual changes in agency and
JPDO leadership. However, there is no formal, long-term agreement on the
partner agencies' roles and responsibilities in creating NGATS.

As JPDO continues to evolve and mature as an organization, changes to
JPDO's authority and structure will need to be continuously evaluated and
considered. Officials and stakeholders have suggested several options for
changing the structure and authority of JPDO. These options include

           o  making JPDO a program office with its own budget;
           o  elevating the position of the JPDO director within FAA or DOT;
           o  using an LSI; or
           o  adding a legislative requirement for partner agencies to align
           their research projects with the NGATS goals.

For example, NASA's current reauthorization act requires the agency to
align its aviation research projects to directly support the NGATS goals.
This type of congressional action can reinforce accountability for the
JPDO collaboration by aligning agency goals and strategies with those of
the NGATS and further institutionalize the NGATS goals into partner
agencies' plans. However, before changes are made to JPDO's structure and
authority, the pros and cons of each of these options should be evaluated.

[Ranking Member Udall]

5. What specific roles are human factors R&D and training playing in the
design of the NGATS, and how important are they to the overall success of
the NGATS?

JPDO officials have recognized the importance of human factors
considerations for R&D and have indicated their intention to apply human
factors throughout the planning and development phases of NGATS. For
example, as part of the planning for NGATS, JPDO has used modeling to
study how changes in the duties of air traffic controllers could affect
the workload and performance of other airport ground personnel. The human
factors issues related to shifting some workload from air traffic
controllers to pilots is also critically important. However, JPDO has not
yet begun to model the effect of this shift on pilot performance because,
according to a JPDO official, the office has not yet identified a suitable
model for incorporation into its suite of modeling tools.

JPDO also intends to study the human factors implications of training air
traffic controllers. A JPDO official said that they have not yet begun to
assess these implications because the enterprise architecture-a blueprint
for NGATS which will indicate the technologies to be used-is still being
prepared. However, the transition from the current NAS to NGATS could
affect training. For example, according to a JPDO official, it is
anticipated that, during the transition period, controllers will have to
be cross-trained on both the equipment being replaced as well as the NGATS
equipment, resulting in increased training costs.

JPDO officials have also indicated that they anticipate using human
factors considerations to plan and validate the operational concepts
during the research and development phase that have been identified for
NGATS. Human factors considerations include the development of scenarios
to use for testing new equipment as well as to explore training needs of
aviation personnel.

5a. What do you think are the most important human factors issues to be
addressed?

While JPDO officials have identified some important human factors issues
to date, additional important human factors issues include how new
procedures and technologies are introduced to controllers; what techniques
are used to train controllers; what support equipment, such as simulators,
can be introduced to aid controller training; and whether various
controller functions should be replaced by automation or remain manual
with some automated actions that support the controller.

[Ranking Member Udall]

5b. NASA has lost a number of its human factors researchers in recent
years-what impact will that have on the ability of the JPDO to address the
key human factors issues associated with the NGATS?

We have not yet examined the contributions of NASA researchers to JPDO's
efforts on human factors. We plan to explore this issue and include our
findings in our report on JPDO to be released later this year.[Ranking
Member Udall]

6. What is the relationship between FAA's Air Traffic Organization and the
JPDO-is it sufficiently well defined?

           FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has responsibility for
           operating, maintaining, and modernizing the current air traffic
           control system. JPDO is responsible for planning and coordinating
           the broader, longer-term transformation to NGATS. The formal
           relationship is that JPDO reports to ATO's Chief Operating Officer
           for day-to-day management oversight and to FAA's Administrator for
           national direction. At present, this relationship is in the
           process of maturing. Within the last year, ATO has reportedly
           modified its modernization plans to represent the FAA portion of
           JPDO's plan for NGATS. This is a positive development.
           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
           with any of the partner agencies, including FAA, on their roles
           and responsibilities in creating 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.
           Further definition of the roles and responsibilities between ATO
           and JPDO will be particularly important, since both organizations
           have responsibilities related to planning NAS modernization.
           JPDO's planning must build upon the ATO's existing modernization
           program, while the ATO must ensure that its ongoing modernization
           efforts are consistent with JPDO's plans. ATO faces a challenge in
           funding the current system to keep it up and running on a 24/7
           basis while funding the transition to NGATS.

