STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE J. RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ON

LEVERAGING PUBLIC, PRIVATE, AND ACADEMIC RESOURCES,

NOVEMBER 7, 2011.

Chairman Mica, Congressman Petri, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to highlight the capabilities of the Florida NextGen Test Bed and to discuss the benefits of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This facility represents an exciting expansion of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen Test Bed environments, and I am pleased to be able to join you here in Florida.  The Administration is prioritizing NextGen development and implementation, and the recent renovations at the Florida Test Bed are just one of many recent NextGen-related initiatives and milestones. 

In September, the President requested $1B in the American Jobs Act for NextGen to support applied research, advanced development and implementation of solutions for NextGen technologies, applications and procedures. This additional investment in NextGen underscores the Administration’s commitment to the future of our aviation system. More recently, in mid-October, the President officially welcomed a NextGen project – for NextGen procedures in the Houston metroplex - as part of his High Priority Infrastructure projects for expedited regulatory review.  That same day, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness delivered an interim report that included a recommendation to accelerate NextGen performance-based navigation procedures.

This focus and prioritization, when coupled with advances in technology and research capabilities provided by facilities like this one at the Daytona Beach Airport, are the key to hastening the realization of all that NextGen has to offer.

The FAA’s three NextGen Test Beds provide real-world testing and demonstration environments to facilitate research and development. The Test Beds facilitate integration of individual flight information in order to create a simulated NAS environment and to enable end-to-end demonstrations and evaluations. The FAA’s NextGen Test Bed environment is comprised of the William J. Hughes Technical Center near Atlantic City, New Jersey; this facility, the Florida NextGen Test Bed at Daytona Beach International Airport; and the field laboratory at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/FAA North Texas facility at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. These environments provide the FAA with a broad range of resources for the development of NextGen concepts and technologies.

Today, we are marking the completion of renovations and enhancements to the Florida NextGen Test Bed which will ensure that the facility is equipped to handle the tests and demonstrations of today, and prepared to accommodate the ideas and innovations of tomorrow. Currently, the facility houses more than a dozen systems, and what you see in place today is just the beginning. The Florida Test Bed will be continually modified over the coming months and years as new demonstrations and technology evaluations are completed and additional air navigation platforms and programs are imagined and engineered.

This is a facility that will provide both government and industry the ability to examine proposed systems for NextGen operational improvements in an environment that permits integration with the full range of NextGen systems and allows evaluation of impacts to operations.  We also expect that the Florida Test Bed will act as an open evaluation platform to analyze the feasibility of new technologies and that this facility will be the birthplace of industry-identified and industry-driven concepts to further the progression and increase the benefits of NextGen. We look forward to the great new technologies that the Test Bed’s capacity for innovation, early prototype testing, and demonstrations, coupled with access to the resources at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, are sure to yield.

Generally, it is anticipated that technology and procedures demonstrated at the Florida Test Bed will provide insight into the feasibility, potential benefits, and potential costs that then inform whether the concepts should be further pursued for possible implementation.  If pursued, the acquisition process would then ensure that appropriate requirements and cost-benefit analyses are developed to find the best solution for integration into the National Airspace System (NAS). This reduces cost, schedule impact, and risk before embarking on a program, and may help shape the best path ahead.

Since 2008, the FAA has awarded $22 million toward NextGen-related research and development activities under our Other Transaction Agreement with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. This agreement enables the FAA to leverage the experience and expertise of the Florida Test Bed’s seventeen industry partners and has resulted in NextGen solutions that are the product of industry collaboration and which have been proven successful enough to move toward implementation.  During an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) demonstration we used NextGen Voice System technologies to show how UAS pilots and controllers could improve communication performance during long distance operations.  Results from the testing enabled us to include requirements for this capability as part of our initial contractual market survey.  Demonstrations aimed at improving integration of weather with our automation tools, were translated into technical requirements that are part of our NextGen Weather Processor (NWP) and NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) programs.  Finally, a set of progressive, multi-domain demonstrations focused on defining Flight Data Objects has provided tremendous insight on the type of flight data information that will be needed to support Trajectory Based Operations across multiple automation platforms.

Altogether, about twenty activities have been performed that span the terminal, enroute oceanic, and human factors arenas, with over fifty demonstrations of those activities conducted for various industry, government, and academia stakeholders. These activities have also involved collaboration with other United States Government agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Air Force, and Customs and Boarder Protection, as well as our international counterparts such as Airservices Australia.

In the coming years, we expect to see even more exciting developments here in Daytona Beach as we implement planned activities which will provide live NAS data to support demonstrations and will enable information sharing with other Test Bed sites and remote NextGen partners. We look forward to these and other changes as the Florida Test Bed continues to evolve.

Although we are all pleased to be here in Florida to cut the ribbon on this newly-renovated building and to witness demonstrations of the cutting-edge systems that are up and running in the Test Bed environment, this event should be more than just a celebration of what we have accomplished.  Today, we are calling on our industry partners to take advantage of the promise of the public-private partnership represented by facility.

As we look to the future of this place, we also look forward to the evolution of our air transportation system and must take the opportunity to remember the long-term benefits we are working towards. NextGen is a comprehensive overhaul of the NAS that will make air travel more convenient and dependable, while improving safety and efficiency. In a continuous roll-out of improvements and upgrades, the FAA is building the capability to guide and track air traffic more precisely and efficiently to save fuel and reduce noise and pollution. NextGen is a better way of doing business – for the FAA, the airlines, the airports, and the traveling public. It’s better for our environment, better for efficiency and flexibility, better for safety, and better for the economy.

In 2009, civil aviation contributed $1.3 trillion annually to the national economy and constituted 5.2 percent of the gross domestic product, according to FAA’s most recent report on the economic impact of civil aviation. It generated more than 10 million jobs, with earnings of $397 billion. NextGen is vital to protecting those contributions. The current system simply cannot accommodate anticipated growth in the aviation industry. Congestion continues to increase at many of our nation’s busiest hub airports, a problem that will only be exacerbated now that traffic levels are starting to rebound from the impact of the economic recession.

Between 2007 and 2011, approximately $2.8 billion has been appropriated for NextGen. The FAA estimates the development of NextGen will require between $15 and $22 billion from 2012 to 2025. These figures represent important investments with substantial returns. Our latest estimates show that by 2018, NextGen air traffic management improvements will reduce total delays, in flight and on the ground, by approximately 35 percent, compared with what would happen if we maintained our current system. This delay reduction will provide $23 billion in cumulative benefits through 2018 to aircraft operators, the traveling public, and the FAA. Additionally, we will save about 1.4 billion gallons of aviation fuel during this period, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 14 million tons.

To fully understand the impacts of our ongoing efforts, it is important to highlight some examples of where NextGen is already improving safety and adding real dollars to the bottom line:

• Using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), a GPS-based technology, aircraft are able to fly more safely and efficiently in previously challenging areas. ADS-B equipped helicopters flying over the Gulf of Mexico are benefiting from radar-like air traffic services for the first time. ADS-B radio stations deployed along the shoreline and on oil platforms blanket the area with air traffic surveillance, increasing the safety of operations. This same surveillance improves efficiency in the Gulf through more direct routing of ADS-B equipped helicopters, reducing both their operating cost and environmental impact. In Colorado, new surveillance technologies are enabling controllers to track aircraft flying through challenging mountainous terrain. Currently, over half of ADS-B ground infrastructure has been deployed.
• Southwest Airlines started using GPS-based Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches at a dozen airports this year. The airline says that it could save $25 for each mile they save by using a shorter route.
• Alaska Airlines has been a leader in using RNP approach procedures at Juneau International Airport. They can fly precisely through mountainous terrain in low visibility conditions thanks to the higher navigational accuracy of GPS. The airline estimates it would have cancelled 729 flights last year into Juneau alone due to bad weather if it were not for the GPS-based RNP approaches.
• In Atlanta, Delta Airlines reports saving 60 gallons of fuel per flight by using the more efficient descent procedures we have designed under NextGen. Aircraft descend continually to the runway with engines idle, as opposed to descending in a stair-step fashion, using the engines and burning fuel to power up at each level-off point.
• We conducted Initial Tailored Arrival (ITA) flight demonstrations at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Miami and have now progressed to operational capability in all three locations. ITAs are pre-negotiated arrival paths through airspace of multiple air traffic control facilities; they limit vectoring and minimize the time the aircraft spends maintaining level flight during its decent. ITAs differ from other types of Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs) in that they are assigned by controllers to specific approaches and tailored to the characteristics of a limited number of FANS-equipped aircraft types – 747s, 777s, A330s, A340s and A380s. We estimate that the 747s saved an average of 176 gallons of fuel per arrival in ITAs and 78 gallons per flight in partial ITAs, compared with conventional approaches. For 777s, the corresponding savings were 99 gallons in full ITAs and 43 gallons in partial ITAs.

We anticipate seeing additional benefits in the near term. The “Greener Skies over Seattle” initiative should save literally millions of gallons of fuel annually, cut noise, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The FAA estimates that airlines using RNP procedures at Seattle Tacoma International Airport will save several millions of dollars per year at today’s fuel prices. And that number is only going to get larger as more airlines equip. With the “Greener Skies over Seattle” initiative, aircraft will emit less carbon dioxide – about 22,000 metric tons less per year. That’s like taking more than 4,000 cars off the streets of the Seattle region.

These are just a few of the benefits that we are seeing already from our investments. However, we cannot afford to be short-sighted. A true transformation in the way we deliver air traffic services takes planning and time, and the long-term benefits offered by this new way of doing business – safety, efficiency, access, decreased environmental impact  – must always be at the forefront.

NextGen operation capabilities will make the NAS safer. ADS-B improvements in situational awareness, on the ground and in aircraft, will increase controllers’ and pilots’ individual and combined ability to avoid potential danger. Among other benefits, this could provide valuable time savings in search and rescue efforts. Appropriately equipped aircraft will be able to receive information displayed directly to the flight deck about nearby traffic weather, and flight-restricted areas.

More precise tracking and information-sharing will improve the situational awareness of pilots, enabling them to plan and carry out safe operations in ways they cannot do today. Air traffic controllers will become more effective guardians of safety through automation and simplification of their most routine tasks, coupled with better awareness of conditions in the airspace they control. Additionally, NextGen will facilitate the implementation of Safety Management System processes for the air traffic controllers’ use.

Advances in tracking and managing operations on airport surfaces will make runway incursions less likely. Fusing new surface radar coverage now in use at 35 airports with ADS-B surveillance of aircraft and ground vehicles will increase situational awareness, particularly when linked with runway status lights. Collaborative decision making will increase everyone’s understanding of what others are doing.

Starting with pre-takeoff advisories, departure instructions, and reroutes for pilots, we will use data messaging increasingly in favor of voice communications between pilots and controllers, reducing opportunities for error or misunderstanding. Voice channels will be preserved for the most critical information exchanges.

As with safety, our work to enhance aviation’s influence on the environment also benefits – and is a beneficiary of – NextGen. The operational improvements that reduce noise, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse-gas emissions from aircraft are the tip of the FAA’s environmental iceberg. Equally important are the other components of the agency’s environmental approach – aircraft and engine technology advances, sustainable fuels, policy initiatives and advances in science and modeling.

Environmental benefits of operational improvements are simple and direct. When we improve efficiency in the NAS,  operators almost always save time and fuel. Burning less fuel produces less carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. Some of our NextGen improvements, notably approaches in which aircraft spend less time maintaining level flight and thus can operate with engines at idle, reduce ground noise too. But operational benefits go only so far; their net system-wide effect can be offset by growth of the aviation system.

To accommodate system growth, we are supporting development of aircraft, engine, and fuel technology. In 2009, we established the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise program to bring promising new airframe and engine technologies to maturity, ready to be applied to commercial designs, within five to eight years. Similarly, we are part of a government-industry initiative, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, to develop sustainable low-emission alternative fuels and bring them to market.

We have developed and are using the NextGen Environmental Management System (EMS) to integrate environmental protection objectives into NextGen planning and operations. The EMS provides a structured approach for managing our responsibilities to improve environmental performance and stewardship. We also are analyzing the effect on aviation environmental policy and standards, and of market-based measures, including cap-and-trade proposals.

Additionally, many airports will benefit from substantial improvements in efficiency, access, surveillance, environmental benefits, and safety. Surveillance, situational awareness, and safety will improve at airports with air traffic control radar services as we deploy ADS-B ground stations across the NAS and update our automation systems, and as operators equip their aircraft for it. The FAA also plans to publish Wide Area Augmentation System Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approach procedures for all suitable runway ends by 2016.

We are making important progress on a number of efforts to show how better situational awareness and pacing on the ground will give operations and the traveling public more reliability and save them time, while also managing environmental impacts. We can cut fuel consumption and emissions by reducing the time and number of aircraft idling on taxiways waiting for takeoff, or for open gates slots upon arrival. Also, we can reduce equipment wear – stop-and-go accelerations are hard on engines and other parts, and they also increase the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

A major success in 2010 was the minimal disruption that occurred during a four-month runway resurfacing and widening project in one of the nation’s busiest airspaces. The longest runway at New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) had to be expanded to accommodate new, larger aircraft. The project also included taxiway improvements and construction of holding pads. To minimize disruption during construction, JFK’s operators turned to a collaborative effort using departure queue metering, in which each departing aircraft from JFK’s many airlines was allocated a precise departure slot and waited for it at the gate rather than congesting taxiways. The procedure limited delays so well, it was extended after the runway work was completed.

Surface initiatives like these make important contributions across the board – they improve situational awareness and safety, they reduce fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions and they reduce tarmac delays – in addition to making a real difference for aircraft operators and passengers.

The benefit for aircraft operators in the NAS will come from two major categories of improvements – efficiency and capacity, and access. Much of the time, efficiency and capacity go together. When we reduce the distance needed for the safe separation of aircraft, reduce delays from weather and other disruptions, and increase flight-path and procedures options for controllers as they maintain the flow of traffic, we improve capacity as well.

Access issues center on runways at major airports, affecting mainly airlines, and airports and airspace that lack radar coverage, a problem for general aviation. NextGen will improve efficiency in operations that involve closely spaced parallel runways and converging and intersecting runways. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) are improving efficiency and capacity in departures and approaches. For general aviation, ADS-B will enable controllers to track properly equipped aircraft in non-radar areas covered by ADS-B ground stations. General aviation operators equipped for ADS-B In will receive traffic and weather information directly in the flight deck, providing them with greater situational awareness. Wide Area Augmentation System LPV approach procedures will give properly equipped aircraft Instrument Landing System (ILS)-like capability at non-ILS airports. Through our new NAV-Lean process, we are working to streamline the development and implementation of new instrument procedures to ensure that users can benefit from them as quickly as possible. We plan to accelerate design and implementation of Performance Based Navigation procedures and optimized descents to achieve their benefits sooner rather than later.

Just last month, the FAA, in collaboration with airlines in Chicago, used an RNP approach to Midway, de-coupling Midway operations from O’Hare. By doing so, O’Hare was able to maintain operations at 92 airplanes an hour, with no additional delays, while landing airplanes at Midway.  Had the procedure not been deployed, the ground delay program would have limited O’Hare to 68 airplanes per hour. 

Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) is a systematic, integrated and expedited approach to implementing Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures and associated airspace changes.  This program was developed in direct response to RTCA Task Force 5 recommendations on the quality, timeliness, and scope of metroplex solutions. OAPM focuses on a geographic area, rather than a single airport. It considers multiple airports and the airspace surrounding a metropolitan area, including all types of operations (air carrier, general aviation, military, etc.), a well as connectivity with other metroplexes.

The OAPM process uses two types of collaborative teams including FAA and industry partners. Study Teams recommend conceptual airspace and procedure solutions, and then Design and Implementation (D&I) Teams design, refine, review, and implement those recommendations within a near-term three-year timeframe. To date, 21 Metroplex sites have been identified and prioritized with input from FAA and industry. Study Teams have completed their activities in Washington, DC,  North Texas, Charlotte, Northern California and Houston.  Study Teams are nearing completion in Southern California and Atlanta. Identified potential benefits ranging from $6M to $26M per year have been estimated at each site. D&I activities are in process in the Washington, DC metro and North Texas locations with  additional projects soon to follow in Houston Atlanta, Charlotte, Northern California, and Southern California.

In order to achieve these benefits, we know that we need to continue working with our partners in the aviation community. Making sure that we are all on the same page about our expectations, our obligations, and our capabilities is essential to the successful planning, development, and execution of NextGen. In recognition of the need for clarity and transparency, the Administration, in conjunction with the airlines, is actively developing new PBN dashboards that will provide additional information on the use of high value procedures that are already deployed and also clarify the development status of high value new procedures around the country. 

The FAA continues to expand its work on demonstrations, trials and initial deployment of NextGen systems and procedures. NAS operators and users – particularly participants in the demonstrations and trials – are benefiting from them. But there is a chicken-and-egg nature to the economic and policy decisions that will have the most influence over the extent and timing of future benefits.

On the one hand, achieving NextGen’s benefits depends heavily on aircraft operators and other stakeholders investing in the avionics, ground equipment, staffing, training, and procedures they will need to take advantage of the infrastructure that the FAA puts in place to transform the aviation system in the coming decade and beyond. On the other hand, the willingness of operators and other stakeholders to make these investments depends critically on the business case for them – analyses of how valuable these benefits will be, and that they have confidence that the FAA can deliver the infrastructure in the time frames and manner required for those benefits to be realized.

When costs are clear but benefits are even slightly cloudy, there is an important information gap which the FAA must help fill. We are working to do this in two ways. First, we conduct broad, system-level analyses, estimating how integrated NextGen benefits will develop and grow over a period of years. This work draws on modeling and simulations of how NAS operations will change and what effects the changes will have. The FAA must continue to work closely with the aviation community to ensure these benefits are well understood by those who need to invest in NextGen.

Second, using facilities like the Florida NextGen Test Bed, we conduct a wide range of demonstrations and operational trials of specific NextGen systems and procedures. These demonstrations, conducted in real-world settings by operations and development personnel using prototype equipment, are invaluable. They provide all of the stakeholders with the opportunity to see the very real benefits that NextGen can bring. They mitigate program risks and show us whether we are on the right track in our technical approaches. They provide valuable insight into how equipment should be designed for operability, maintainability, and a sound human-automation interface. And they are instrumental in advancing our understanding of the benefits to be gained from the capabilities being demonstrated.

Information from the demonstrations also helps us refine our models of NAS operations and how these operations will change, along with the corresponding overall estimate of NextGen benefits. Further, it provides direct measurements of the ways specific NextGen capabilities can benefit NAS stakeholders and the public, enabling stakeholders to improve their own estimates of the benefits and costs of buying equipment for NextGen and to be more confident of their analyses.

We are working steadily and carefully to bring NextGen to fruition. We are hopeful that the Florida NextGen Test Bed, in conjunction with our other testing environments, will spur innovation and collaboration by and with industry, and hasten the realization of the multitude of benefits NextGen has to offer.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

STATEMENT OF

J. RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SAFETY OVERSIGHT,

MAY 24, 2011.

Chairwoman Cantwell, Senator Thune, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issues facing the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) air traffic control safety oversight.   Several recent incidents and reports have called into question the safety of our nation’s airspace and the professionalism of our air traffic controllers.  Obviously, as Administrator, the fact that these incidents occurred and that these questions are being asked is extremely disturbing.  Today I will describe the actions that we have taken to address the areas of concern.  I want every Member of this Committee to understand how committed Secretary LaHood and I are to working with National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) and our controllers to ensure the safety of the system.  I believe our nation’s air traffic controllers are dedicated and professional and a key reason why we have the safest aviation system in the world.  But we can always improve, and therefore cannot tolerate lapses in judgment when it comes to safety.

In recent weeks, I have been traveling across the country with senior FAA leadership and Paul Rinaldi, the President of NATCA, along with his leadership team, on a Call to Action on Air Traffic Control Safety and Professionalism.  The FAA’s safety mandate is a tremendous responsibility and air traffic controllers are on the front lines of that mandate, day in and day out.  We oversee the safe transportation of nearly two million people per day.  That is why recent events have been so troubling.  I have been very direct in the conversations I have been having with the FAA’s workforce.  Any incident that calls into question the professionalism of air traffic controllers cannot and will not be tolerated. 

Together with NATCA, I have communicated that, even though we do the right thing over 99.9% of the time, we have to do better.  We cannot have the flying public believe, even for an instant, that they cannot trust the men and women who are responsible for getting them to their destination safely.  So I am asking the workforce to rededicate ourselves to the concept of professionalism.  I am calling on  all employees to be responsible, not only for our own actions, but for helping to ensure that our colleagues are also committed to excellence.  I want to create a safety culture that makes it imperative to report and correct any potentially unsafe condition or action.