           JPDO's former director served concurrently as the ATO'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 ATO Vice
           President for Operations Planning. Doing so increases the
           importance of establishing a clearly defined relationship between
           these organizations.

[Ranking Member Udall]

7. Through what mechanisms are the views of industry being incorporated in
the JPDO planning process, and how well are those mechanisms working thus
far? What, if anything, would you recommend be done to improve the
interaction of industry with the JPDO planning process?

JPDO's mechanism for incorporating industry's views into the planning
process is the NGATS Institute (the Institute). The Institute was created
within a non-profit arm of the Aerospace Industries Association. Its
mission is to facilitate the participation of experts from the private
sector, academia, and state and local governments with the JPDO, and to
conduct special studies. To date, the Institute has placed 197 experts on
the IPTs.

The Institute is governed by a 16-member Institute Management Council
(IMC), which is broadly representative of the aviation stakeholder
community. The IMC's co-chairs, for example, are from the Air Line Pilots
Association (which represents commercial pilots) and the Air Transport
Association (which represents major commercial airlines). Other members
are from regional airline operations, business aircraft operations,
helicopter operations, and other aviation-related entities. The Institute
held its first public meeting on March 28, 2006, in Washington, D.C. IMC
board members and JPDO officials answered questions from attendees and
discussed NGATS challenges.

The Institute is also holding a series of investment analysis workshops to
collect information from industry to provide input on NGATS programs,
costs, sequence, and schedule. The first workshop, in April 2006, was for
members of the commercial and business aviation community. In May or June,
a second workshop is planned for general aviation, military, and public
safety sectors. A third workshop is planned for early July for airports
and state and regional aviation groups. JPDO plans to spend six months
working with participants from the three workshops to refine its cost
estimates.

JPDO could improve the interaction of the aviation industry in its
planning process by incorporating greater industry input into JPDO's four
divisions-Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Engineering and Integration,
Portfolio Management, and Evaluation and Analysis. This could include
seeking the expertise of industry experts to work collaboratively to
develop the operational concepts and performance requirements that will
make up JPDO's enterprise architecture. In addition, we believe that
producing tangible benefits early on will be a key factor in sustaining
the involvement of industry stakeholders.

[Ranking Member Udall]

8. Are there any technology transfer issues that need to be addressed?
Will NASA, for example, support development activities to the point where
industry will pick up advanced development needed for deployment of key
technologies?

NASA does not plan to support technology development to the point where
industry is willing to step in. NASA plans to focus on fundamental
research and then turn work over to FAA for further development. While a
NASA official noted that developing technology to higher levels before
industry picks it up does not necessarily guarantee success, a draft
report from FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory
Committee (REDAC) points out that placing a greater reliance on FAA to
perform the further R&D (heretofore performed by NASA) would require FAA
to establish the infrastructure needed to perform this work. REDAC
concluded that such developments would delay NGATS implementation-probably
by five years. Participants at JPDO's recent NGATS Investment Analysis
Workshop, which included representatives from commercial airlines,
business aviation, and aviation equipment supply industry, said that
industry has no interest in filling this gap due to the risk and lack of
profit opportunity. We are currently evaluating whether NASA's
reorientation of its aeronautics program to fundamental research leaves a
gap in the technology transfer process.

     Question for the Record Submitted by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

1. What is the reason for the lack of participation of the air traffic
controllers in the activities of the JPDO, and what is the impact of their
lack of participation?

Our research showed that the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA) initially assigned a controller to JPDO as part of its liaison
program with the FAA. On June 28, 2005, FAA notified NATCA that it was
terminating the liaison assignments effective July 29, 2005, citing budget
constraints and the implementation of the ATO. The controller who had been
acting as the liaison within JPDO's Agile Air Traffic System IPT was among
the controllers who returned to his facility. Since that time, no active
controller has participated in the NGATS planning effort of JPDO.