I am happy to report that we are working hand in hand with NATCA in our efforts.  We both recognize that air traffic controllers have traditionally enjoyed a great deal of respect and admiration, and we do not want to see that perception of their profession tarnished.  NATCA’s leadership is willing to work hard with us to demonstrate a united front in demanding a new level of excellence.  I am proud that FAA’s relationship with NATCA has improved to the point where this joint effort is possible.  A few years ago, it might not have been.  I think we can all agree that working together toward a goal achieves a better result than working at odds. 

As this Committee knows, I have been working with the aviation industry since shortly after I became Administrator on the concept of professionalism, and I think we have made some progress in making it a priority.  It only makes sense to extend this conversation to the controller workforce.  What do I think professionalism means?  It means doing the right thing all of the time, even when no one is looking.  It means following procedures and ensuring compliance with safety standards.  It means looking out for each other and making sure that you correct colleagues who are not upholding these standards.  The business of air traffic control is a tremendous responsibility, and I know that the controllers feel that responsibility.  That is why they also need to feel that they are supported.

This means, on the management side, that we have a responsibility to address the areas of risk that have been identified.  For example, we are looking at how to deal with fatigue, which as this Committee knows is a particularly difficult issue.  Part of it is staffing, part of it is scheduling, part of it is education and, yes, part of it is professional responsibility.  FAA has been focused on mitigating controller fatigue since well before the recently reported incidents.  FAA and NATCA conducted a joint, in-depth assessment of controller fatigue, risks and mitigations beginning in the fall of 2010.  Twelve recommendations are currently under consideration as a result of that review.  We want to ensure that we fully understand the impact of any changes made before we make them.

Since the reported incidents, there was an immediate agreement to allow for more recuperative time between shifts; a minimum of 9 hours in between all shifts.  In addition, two air traffic controllers are required on duty during the midnight shift at 27 control towers across the country where only one controller had been scheduled previously, including Reagan National Airport here in Washington, D.C.  Other scheduling changes have been implemented to accommodate this change without immediately hiring additional controllers.  The FAA Academy will expand and update its fatigue management training to help controllers recognize, avoid, and combat fatigue.  Not all of the changes are universally welcomed.  But I am convinced that adding an extra layer of safety is the right thing to do. 

The science of fatigue management for air traffic controllers is still an emerging discipline.  There will undoubtedly be continued insights about how to mitigate fatigue and improve safety.  Our challenge is to implement the benefit of new insights while still being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar.  I look forward to sharing how FAA will move forward in this vital effort.

The recent incidents have come at a time when we have seen an overall increase in the reporting of controller operational errors.  This is a serious and complex issue for the FAA and one I would like to take a moment to discuss. 

For many years now, the aviation industry has been collecting data provided voluntarily by airline employees that it and the FAA have been analyzing. There is universal agreement that having access to safety information we would otherwise not know about has allowed us to identify trends and better understand the areas of risk that exist in the system so that we can focus our collective efforts on minimizing those risks.  The FAA believes that this approach has already contributed to the remarkable decline of commercial aviation accidents; a decline of 82% since the late 1990s.  With that kind of recognized success, it only makes sense to look for a way to expand this approach to air traffic control. 

In late 2009, the FAA implemented confidential reporting systems and incentives for controllers to provide information directly to supervisors. We were seeking to achieve the same gains in knowledge and awareness of safety conditions in the air traffic control system that we did with the airlines.  The reporting program we implemented, the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), was similar to those applicable for airlines.   Further, we deployed additional technology to collect safety data.  It is certainly fair to note that when the airlines implemented confidential reporting and improved flight data recording systems, the safety data available increased by a factor of 10 or more, so there was certainly an expectation that some significant increase in data reported with regard to air traffic would result.  The important thing to remember is that this is data that we want.  This is data that we need.  This is data that will save lives. 

The above noted changes generated over 28,000 confidential safety reports made to ATSAP on numerous safety issues.  Although ATSAP filings do not get counted as operational errors, FAA believes that the improved recording systems combined with the overall safety culture that ATSAP and other programs are designed to foster, are at least partially responsible for the 53% increase in the number of losses of separation between FY 2009 and FY 2010. 

The majority of the time, errors and other safety reports provide the FAA with knowledge critical to identifying and correcting potential risk.  The more events the FAA is made aware of, whether through digital recording programs or voluntary reporting systems, the greater the opportunity to resolve the conditions that resulted in those errors.  The only way to address system risk is to have as much data available as possible to identify problem areas, determine root cause and apply sustainable correction.  We are now poised to tackle the task of fundamentally addressing the issues that contribute to operational errors and other safety occurrences.

But voluntary disclosure doesn’t necessarily provide everything we need, which is why we are also relying on technology to inform us of errors that might otherwise not get reported.   We have begun using the Traffic Analysis Review Program (TARP), a new software tool that will automatically detect losses of separation, collect data, and report them directly to FAA’s quality assurance group for analysis.  TARP covers the Terminal area, where we have the highest degree of congestion. A similar system was implemented in the En Route environment several years ago.  While we are still discussing the implementation of this program with NATCA, we anticipate its use on a 24/7 basis within this fiscal year.

An important thing to note is that all operational errors are not created equal.  Most operational errors are categorized through a system that reflects how much of the safety zone was breached.  Most errors are classified based on severity as A, B, or C, with A being the closest in range and C the furthest apart.  Errors in the A category are generally the most troubling. Other losses are classified as “Other” or “miscellaneous” in order to capture those errors where such precise measurements are not possible, for example, non-radar, oceanic, terrain, procedural or equipment errors. 

The table below is based on FAA data collections on separation events since 2007.  The large increase in reports filed between the end of 2009 and the end of 2010 is concurrent with the implementation of voluntary reporting programs and additional electronic data collection. 

In 2010, 1887 errors were reported, of which 443 were classified as A or B.  To put these numbers in context, there were more than 133 million Tower, Tracon and En Route air traffic control operations during the same time period in 2010.  While the data has not been subject to a statistical validation or significance test, it appears that error rates in the most serious incident categories (A and B) are lower than the overall error rate.  I think it is fair to say that, while any error is troubling and taken very seriously, the numbers above suggest that these types of errors are a relatively a rare event. 

So in conclusion, I would like to reiterate two important points.  First and foremost, the types of controller incidents that have reflected poorly on the FAA’s dedication to its safety mission are being addressed aggressively, and, where possible, collaboratively to identify and mitigate risks, whether they stem from scheduling, staffing, technology, training or a combination of thereof.  Second, I am committed to obtaining the most information possible to understand how to make the system safer.  I take the rise in reported errors very seriously, but it is vital for everyone to understand how important information is.  I know how disconcerting it is for the public to hear on the news that there are flaws or risks in the system.  But it is essential for the public to put those stories into context and recognize that the safety record of commercial aviation is not an accident – that it is based on the use of critical information, to make informed decisions.  These two points work hand in hand.   Information is vital to improve safety, but where information discloses inappropriate actions or attitudes, those individuals who cannot meet the standards of professionalism and proficiency that FAA demands will be subject to retraining or replacement, as appropriate.

This has been a difficult time for all of us who are dedicated to aviation safety.  Our commitment is strong and enduring.  But I am convinced that these challenges give us the opportunity to move forward in a positive and productive way. I look forward to working with Congress, FAA’s workforce, industry and the public to implement improved standards that benefit the safety of a system that is both the most complex and the safest in the world.

That concludes my statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH BABBITT, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS, FEBRUARY 8, 2011.

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the need to pass comprehensive reauthorization legislation for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) programs.  Before I begin my statement, I would like to acknowledge the many changes that have occurred to this Committee and Subcommittee since I last appeared before you.  The Committee has many new Members whom I look forward to getting to know.  Since I am a frequent guest of this Committee, I am sure I will get to know those of you who are new to the process and I look forward to working with all of you.

FAA’s mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.  We make sure the planes are safe.  We make sure runways are safe.  We make sure that aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) operate safely and efficiently.  While this sounds simple, I can assure you it is not.   Approximately 50,000 flights are operated on any given day.  We move approximately 750 million people through the system on an annual basis.  Yet, even as the number of passengers and flights increase, the accident rate continues to decrease.  In calendar year 2010, there were zero commercial passenger fatalities in the United States.  In the past four years, we have had only one fatal passenger accident.  During that time, 42 million passenger flights were operated safely.  Every fatality is a failure and we continue to strive to make those failures even rarer than they are today, but we are proud of the strides we’ve made. 

As the sheer volume of the traffic indicates, aviation is critical to the way we live our lives and run our businesses.  The aviation industry alone directly employs 1.1 million people and supports more than 11 million jobs in related industries and through spending by direct aviation employees.  Altogether, this represents 6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Consequently, long term authorization of FAA’s programs is extremely important.

For some of you who may not know the long history of the reauthorization effort, there have been 17 extensions of FAA’s programs since the last comprehensive legislation expired in 2007.  There are many reasons why we are at this point, but the bottom line is that the failure to enact long term, comprehensive aviation legislation has had troubling impacts.  While there has not been a gap in the authorization of FAA’s programs, there is always uncertainty about the passage of the next extension.  Many of the extensions have been for relatively short periods of time, which has made managing our programs, particularly our airport grant program, extremely difficult.  In addition, there are many legislative provisions that direct the agency’s action in certain areas.  Some of these provisions would require the FAA to redirect resources or modify strategic decisions.  Passage of long term legislation would provide needed clarity.  Uncertainty about how Congress may act in certain areas makes moving forward in those areas more complicated.  If we make a strategic decision that the legislation requires us to change, it could be costly and inefficient.  We can no longer afford to operate in a continued state of uncertainty. 

The program that has sustained the most profound effects of the short term extensions is the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).  Airports and their contractors have been forced to divide construction projects into smaller components so that they can be funded by the money made available by a particular extension.  Airport sponsors cannot risk embarking on a project for which the funds are not available in their entirety because of lack of a long term authorization.  Some airports have chosen to delay important safety and capacity projects until a more certain funding source is in place.  This has caused a major increase in the amount of entitlement funding being carried over each year.  For several years before the expiration of our authorization, the average amount of funding carried over each year was approximately $400 million.  Due to the serial extensions, the average amount carried over each year has consistently stayed in the $500-$600 million range, an indicator that the available funding is not being used in the best or most efficient way. 

Administrative and project costs have increased due to the need for multiple grants to be issued for a single project.  The number of AIP grants issued in 2008 through 2010 increased 35% over the three year period prior to the expiration of the last reauthorization in 2007.  Such cost increases and project inefficiencies cannot be justified.

During my tenure as Administrator, I have not had the luxury of guiding the agency under a comprehensive, long term authorization.  But I want to assure the Subcommittee that the agency has not been idle while awaiting passage of comprehensive authorization.  This is a dynamic time in an extremely dynamic industry.  NextGen will transform the way we fly and do business.  It will move us from radar to satellite, from radio to data communications, from traditional airways to streamlined routes.  Knowing what the future holds, it is imperative that we transform our national aviation system and the FAA over the next 15 years. Our goal is to work closely with industry to implement new technologies and procedures that are sustainable and to work with our international partners to establish uniform standards around the globe. 

Last year, we asked an outside group to help us evaluate how we could effect change to better support the upcoming challenges.  Representatives spent five months talking with employees and other stakeholders and surveying opinions.  The review team talked with more than 100 executives, former FAA employees, and representatives from the Department of Transportation.  Twenty-five hundred managers were surveyed, across the agency.  The results showed that FAA’s culture is highly operational, tactical and safety-oriented.  FAA employees are committed to and proud of our safety mission.  However, the findings also indicated that, as an organization, we need to take a hard look at how we operate.  We need to make sure we are structured to effectively implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or “NextGen,” deliver shared services and reach out and engage our stakeholders.

Based on the information obtained and evaluated, we are implementing recommendations for change in a variety of areas that will help us reach our long term goals and increase our effectiveness.  One such recommendation is to avoid duplication of effort and streamline similar functions as much as possible.  In addition, we need to improve our capabilities in areas such as hiring, promoting and retaining employees, so that we have the world class workforce necessary to support NextGen.  This will require a more holistic approach with better collaboration across different parts of the organization.  The agency is creating shared goals and metrics that all employees can work toward.  Achieving these improvements will require strong leadership across the agency which can only happen if we improve the way we select and develop executives.  Changes and streamlining in the agency will better position us to improve our flexibility and effectiveness, make the most of our resources, and meet the challenges presented by this dynamic period in aviation.

As it happens, this dynamic period in aviation coincides with a time of great economic challenges.  That is why I feel very passionately that the FAA must demonstrate the strong business case for our major initiatives, and there is no greater example than NextGen.  We need to demonstrate the operational and fiscal benefits to encourage widespread participation. 

For example, we are moving forward with nationwide deployment of the satellite based surveillance system, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).  In the Gulf of Mexico, we’ve installed ADS-B radio stations on oil platforms as part of an agreement with Helicopter Association International, oil and natural gas companies and helicopter operators.  ADS-B equipped aircraft will receive air traffic services direct to the platform, giving the users far greater flexibility than the restrictive grid system that was in place.  We’ve opened up about a quarter of a million square miles of new, positively controlled airspace.  In addition to the Gulf, ADS-B is up and running in Louisville, Philadelphia, and Alaska, all with very positive results.  Just last week, we announced a partnership with JetBlue to demonstrate the benefits of ADS-B on flights between the Northeast and Florida.

NextGen is also helping us to improve efficiency and provide benefits through the deployment of Performance-based Navigation (PBN) procedures that save fuel and emissions of greenhouse gasses and other air pollutants.  We are working in collaboration with Alaska Air Group on a program called “Greener Skies Over Seattle” to deliver reduced emissions and fuel burn through optimized descents and Required Navigation Performance approaches.  Technical working groups are determining what FAA can do to make flights as environmentally friendly as possible.  In the longer term, the FAA will explore the further leveraging of RNP to achieve even greater reductions in emissions and increases in efficiencies.

To date, we’ve published more than 900 Performance-based Navigation procedures, also known as Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) for precision arrival and departure routes and procedures.  Again, making the business case, PBN pays for itself, having already saved millions of dollars in fuel at major U.S. airports.  Southwest Airlines is a prime example.  It is estimated that for every single minute of time saved on each flight, their annual savings quickly add up to 156,000 metric tons in emissions per year, which translates into a savings of $25 million in fuel costs.  When commercial aircraft burn thousands of pounds of fuel per hour, seconds do count.

Surface management is another area where NextGen is making a difference.  Airports need to manage, not only aircraft, but the many other types of vehicles that service the aircraft and airport, which can be challenging.  We’ve deployed airport surface detection radar, ASDE-X, at 27 airports, with another eight scheduled to receive it by 2013.  Initiatives at JFK and Memphis demonstrate that the technologies and procedures put in place reduced taxi times by about two to four minutes.  Again, seconds count.  But most importantly, ASDE-X provides another layer of safety by improving situational awareness for both operators and controllers.

Our NextGen goals include environmental and energy sustainability.  As we implement NextGen operational capabilities, we will apply environmental management systems to improve environmental performance and streamline environmental reviews.  We are also working to accelerate improvements in engine and airframe technologies to reduce noise, air pollution, and fuel burn through efforts such as FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) technology partnership with industry.  Our Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) achieved a landmark in 2009 with the approval of a fuel specification that allows alternative fuels to be deployed as jet fuels.  We seek to strengthen efforts to achieve affordable commercial scale production of sustainable alternative aviation fuels.

One final point of pride that I would like to share with you is the results of our Navigation (NAV) Procedures Project or NAV Lean.  NAV Lean is a good example of how FAA listens to our stakeholders and works to address their concerns.  Airlines that invested in equipping their aircraft with technology to take advantage of PBN are dependent upon the FAA to approve, certify, and publish RNAV and RNP arrival and departure procedures.  The existing procedure development process accomplishes the desired production goals with the highest level of safety.  However, the question was, could we do our work more efficiently?  To answer this, we set up NAV Lean team to evaluate our current processes for developing all Instrument Flight Procedures, both performance-based and conventional, to determine where streamlining could occur.  Our goal was to maximize customer value, while minimizing waste.  The group worked to identify areas containing unnecessary redundancies, inefficiencies or delays, know as the “Lean Process.”  Obviously, the overarching goal is to ensure the safety and integrity of the process, procedures and training, but to do it in a smarter way.

The group worked for almost nine months.  I am pleased to announce today that their report was recently issued.  It contains 21 recommendations for streamlining the procedure development process which will result in up to a 40% reduction of the time it takes to develop and approve a requested procedure.  A team is now working on our plan to implement the recommendations.  We expect to complete our implementation plan for these recommendations by June 1.  Not only will this mean users of the system will see the benefits of their navigation technology investments sooner, but the FAA will improve the efficiency and utilization of the airspace and demonstrate our commitment to NextGen.

In conclusion, although FAA has continued to work to improve safety and efficiency in the absence of a long-term authorization, I strongly urge the Committee to act to pass this much needed legislation.  We need the certainty and clarity such legislation would provide.  We need to understand the direction in which Congress wants us to move in order to act in an efficient and effective manner.  We need to be able to rely on stable funding for the agency.  And we need for programmatic efficiencies to be restored. 

I think we all understand that the challenges of implementing NextGen and improving the safety and efficiency of aviation come at a time when tough investment choices need to be made.  I plan to continue to make the case that investment in aviation is important, not only to airlines, passengers and pilots, but to the strength of the overall economy and businesses around the country.  In an industry like aviation, standing still or moving backward is not an option.  This Committee, in particular, demands a lot of the FAA, and rightly so.  But meeting these demands requires investment.  I think our case is compelling and the return on investment is not one we can or should ignore.

I look forward to continuing to work with those of you I know and getting to know those of you I don’t.  We all have our work cut out for us. 

This concludes my statement.  I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

DR. KARLIN TONER, DIRECTOR,
JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ON

OPERATING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM:

ADDRESSING R&D EFFORTS TO ENSURE SAFETY,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT,

FEBRUARY 15, 2013.

Chairman Broun, Congressman Maffei, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) ongoing research and development efforts to ensure the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace system (NAS).  As Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), I will discuss both the role of the JPDO in the coordination and collaboration of research efforts, as well as FAA’s overall research efforts to achieve UAS integration. 

The current NAS was developed to accommodate the capabilities of manned aircraft.  While many procedures and principles used for manned aircraft apply to UAS, there are significant differences between the two types of operations in technological maturity, perception and acceptance, and operational experience.  Joint efforts, including the development of NextGen, must deal with these differences because the demand for UAS operations has increased dramatically over the past few years, and is expected to continue to increase, due to the unique capabilities, and lower operating costs of UAS.

The FAA’s mission is to ensure the safety and efficiency of the NAS.  This means FAA will not integrate UAS unless and until we can be assured the safety of the NAS will not be degraded.  JPDO is tasked with coordinating with public agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the FAA to understand the complexity of the airspace and to safely integrate the wide variety of UAS technology, sizes, and speeds into the NAS.

The JPDO has developed a number of UAS national goals and related objectives in coordination with executive and working level representatives from NextGen partner agencies to provide a framework for interagency coordination and planning.  The FAA is specifically focusing its current research efforts on four areas: sense and avoid technology; control and communication (including possible security risks associated with communication); aircraft certification, maintenance, and repair standards; and human factors associated with UAS integration.    FAA research activities focus on new technology assessments, methodology development, data collection and generation, laboratory testing and field validation.  The role of the JPDO is extremely important to enable leveraging the research being done by different agencies to ensure that no two agencies are conducting the same research, and that all agencies are aware of and can benefit from the work being done by other agencies.  This interaction helps advance the goals and objectives agreed to within the Administration. 

The FAA also recognizes the importance of non-safety related issues, such as privacy and national security which need to be taken into consideration as UAS are integrated into the NAS.  The FAA plans to use the UAS test sites mandated by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to gather information on operational and technical issues, as well as privacy issues and potential of UAS to promote economic growth.  Further, the FAA will continue to work with relevant U.S. government agencies to develop appropriate frameworks to address the privacy and national security questions brought about by the integration of UAS into the NAS.

UAS information systems security is needed to protect against the potential impact that a loss of confidentiality, integrity or availability would have on individuals and organizational operations and assets.  We need to identify potential security features or mechanisms to protect UAS operations against threats, such as IT system threats, radio link threats, and human or physical threats.  For example, FAA is currently collaborating with NASA on a UAS prototype architecture that will be used to develop a high-level security risk assessment.  Our joint work will define a network architecture and potential security mechanisms for protecting air-ground communications for control and communication that are consistent with developed standards.

I want to assure you that UAS integration has the attention of individuals at the highest levels within the Administration.  The President’s budget request for FY 2013 reflects the FAA’s commitment to UAS-related research.  The request proposed a significant increase in FAA funding for this research.  In addition, the interagency structure, such as the NextGen Senior Policy Committee, provides for Cabinet level input and review as required.  All of the agencies involved in UAS integration have mission-related incentives for succeeding, which translate into the interest and support of key policy makers throughout the Administration. 