At a more senior level, in May 2005, NATCA President John Carr sought and
was given a seat on the IMC, which oversees the policy and recommendations
of the NGATS Institute. The Institute itself is the mechanism for
incorporating the views of stakeholders from private industry, state and
local governments, and academia into the work of JPDO. Mr. Carr
subsequently notified the IMC that he could not attend the meetings. On
December 14, 2005, he was notified by the IMC that he had been removed for
lack of attendance at the IMC's meetings. According to JPDO officials, the
IMC has left a seat open in hopes that the controllers will participate in
NGATS after a new labor-management agreement between NATCA and FAA has
been settled.

We believe that adequate stakeholder participation in the planning and
development of NGATS is critical. In particular, the participation of
current air traffic controllers is important because NGATS will likely
involve major technological and operational changes that will affect their
work. Our work on FAA's current air traffic control modernization program
has shown that without early and continuing stakeholder input, costly
rework and delays can occur late in system development. Similarly, the
input of active controllers on JPDO's planned research-especially on how
controllers interact with pilots and air traffic systems in a highly
automated environment-can help to identify potential safety issues early,
before costly changes become necessary. Controllers' input could also
inform JPDO's analyses of issues such as timeliness, cost-effectiveness,
and the safe transformation of the nation's air traffic control system.

         Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Jim Costa

1. Does the JPDO believe that the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NGATS) will be able to handle three times today's traffic if the
nation's major airports are not modernized as well?

JPDO will have to consider several issues related to airport capacity.
JPDO's Evaluation and Analysis Division has modeled the capacity of the
national airspace system (NAS) and found that the 35 largest airports will
be a critical factor in limiting the capacity of the NAS as they reach
their saturation points. JPDO models indicate that capacity at almost half
of these 35 airports will be limited.

While JPDO expects to add runways at some of these large airports and
increase the use of nearby secondary airports, JPDO anticipates that this
solution still leaves airport capacity 12 percent below that needed to
accommodate a three-fold increase. Moreover, increased use of secondary
airports could raise environmental and infrastructure issues. For example,
local residents could object to increased noise, and travelers could have
concerns about transportation to and from these airports.

JPDO's Airport IPT has been considering how airport capacity can be
expanded. While JPDO and FAA are integrating JPDO's NGATS plan and FAA's
Operational Evolution Plan into one plan, an official told us that the
ability of JPDO to enhance airport capacity is still limited because
enhancement decisions are made at the state and local level. The official
also noted that JPDO cannot channel federal funds from the Airport
Improvement Program to airports where capacity expansion is most needed.

[Representative Costa]

2. How will the NGATS be able to mitigate the impact severe weather has on
the system?

The NGATS will never be able to completely address the impact of severe
weather on the NAS, but could mitigate the impact. Currently, FAA holds
daily conference calls to attempt to manage the flow of air traffic during
the spring and summer thunderstorm season, but those efforts are hampered
by inconsistent data and forecasts. Fast moving thunderstorms, which are
difficult to predict with the required precision to support aviation
operations, can needlessly ground aircraft thousands of miles away
resulting in flight delays and cancellations. JPDO estimates that 60
percent of weather delays are potentially avoidable.

Although in NGATS, aircraft will still need to navigate around the most
severe weather events, JPDO expects that NGATS will be able to better
manage the problem that severe weather poses to the flow of air traffic.
To this end, JPDO and its partner agencies are undertaking several
initiatives. For example, JPDO's Evaluation and Analysis division is
developing computer models to forecast the results of storms to show how
they would affect capacity around an airport. The Weather IPT is studying
aircraft systems that would help reduce the effects of turbulence on the
aircraft and passengers. The Department of Defense, FAA, NASA, and NOAA
are working to combine an array of weather data into one real-time weather
picture by using data from tens of thousands of global weather
observations and sensor reports from ground, air, and space-based sources.
The expectation is that every aircraft will become a node in the NGATS
network, thereby ensuring that all users of the system have access to the
same sensory-rich information. Sensors will help produce computerized
forecasts that will improve forecasting, thereby providing more usable
airspace around storms.