The NextGen UAS Research and Development (R&D) Roadmap was published last year and is the first report that identifies relevant ongoing and planned NextGen UAS R&D activities.  It is the joint product of more than 60 experts from the JPDO and our NextGen partners.  The work was organized within four broad challenges which encompass research by the FAA and partner agencies and are common ways to think about identified barriers to UAS NAS integration. It is a blueprint for identifying and addressing technical challenges and establishes a set of research areas that must be addressed to permit routine UAS operations in a NextGen environment.  The work brought together researchers, regulators and operators and led to an approach to link the R&D activities of our partner agencies with the research needs of FAA.  As a result of the Roadmap, we now have achieved an ongoing coordinated, multi-agency effort.

The challenges of integrating UAS into the NAS are extremely complex.  It is on those challenges that FAA’s research is focused.  For example, in the area of command and control, we are conducting human factors research to determine the evaluation of criteria and guidelines related to UAS pilot and crew training and certification requirements.   We also have eight ongoing Sense and Avoid activities in this area with the long term goal of replacing a pilot’s see and avoid functions with technology or procedures that will meet the safety standards in our regulations.

In the area of Control and Communication, we are working with NASA on prototype architecture that is described above.  The long term goal in this area is to develop baseline security standards that the prototype can be designed to meet.

Maintenance and Repair focuses on the differences between manned and unmanned aircraft.  The FAA has implemented detailed safety standards for maintaining an aircraft in compliance with our regulations.  Unmanned aircraft are a new and emerging technology.  The FAA is working to identify whether unmanned aircraft require new and innovative safety approaches to address the differences in the operation and maintenance of these vehicles.  Should different maintenance and repair requirements be identified, standards and requirements would be developed to ensure the same level of operational safety as manned aircraft.

Finally, there is the area of human factors.  FAA has just initiated a study in this area that is intended to evaluate criteria for UAS control stations, pilot and crew training and certification requirements.  In manned aircraft, a pilot can see, feel and even smell if something is not functioning properly.  An aircraft being flown by a pilot not collocated with the aircraft does not provide the same sensory access that a pilot in the aircraft has.  We hope to use the information provided by the study to determine how best to mitigate this inequity.

Each of these safety research initiatives cannot be looked at in a vacuum, but rather as part of our overall strategy of transitioning to the NextGen capabilities necessary to meet the airspace demands of the future.  It is abundantly clear that there are untold uses for the myriad of UAS and that their eventual integration into the NAS is both necessary and complicated.  The FAA and its partners throughout the Administration will continue to work to make this happen seamlessly and, most importantly, safely.  There is commitment to achieving the identified goals and objectives for integration at the highest levels of the Administration.  The United States is the world leader for safety and technological innovation in aviation.  The integration of UAS into the NAS is the latest of many challenges the FAA has faced, and like those we have seen in the past, we are confidently we will successfully and safely meet it.

The FAA looks forward to continuing working with Congress on this and other important aviation issues, and we thank you for the support Congress has provided thus far in assisting our work.

This concludes my prepared statement.  I will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.

Statement of

Susan L. Kurland
Assistant Secretary for
Aviation & International Affairs
U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, & TRANSPORTATION
U.S.  SENATE

June 19, 2013

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Committee:

Introduction

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the state of the airline industry and the role of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in the review of the proposed American Airlines / US Airways merger. 

State of the Airline Industry

Let me begin by providing a broader historical context for this transaction.   In the more than 30 years since airline deregulation, consumers have reaped enormous benefits, as market forces have determined airline fares and services.  During this period, air transportation was transformed from a luxury that few could afford, to an affordable and indispensable service that connects families and businesses across America and the globe.  The new entrant carriers brought innovative business models and substantial price competition to a marketplace dominated by the incumbent, high-cost legacy carrier business model, just as the architects of deregulation had predicted. 

While deregulation brought enormous benefits for consumers, the results were not as positive for the airline industry, particularly the legacy carriers.  The legacy airline industry has been characterized by highly cyclical periods of profits and losses and, when profits were made, they were at extremely thin margins.  Even as most low-cost carriers continued to profitably grow through most of the challenges of the last decade, the legacy carriers suffered significant losses and have restructured their businesses through the bankruptcy process. Following several consecutive years of losses from 2001 to 2005, the industry returned to modest profitability in 2006 and 2007, only to confront rapidly increasing fuel costs and then a global recession.  2008 and 2009 were some of the most challenging years in the history of U.S. aviation, primarily due to the global recession.  Analysts began to question the financial sustainability of an industry that chased market share rather than profits and consistently failed to earn its cost of capital.  Airlines began aggressively taking corrective action by reducing capacity and moving toward more fuel-efficient aircraft and operations.

In the years since the steep rise in oil prices during the summer of 2008 and the global economic recession that followed, the U.S. airline industry took steps to operate more successfully in a seemingly permanent high-cost environment.  Airline managements, at legacy, hybrid, and low-fare carriers, have prioritized financial performance over gains in market share by cutting capacity, executing several mergers, and unbundling certain products and services for sale resulting in billions of dollars in ancillary revenue.  They also focused on significantly reducing non-fuel related expenses in a number of ways and began to manage their networks more efficiently.  As a result of these structural changes in the industry, the balance sheets and bottom lines for many airlines are showing significant improvement.  Airline managements credit mergers as having played a key role in the industry’s climb to financial sustainability. 

As recently as five years ago, there were six major U.S. network carriers.  Since then, Delta has acquired Northwest, and Continental merged with United.  US Airways, having joined forces with America West in 2005, is now seeking to merge with American.  Consolidation has also taken place in the low-fare carrier segment of the industry as a result of the combination of Southwest and AirTran.  Mergers are, however, very difficult for the companies, their employees, and the customers they serve as varying fleets, systems, corporate cultures, and route networks are blended and rationalized into viable business plans.  These changes take years to accomplish, especially on the network side and occur while the marketplace continues to evolve. 

Given the importance of the airline industry to the economy and economic growth, consumers benefit from having a financially healthy industry.  However, the consolidation and capacity cuts that are part of the industry’s restructuring efforts raise questions about their effect on consumers both in the short- and long-term.  They put upward pressure on airfares, as load factors continue to surge past historical highs.  While inflation-adjusted fares remain low relative to recent decades, they have increased 16% since 2009.  The economic effects of the current transformation of the industry have been further reinforced by persistently high and volatile fuel costs and have been exacerbated by the restructuring of the regional airline industry as well. 

In a deregulated industry, airlines are free to determine the routes they will serve and the prices they will charge, disciplined by competition.  Mergers often produce shifts in management focus, changes in relationships with regional airlines, and significant network restructuring that can have an impact on cities used to a particular level of air service.  As some airline managements have argued, larger airline networks will sustain service to more communities, especially small- and medium-sized communities.  While some of the recently merged carriers have maintained or added service to these types of communities, others have substantially cut service, choosing instead to concentrate on larger markets.  As a result, various stakeholders and analysts have expressed concern that mergers can lead to troubling cuts to small communities.

Airlines seek financial sustainability and good returns for their shareholders; consumers seek lower fares and better service.  While these interests are not necessarily diametrically opposed as airlines benefit when more people travel and consumers benefit from the product and service options of larger global carriers, it is competition that determines the appropriate balance between firm and consumer interests in a deregulated market.  As the industry continues its transformation and adapts to a dynamically changing economy, the Department is committed to doing what it can to foster an economically viable air transportation industry -- including entry into air transportation markets by new and existing air carriers -- and to prevent unfair and deceptive practices in the airline industry. 

DOT’s Authority to Review Merger Transactions

While I am sure you can understand that I am not able to discuss the specifics of the proposed American / US Airways merger, or any proposed transaction that is before us for review, I will briefly describe DOT’s role in this process. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has the lead role in reviewing proposed airline mergers, given its statutory authority to enforce the antitrust laws.  This practice is consistent with Congress’ determination that the deregulated airline industry should generally be subject to the same application of the antitrust laws as other unregulated industries.  DOT does have a role, however.  Utilizing its special aviation expertise, DOT typically confers with the Antitrust Division.  Each transaction we review is considered on a case-by-case basis consistent with antitrust principles and practice.

Both the antitrust laws and the transportation statutes governing DOT strive to ensure that consumers receive the benefits of competition.  This is the prism through which the Department analyzes airline mergers.   I can therefore assure you that the Department is committed to fostering an environment that embraces competition and provides consumers of all types with the price and service benefits that competition brings. 

We also recognize that the airline industry is dynamic. Cyclical economic conditions, the competitive environment, infrastructure access and capacity, and industry innovation all need to be taken into account to allow the industry to adapt to rapidly changing economic conditions.

Should DOJ decide not to challenge a particular transaction on antitrust grounds, DOT would then address follow-on issues that fall within its jurisdiction, including international route transfers, economic fitness, code-sharing, and possible unfair or deceptive practices.    

As to international routes, the carriers must apply to DOT for approval to consolidate the international routes they individually hold under one certificate, which is part of the merger process.  By statute (49 U.S.C. 41105), DOT may approve a transfer of such routes only if we find that it is consistent with the public interest.  As part of that analysis we must examine the transfer's impact on the viability of each airline party to the transaction, competition in the domestic airline industry, and the trade position of the United States in the international air transportation market. 

We would only decide an international route transfer case after we had established a formal record and given all interested persons the opportunity to comment.  If DOT determines that the transfer would be contrary to the public interest on competitive grounds or for another reason, DOT could disapprove the transfer in whole or in part. 

DOT may also review any code-share arrangements concluded between the merging carriers.  In DOT’s experience, code-share arrangements would likely be necessary during the early phases of integration after the transaction is closed.  

Finally, at DOT, we take our responsibility for consumer protection seriously. For example, if carriers in pursuing or implementing a merger were to engage in unfair or deceptive practices, we have ample authority to protect affected consumers based on our unfair and deceptive practices statute (49 U.S.C. 41712).

Conclusion

Civil aviation plays a critical role in the U.S. economy amounting to $1.2 trillion in 2009 and generating more than 10 million jobs, with earnings of almost $394.4 billion. Airlines connect national and global communities – linking friends and family, suppliers and producers, retailers and manufacturers, facilitating business partnerships, and fostering educational and cultural exchanges of all types.  Every American has both a personal and an economic interest in access to safe and affordable air travel.  It is therefore easy to understand why so many people take an interest in airline mergers. 

Our consideration of aviation economic policy focuses on what is best for a healthy and a competitive industry, for its workers, and for the communities and consumers that it serves.   Our goal must be to strike what is often a very difficult balance in the face of a complex and dynamically changing industry.  Importantly, in doing so we must also consider the longer term, collective impact on all stakeholders, most importantly America’s traveling public.  

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL P. HUERTA,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON

CAUSES OF DELAYS TO FAA’S NEXTGEN PROGRAM,

JULY 17, 2013.

Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the subcommittee on the progress the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has made on the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).  NextGen is the largest single aviation infrastructure project in history.  This fundamental transition allows us to best utilize new and existing technology, including satellite-based and digital technology, to ensure that we meet the future demands for safe and efficient air travel.

As demand for our nation’s increasingly congested airspace continues to grow, NextGen improvements are enabling the FAA to guide and track aircraft more precisely on more direct routes.  This allows us to cut flight miles and reduce fuel burn, making air travel more convenient, predictable, and environmentally friendly. 

Our goal as an agency is to manage our national airspace in the safest and most efficient way possible, and NextGen plays a central role in this effort.  We are delivering concrete benefits to users of the national airspace through NextGen.  As of this very moment, air carriers that take advantage of precision routing get into and out of airports more quickly and efficiently, which reduces fuel use, saves money, and decreases aircraft exhaust emissions. Airlines flying into Dulles International and Reagan National have started using NextGen procedures and we estimate they will save $2.3 million in fuel per year and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 7,300 metric tons.  In Atlanta, the precision of NextGen navigation means we can safely allow jets to take off on headings that are slightly closer together. This small change has resulted in an increase of 8 to 12 planes departing per hour, saving valuable time.  It is also better for the environment because those jets spend less time on the ground with their engines running. This expected initial benefit of the new procedure is $20 million in Atlanta this year alone.  We expect to bring this type of efficiency to other major airports as well.

General aviation pilots and other small-aircraft operators are also seeing benefits under NextGen, which allows them  greater access to more airports nationwide, particularly in poor weather conditions, thanks to enhanced satellite navigation capabilities.  Air traffic controllers now have a wider array of tools at their disposal to help them make the critical decisions necessary to bring about more efficiency in the world’s busiest airspace system.  The flying public is enjoying shorter flight times and fewer delays.  We are realizing these benefits because of NextGen.

Michael Whitaker, who assumed the role of Deputy Administrator on June 3, 2013, will serve as Chief NextGen Officer.  This is a role of great importance.  Effectively leading the agency through the next phases of NextGen implementation will require working with many organizational components within the FAA, collaborating with industry and labor, and understanding the complexities of the NextGen program.  Mr. Whitaker is a seasoned aviation executive with extensive business, regulatory, legal, and international experience.  He is well-versed in general aviation, as well as commercial aviation, and has led collaborative efforts and joint ventures to promote aviation safety and enhance performance and profitability.  In his career he has fostered alliances and improved corporate governance.  I am confident that NextGen will flourish under his leadership.

NextGen would not be as successful as it is without collaboration and investment by a wide range of participants and the support of Congress.  We are listening to the aviation community, including operators, bargaining unit representatives, and international colleagues, and we have adjusted our plans accordingly to create benefits for the maximum number of stakeholders.  We carefully consider the audits, reports, and recommendations from the DOT Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office when evaluating our programs and we consistently review our own progress to measure success and identify areas where we can improve. 

Collaboration is Key to the Success of NextGen

The FAA has a long history of engaging with industry to develop consensus around policy, programs, and regulatory decisions.  NextGen is arguably the best example of that collaboration.  We have worked closely with industry partners, built consensus, and incorporated important recommendations from industry in our NextGen planning.  We are working with our partners through the NextGen Advisory Committee, NextGen Institute, RTCA, and the Joint Planning and Development Office.

Our primary vehicle for industry collaboration is the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC). Its advisory role includes facilitating industry participation in NextGen, providing recommendations, and reviewing performance objectives. The NAC’s involvement is intended to ensure a positive business case for those who must invest in NextGen, and to provide a venue for tracking progress and sustaining joint commitments.

We believe the NAC has been successful in providing guidance and input into the current plans for the development and implementation of NextGen.  For example, we consulted extensively with the NAC to establish metrics that focus on post-implementation operations at locations where the agency has deployed NextGen systems and capabilities.  They are reported on the FAA’s new NextGen Performance Snapshots website.^[1]

One of our most successful collaborations with the NAC was on a recommendation involving city pairs. The NAC was instrumental in identifying sets of city pairs that can help measure the progress made by NextGen technologies once implemented.  Specifically, we track fuel burn, average distance flown and actual versus filed flight times between key city pairs.  In selecting city pairs, the NAC and the FAA took into consideration airports that were slated to receive various NextGen improvements, for example new PBN procedures or new surface management capabilities. These city pairs reflect a variety of important factors for the airline industry, such as passenger volume and traffic mix, among others.

We have, however, faced some challenges to achieving consensus via the NAC.  For example, in order to evaluate fuel efficiency gains under NextGen in accordance with Section 214 of the reauthorization, we discussed fuel burn with our industry partners participating in the NAC.  Some of our industry partners expressed reluctance about providing fuel burn data  out of a concern that releasing this information would provide proprietary data to the public and their competitors.  The activity underscored for us and for our partners on the NAC the true complexities that we deal with in trying to gather the information necessary to implement this interdependent set of initiatives in an airspace that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Furthermore, this challenges our ability to establish a reliable baseline measure from which improvements can be assessed over time.  While collaboration is vital, true consensus among all stakeholders isn’t always possible. To gather the necessary information, the FAA and the NAC are moving forward in partnership wih a number of operators who are interested in sharing fuel use data.

Despite these challenges, continued collaboration is a critical component of NextGen development.  Even if it takes more time, developments that take into account the needs and contributions of industry will allow us to better serve all those who use the national airspace. Through NextGen, we are transforming an entire system, even as it continues to operate.  We must continuously evaluate our progress and collaborate with industry to ensure that operations run smoothly as we proceed. We are building this system one step at a time and our partnerships with industry are vital to its success.

Our partnerships with labor are just as crucial.  The FAA has learned the lesson that you must involve the system operators on the front end, and the earlier the better, because they are the subject matter experts on our airspace and air traffic management system. The success of NextGen depends on the collaboration of talented experts working together to build it, which includes engineers, scientists, mathematicians, technicians, and air traffic controllers.

Because of our relationship with labor, these subject matter experts are an integral part of our major NextGen initiatives.  To date, we have more than 600 NATCA representatives, and 90 front-line managers, participating in 90 discrete events. The controllers are not just collaborating, they are shaping NextGen. They are at the heart of what we are doing, and they are embracing NextGen implementation.

While we have a well-constructed enterprise architecture and implementation plan for NextGen, it is critical that we maintain a level of flexibility, scalability, and responsiveness that allows us to evaluate each stage of implementation and adjust our plans to accommodate new technology and economic changes.  The FAA employs an integrated approach to track NextGen program costs, schedules, and performance milestones.  This includes a framework of several complementary tools that, together, address these issues and detail the planning, development, and delivery of NextGen.   The FAA continues to work on an Integrated Master-Schedule (IMS) to strengthen its enterprise-level management tool.  This tool is being designed to show how changes in programs’ schedules will impact the delivery of NextGen capabilities.  The IMS will draw upon the information contained in the roadmaps of the NAS Enterprise Architecture and captures key program activity and milestones for operational improvements.  The NAS enterprise architecture is a strategic planning tool that depicts the evolution of the NAS architecture over time.  The NAS enterprise architecture is a set of working documents that provide significant detailed planning information to implementing offices.  The FAA publishes an executive level overview of the agency’s progress annually in the NextGen Implementation Plan. 

The 2013 NextGen Implementation Plan

I am proud to announce the recent release of the 2013 NextGen Implementation Plan.  The plan provides an updated roadmap of the FAA’s ongoing transition to NextGen.  It also provides a wealth of information on the current state of NextGen programs.^[2]  

We have been transparent, from the beginning, about what we intend to accomplish with NextGen.  The Implementation Plan describes what success looks like in our operational vision.  We are publicly holding ourselves accountable, and we are proud of the progress we have made.

Successes and Benefits of NextGen

We report regularly on our success in achieving the milestones established in our Implementation Plans. 

We have met a majority of the milestones identified in the previous edition of the Plan, having completed 82 percent of the site-specific implementations we promised in 2012.  We are on track and fully committed to these programs and the capabilities they bring.  That’s on top of meeting an equally high percentage of the 340 implementation and work activity commitments we made in the 2009-11 editions of the Plan. We are delivering NextGen on time and on target.  We continue to make consistent progress in the following key areas:

• Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) – To date, the FAA had installed more than 500 ADS-B ground stations, 445 of which were operational.  This system changes the nation's air traffic control system from one that relies on radar technology to one that uses global satellites, which can provide more precise location data. ADS-B ground stations provide traffic and weather information to more than 1,400 properly equipped aircraft and supporting air traffic control separation services at eight En Route and 37 Terminal facilities.
   
• United Parcel Service (UPS) in Louisville has been an early adopter of ADS-B technology; they have equipped aircraft with ADS-B and have seen both increased efficiency and lower fuel burn in their operations. 
   
• JetBlue has equipped 35 aircraft with ADS-B Out avionics.  In June 2013,  the airline was re-routed across the Gulf of Mexico to avoid weather-related delays.  This shaved off about 100 miles from the flight’s initial path and resulted in hundreds of gallons of fuel savings.
   
• Helicopters equipped with ADS-B have been able to increase flight hours during periods of low visibility from 1,500 to almost 20,000 in the Gulf of Mexico.
   
• To date with ADS-B, more than 500 operational radios are providing traffic and weather information to more than 1,400 properly equipped aircraft on the East Coast, West Coast, and in Alaska, with supporting air traffic control separation services at 8 En Route and 37 terminal facilities and supporting surface advisory services at 24 airports.
   
• The optimization of airspace and procedures in the Metroplex program has seven active teams in various phases of development. Additional sites were expected to complete their design and implementation in 2013, but may be delayed due to budget sequestration.
   
• Equipage Incentives – The FAA is considering operational and financial incentives to influence owners and operators to equip their aircraft to use NextGen capabilities and gain NextGen benefits and has engaged in a number of public meetings to engage industry and gain their input. Under the program name AirPASS (the Aircraft Priority Access Selection Sequence), the agency is developing plans for operations designed to benefit owners and operators who complete NextGen equipage early to implement “best-equipped, best served” strategies that are under consideration.
   