[Representative Costa]

3. Keeping in mind that nearly all of today's delays are due to severe
weather, runway limitations, and over scheduling: Is it reasonable for us
to believe that the billions of dollars the JPDO's proposals are sure to
cost in the implementation of the NGATS will solve the delay problems we
already face today?

It is doubtful that JPDO's efforts will completely eliminate delays,
especially when they are weather-related, but we and others have reported
that maintaining the status quo will result in gridlock and significant
losses to the nation's economy if airspace demand triples by 2025. JPDO is
seeking a variety of solutions to increase capacity and efficiency
throughout the system.

As noted in the NGATS Integrated Plan, there has never been a
transformation effort similar to this one with as many stakeholders and as
broad in scope. Through collaboration and new technologies, JPDO hopes to
meet the challenge of projected demand that will soon surpass the current
system's capacity. This involves an entirely new approach-one that uses
modern communication technologies, advanced computers, precision plotting
through the global positioning system (GPS), and modern computer-based
decision-assistance programs. For example, JPDO is developing more precise
ways to manage the impact of bad weather. Through the Weather IPT, JPDO is
employing extensive computer modeling to develop better predictive
forecasts to help pilots avoid bad weather. Improvements in forecasts will
allow pilots and controllers to more precisely pinpoint severe weather.

In addition, FAA is revamping its Operational Evolution Plan to enhance
capacity at the nation's 35 largest airports so that its scope and time
frames for accomplishments are more consistent with JPDO's. To maximize
runway usage, JPDO is planning to build on FAA programs that permit planes
to land on some parallel runways in low visibility conditions. Low
visibility currently eliminates the use of parallel approaches and
landings at some airports, which reduces capacity.

Some airports present unique challenges. For example, LaGuardia cannot
build more runways due to space constraints. For such airports, JPDO is
considering administrative options, such as limiting the number of
takeoffs and landings at peak hours, or permitting only certain types of
aircraft to land there. JPDO is also considering market-based options,
such as charging a premium to land during peak usage time.

[Representative Costa]

4. What does the JPDO see as the most urgent problem that needs to be
addressed in the near future, not 25 years down the road?

Several near-term challenges facing the NGATS effort were identified by
JPDO officials and other participants in a recent public meeting of the
NGATS Institute. A number of participants mentioned that development of a
cost estimate for NGATS is critical, since Congress needs to understand
what it will take to fund NGATS. Another challenge identified was
institutionalizing the collaborative processes established by JPDO. Given
the 2025 time frame and the complexity of the effort, it is important that
JPDO be able to withstand changes in staffing and administrations.
Institutionalizing the collaborative process in the short term will
strengthen the ability to achieve success in the long term.

Another near-term challenge identified by a meeting participant was the
need to effectively communicate the importance of the transition from the
current system to NGATS. An NGATS official noted that the American public
needs to be educated about the effects of not going forward with this
transition. Raising the awareness and support of policy makers about NGATS
now, while it is in the planning stages, could lead to a more proactive
and cost-effective transition in the long run.

One challenge-establishing the credibility of the NGATS effort-was
mentioned at the public meeting as well as at an expert panel that we
conducted in March 2006 to discuss JPDO and NGATS. As we have previously
stated, although FAA is now doing a better job of meeting milestones with
its major air traffic control acquisition programs, earlier attempts at
modernizing the NAS encountered many difficulties. JPDO will need to show
nonfederal stakeholders that the NGATS effort, while complex, is moving
forward and has the commitment of the partner agencies behind it.
Establishing the federal government's commitment to NGATS should help JPDO
to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of nonfederal stakeholders who are
participating on a pro bono basis in the NGATS effort.

(540127)

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

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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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."

Order by Mail or Phone

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***