• The FAA has awarded the Data Comm Integrated Services contract, which will provide for data communications between airport towers and appropriately equipped aircraft in 2016. Operational Data Comm trials are underway in Memphis and Newark with FedEx and United Airlines.
   
• Over the last two years, System Wide Information Management (SWIM) infrastructure investments have enabled significant advancement in the access and distribution of airport surface movement information.  The surface movement data from 27 major airports is now available through a single portal to a broad range of external consumers.  Today there are 19 external consumers, including many cargo and passenger airlines, vendors, and aviation research institutions, receiving surface movement data through this single portal.  This allows operators to make better-informed decisions that improve their efficiency.
   
• During a Collaborative Departure Queue Management demonstration, FedEx saved several hundred minutes of taxi time during each bank of departures from Memphis International Airport. FedEx at Memphis has seen a 20 percent increase in departure runway throughput capacity, which has eliminated their departure gate holds and departure queues that were always present for their early morning departure rush - resulting in fuel savings, and being able to have additional minutes, if needed, in their package sort.  Called arrival and departure rates have been raised from about 77 per hour to 99 per hour.  Louisville, San Francisco, Houston, Miami and Philadelphia are scheduled to implement this change through the end of this calendar year and early next year.
   
• Performance Based Navigation (PBN) - which facilitates more efficient design of airspace and procedures which collectively result in improved access, capacity, predictability, operational efficiency, and environment - is providing greater operational flexibility.  Some examples of PBN success are: 
   
• US Air reduces its carbon footprint by 51,000 tons per year by flying Optimized Profile Descents into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
   
• As early as 2008, flights at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport were saving up to 60 gallons of fuel per flight by using more efficient Optimized Profile Descent procedures. That also equates to a 380 kg reduction in CO2 emissions.
   
• Flights at Las Vegas and Henderson that used RNAV area navigation routes spent about 10 fewer minutes in the airspace within 200 miles of the airport. There were 14 percent fewer interactions between McCarran traffic and Henderson arrivals. 
   
• At Dallas-Fort Worth, RNAV departure procedures enabled additional diverging departures from the same runway yielding capacity increases of between 11-20 additional operations per hour resulting in approximately $8.5 million to $12.9 million in delay savings per year.
   
• The use of Required Navigational Performance (RNP) AR approaches at Chicago Midway allows aircraft landing RY13C to de-conflict with aircraft simultaneously departing Chicago O’Hare  RY22L.  Previously a one-in, one-out method was used to separate these operations.
   
• There are other examples of advantageous RNP AR use, such as approaches to Bishop, CA, that avoid terrain and provide access that previously didn’t exist and approaches into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that use precise paths to avoid prohibited areas.

We work very hard to calculate and report the benefits that we accrue.  We are projecting that NextGen will reduce overall delays by 41 percent by 2020, compared with what would happen if we did not implement any additional NextGen improvements.^[3]  These delay reductions will provide an estimated $38 billion in cumulative benefits through 2020. We estimate 16 million metric tons in cumulative reductions of carbon dioxide emissions through 2020, and 1.6 billion gallons in cumulative reductions of fuel use.

We have expanded our public reporting of NextGen performance through success stories and performance snapshots on our website.  The FAA publishes NextGen-specific metrics at the local level in order to isolate and identify NextGen improvements at site-specific locations.  Core airports, key city pairs, distance/time/fuel reduction, runway safety, the implementation and use of NextGen technology and procedures will continue to be important to understanding the value and benefits of modernization.  Taken together, these metrics reveal the nationwide impact of NextGen development, which has already been shown to provide tremendous benefits to efficiency and the environment.

Challenges

A key limitation to measuring NextGen improvements is data availability. The FAA is working diligently on closing internal and external data gaps.  In May 2013, the FAA launched the PBN Dashboard, a web-based tool that provides deployment and usage data on RNAV and RNP airport procedure in the NAS.  This dashboard details procedure availability usage by runway and airport. The information collected and published on the Dashboard will support current and future analysis. 

Another, more significant challenge we face is the uncertainty brought about by sequestration.  The FAA reauthorization laid out a vision to address the future needs of our nation’s aviation system. These needs have not gone away. It is important for us to work together to protect the great contribution that civil aviation makes to our economy.

The sequester and future funding unpredictability requires the FAA to make sizeable budget cuts that affect our operations and our future. While we are grateful that Congress passed budgetary flexibility for FAA to provide for a temporary solution to the FAA furloughs, this stop-gap measure does not end the ongoing challenges the sequester presents.  We will not enjoy the benefits or the stability that reauthorization was intended to provide until we end the sequester and its fiscal consequences and find a sensible long-term funding solution.  Without a predictable funding source, our ability to confidently develop long-range plans is compromised.  I sincerely hope that we can work together to ensure that America continues to lead the world in the development and implementation of aviation technology and operates the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL P. HUERTA,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION, ON

FAA’S PROGRESS ON KEY SAFETY INITIATIVES,

APRIL 16, 2013.

Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Thune, members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.  This is the first time I am testifying before you as the confirmed Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  I appreciate your support for my candidacy.  It is a privilege to hold this position and I welcome the challenges that will come with it.  I hope to enjoy a long and effective relationship with you and this Committee. 

There are a number of important ongoing aviation safety-related initiatives that I know are of interest to this Committee.  We are working hard to meet the future demands of aviation.  From transitioning to the Next Generation of Air Transportation System (NextGen) to integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the national airspace system (NAS), the goals we are striving to meet are challenging, especially in light of the existing fiscal constraints.  But our workforce is dedicated and very aware that achieving these goals are vital to FAA’s ability to continue leading the world in aviation safety and innovation.

Just over a year ago, Congress passed and the President signed the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reauthorization).  As the returning members of this Committee may recall, passage of the bill followed a long odyssey that involved 23 extensions before a comprehensive bill was passed.  During that period, I spoke with Members individually about the impact the short-term extensions were having on our programs.  The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was adversely impacted without the stability of a long-term authorization.  Airports across the country delayed the start of important capital projects due to the concern that funding was being authorized in very small amounts because of the short length of the extensions. As a consequence, during extension periods, airports were uncertain about committing to projects of all sizes, ranging from safety improvements to crucial infrastructure preservation to environmental impact mitigation, including sound insulation projects.  Another impact to airport projects, as a result of multiple extensions was the inability of engineers, construction contractors, and material and equipment suppliers to place orders and conduct work.  Reduced amounts of funding were made available in accordance with the short-term extensions, so committing to long-term investments was problematic.  We very much appreciated the passage of a comprehensive authorization that promised important stability and predictability. 

Sequestration

Now, just over one year later, the benefits of reauthorization are in jeopardy due to the budget reductions imposed by sequestration.  It is essential to the effective management of FAA’s programs to have stability and predictability that can be relied upon.  Sequestration places us in the position of even greater uncertainty than the days of multiple extensions.  Our agency has been working hard to plan for and implement the required cuts in a way that does not materially jeopardize our ability to ensure the highest levels of safety. Seventy percent of FAA’s Operations budget is dedicated to employee salaries and benefits, so they will bear a significant portion of the cuts.  I can assure you that safety is the FAA’s top priority.  If sequestration means fewer flights can be safely accommodated in the NAS, then there will be fewer flights. 

On April 10, I issued final furlough decision letters to over 47,000 employees.  The furloughs generally will be on discontinuous days, approximately one day per bi-weekly pay period, for a maximum of 11 days between April 21 and September 30.  We are also planning to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country starting this summer; cease federal funding at 149 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial operations per year starting June 15, and reduce preventative maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all NAS equipment.  All of these changes will be finalized as to scope and details through collaborative discussions with our users and our unions. 

As a result of employee furloughs and prolonged equipment outages resulting from lower parts inventories and fewer technicians, travelers should expect significant delays.  We are aware that these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate, and general aviation operators and the travelling public.

Beyond the impacts to air traffic, aviation safety employees will also experience furloughs that will impact airlines, aviation manufacturers, and individual pilots who need FAA safety approvals and certifications.  While the agency will continue to address identified safety risks, slowed aircraft certification and operations approval processes due to furloughs could negatively affect all segments of the aviation industry.

It is unfortunate that many of the positive benefits of the long-term reauthorization are being undermined by sequestration. 

FY 2014 Budget

The President released his FY 2014 Budget last week.  The FAA’s FY 2014 Budget request of $15.6 billion strikes a balance between maintaining current infrastructure while deploying key NextGen benefits to our stakeholders, upholding our critical safety programs, and modernizing our aviation infrastructure.  Our request is $351 million lower than FY 2012.  This 2.2 percent decrease supports the President’s effort to reduce the deficit.  Approximately half of our funding request is devoted to maintaining and improving the agency’s safety programs. This includes the ability to perform safety inspections and carry out rulemaking and certification activities to move NextGen and commercial space initiatives forward.

The budget requests $9.7 billion to provide the operation, maintenance, and support of our air traffic control and air navigation systems, ensure the safe operation of the airlines and certify new aviation products, ensure the safety of the commercial space transportation industry, and provide overall policy oversight and management.  This represents an increase of just 0.6 percent from the FY 2012 enacted level. This includes $1.2 billion to continue to promote aviation safety by regulating and overseeing the civil aviation industry and continued airworthiness of aircraft, as well as certification of pilots, mechanics, and others in safety management positions.  The $2.8 billion Facilities & Equipment (F&E) request enables FAA to meet the challenge of both maintaining the capacity and safety of the current national airspace while keeping a comprehensive asset modernization and transformation effort on track.  The $166 million requested for Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) supports the continuation of work in both NextGen and other research areas such as environmental research, safety research in areas such as fire research, propulsion and fuel systems, unmanned aircraft, advanced materials research, and weather research. And the $2.9 billion request for Grants-in-Aid for Airports focuses Federal grant funding on smaller commercial and general aviation airports that do not have access to additional revenue or other outside sources of capital. This is coupled with a proposed increase to Passenger Facility Charges, from the current maximum of $4.50 to $8.00, thereby giving commercial service airports greater flexibility to generate their own revenue.  Finally, in the Operations, F&E and RE&D requested amounts, we have included $1.002 billion for the NextGen portfolio, an increase of $67.2 million, or approximately 7 percent, above the FY 2012 enacted level. This level of program funding enables the FAA to continue to support near-term NextGen commitments in a budget-constrained environment.

Boeing 787

Turning to another matter that has received a great deal of attention, I would like to update you on the status of the review of Boeing 787’s lithium batteries.  On March 12, FAA approved Boeing’s certification plan for the 787 battery system redesign.  This was done after a thorough review of the proposed modifications, as well as the company’s plan to demonstrate that the modified system will meet FAA requirements.  Approval of the certification plan was the first step in the process to evaluate the 787’s readiness for return to flight. It required Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations.

The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize risk of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells, and the addition of a new containment and venting system.  These added protections are expected to help prevent and contain smoke and fumes in the event that a battery does malfunction.

Boeing flew limited non-passenger test flights of two aircraft that had the prototype versions of the new battery containment system installed.  The purpose of the test flights included validation of the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and testing of the battery enclosure, in addition to product improvements for other systems.  Boeing completed all required tests and analysis to demonstrate that the new design complies with FAA requirements.  The FAA is reviewing the test reports and analysis and will approve the redesign once we are satisfied Boeing has shown the redesigned battery system meets FAA requirements.

Aviation, from its very beginning, has stretched technological boundaries.  Technological change in aviation comes in waves.  For more than five decades, the FAA has compiled a proven track record of safely introducing new technology and new aircraft.  As we continue to do this, I want to make one thing crystal clear.  The FAA takes very seriously its responsibility to establish aircraft safety standards and certify new products and technologies.

As you know we are moving forward with a review of the critical systems of the Boeing 787.  When we have a concern, we will analyze it until we are satisfied.  I am confident that the FAA has the expertise needed to oversee the Dreamliner’s cutting edge technology.  We have the ability to establish rigorous safety standards and to make sure that aircraft meet them.  The best way to do this is to bring together the best minds and technical experts in aviation to work on understanding how these new systems work and how to establish and meet appropriate safety standards.

We enhance safety by keeping the lines of communication open between industry and government – by fostering the ability and willingness to share information about any challenges we might be facing.  We want to create an atmosphere where people feel they can share what they know, all in the pursuit of safety.

We all want the same outcome.  We want to harness advances in technology to produce safe aircraft.  We will never lose sight of our respective roles, but that does not mean that there is not a seat at the table for bright minds from industry to help inform the best way to navigate the complex technological issues we encounter.  It would be short-sighted to overlook anyone’s valuable expertise.

Reauthorization

As noted above, we were very happy when a comprehensive FAA reauthorization was passed last year.  Reauthorization required over 200 separate deliverables, nearly half of which were due within the first year of enactment.  FAA is on track to meet or has met approximately 80 percent of those action items.  We have fully completed about half of the deliverables in the law.  Now, as I’m sure you can appreciate, all action items are not created equal.  Some are very complex and require a good deal of input from our workforce and industry partners.  I believe that meaningful collaboration is the only way to achieve a workable path forward. Doing what we need to do to get the most effective work product is our goal, even if it means that certain deadlines are not met. 

Safety

Safety is FAA’s number one mission.  Nothing is more important.  Our system has never been safer.  There has not been a fatal commercial passenger accident in the United States since 2009.  I am proud of the hard work that has gone into providing a basis for achieving this level of safety.  We need to make aviation safer and smarter through risk based approaches.  The only way to prevent accidents before they happen is to accurately identify risk areas and work to mitigate them.  That is the reason we are working hard to improve runway safety areas (RSAs) at commercial service airports.  Some of the RSA improvements include the installation of the Engineered Materials Arrest System (EMAS).  This soft concrete block system has been installed in RSAs at 45 airports in the U.S.  These EMAS systems have already stopped eight overrunning aircraft with no fatalities or serious injuries to passengers.  Voluntary reporting for both FAA and industry employees, safety management systems (for both FAA and industry) and the creation of the Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office have also helped to prevent accidents.  All of these efforts have been providing the agency with data and information to which we have never before had access.  More information results in FAA being able to see trends and take action to mitigate the associated risks.  Adjusting the safety culture to ensure employees that they can provide information without fear of reprisal is a cornerstone of our approach to safety.

Prior to Reauthorization, we had been working on the requirements of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010.  That act mandated rulemakings to revamp flight and duty time regulations to better address the issue of pilot fatigue, to increase the required number of hours of flight experience before a pilot can qualify to be a commercial pilot, and to revise pilot training to better simulate challenging conditions so that pilots can better handle serious, but rare situations.  We completed the flight and duty time rulemaking just over a year ago, and plan to complete our work on the final pilot qualification rulemaking (the “New Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements Final Rule”) by August 2013 and pilot training (the “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Final Rule”) by October 2013.  Reauthorization has since added a number of rulemaking requirements that we are also pursuing. 

With respect to other safety directives in Reauthorization, FAA commissioned an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to develop recommendations to improve our aircraft certification process: we delivered our Report to Congress on that effort in August of last year and have begun implementation of the report’s recommendations.  We also established an ARC consisting of government and industry experts to develop recommendations on improving the consistency of regulatory interpretations.  We are in the process of finalizing a report informing Congress of the recommendations presented to the FAA.

Reauthorization also required a number of safety-related reports.  We have delivered the report required on runway safety alert systems and the first annual report of the Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office summarizing the disclosures the office has received and how they were handled. In the upcoming weeks, we expect to issue reports on the National Service Air Carrier Evaluation Program, night vision goggles for helicopter pilots, improved pilot licenses, and limiting access to the cockpits in all cargo aircraft.  We are also finalizing a report to Congress on common sources of distraction on the flight deck.

Pursuant to Congressional direction, we have also worked with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) to draft a statement of policy which permits some OSHA standards to be applied to improve workplace safety for aircraft cabin crew.  We published a draft policy statement in the Federal Register in December of 2012 for comment, and are in the process of reviewing those comments.

Also in accordance with reauthorization, in October of last year, the FAA, in conjunction with the Department of State, issued a cable regarding international drug and alcohol standards for foreign repair stations.  An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is currently in executive review. 

Delivering Technology

Our goal in the area of delivering technology is to efficiently and sustainably deliver benefits to our stakeholders and society.  One of the responsibilities of the Deputy Administrator is to serve as our Chief NextGen Officer, so that is one of many reasons I hope to appoint a Deputy relatively quickly.   

Throughout Title II of the Reauthorization, there is a theme that modernization of the system must be done in collaboration with our industry partners.  FAA wholeheartedly agrees with this concept.  Imposing technological changes without the input of the users would be a recipe for failure. We continue to engage through our work with Optimization of Airspace and Procedures (OAPM) initiatives, which are being done in close collaboration with industry and stakeholders.  OAPM is actively working in nine of the 13 metroplexes identified in Phase 1 of the program.  Of these, one of the metroplexes (Houston) is currently in the implementation phase with two additional sites (Washington, DC, and North Texas)  planned to start implementation of the new procedures later this summer, depending on how sequestration impacts this plan.  The metroplex initiative optimizes procedures in a geographic area where there are a number of airports, rather than focusing on each airport separately.  Through this initiative, we are untangling our busiest airspace and creating more direct routes, cutting fuel, and becoming more environmentally friendly.  In the congested airspace in the skies above our busiest metropolitan areas, these new modifications are being put in place in three years, much more quickly than the five to ten years it had taken previously.  We are also actively engaged with our industry and government partners in the development of NextGen through the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).  This group is helping to guide many aspects of our air traffic modernization work.  The NAC also works with FAA on developing and tracking performance metrics and advising on the technical challenges of one of the new categorical exclusion provisions included in Reauthorization. 

Reauthorization also provides FAA with the ability to consider using operational and financial incentives for commercial and general aviation operators to equip their aircraft with NextGen technology.  We are actively engaging aircraft operators and potential private partners to assess interest and receive feedback on equipage incentive programs and how use of this authority could attract additional investment in NextGen technologies and training.

FAA has completed a departure queue management pilot program that was required in the statute in order to continue to advance plans to enhance surface management at airports.  Also, in accordance with Reauthorization, we have issued guidance for AIP funding eligibility that supports the importance of sustainability initiatives in the way that airports do business, and we expect to issue further guidance in 2013.  We have also initiated a new study on the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which is a long-established process for identifying strategic investments.  The new study will ensure we are making the best use of available data in supporting our decisions to advance safety, capacity, efficiency, and sustainability initiatives.

Finally, in February, pursuant to Reauthorization, the FAA requested proposals for interested state and local governments, eligible universities, and other public entities to develop six Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) test sites around the country, which will gather information to help inform research, development, operational and privacy issues.  We expect to select the six sites by the end of the year.  These sites will conduct critical research that will help determine how best to integrate UAS into the NAS.  Once the sites are operational, we expect to learn how UAS operate in different environments and how they impact air traffic operations.  I know this Committee is very interested in UAS integration.  Use of the six sites will provide us with essential information to facilitate integration of UAS into the NAS and to address outstanding issues, such as privacy.  Prior to finalizing the FAA’s UAS five-year “Roadmap”, the FAA is coordinating the roadmap with other UAS stakeholder agencies and ensuring alignment of that roadmap with the Joint Planning and Development Office’s Interagency Comprehensive UAS Plan.

Empower and Innovate FAA’s Workforce

In the current fiscal climate, we have to find a way for FAA’s employees to work smarter and enhance our productivity. You tasked us to undertake a thorough review of each program, office, and organization within the agency.  Our report on FAA Review and Reform highlights 36 initiatives to improve and update processes, eliminate duplication and waste, and make the agency more efficient and effective.  The initiatives identified cover many aspects of our operations and include improvements to cost analysis, governance, acquisition processes, standard operating procedures, and human resources.  Of the 36 initiatives, 16 have been implemented and 20 are in progress.  In addition, we are actively engaging our employees in the development of recommendations for facilities consolidation and realignment.

At your direction, we are looking closely at improvements to staffing and training for our employees.  Four studies are underway looking at frontline manager staffing, technical training and staffing, air traffic controller staffing and air traffic training and scheduling.  Due to the requirement to produce the plan by March 31, 2013, the interim workforce plans we submitted last month do not reflect the potential effects of sequestration.  The FAA will adjust the actual staffing and hiring forecasts to reflect future funding levels as they become available.  Finally, in accordance with Reauthorization, we developed staffing standards and scheduling plans for New York City and Newark air traffic control facilities.  We are in the process of considering impacts of sequestration to staffing concerns.

Develop and Fund the Efficient FAA of the Future

FAA must not only meet our day to day responsibilities, we must also look to the future and figure out how to shape the agency to meet the demands and opportunities of the future.  As noted earlier, the U.S. aviation system is going through significant, even revolutionary changes.  NextGen is a major transformation which will increase our efficiency and safety, reduce delays and reduce fuel consumption.  UAS have the potential to change the face of aviation.  In the midst of these changes, budget pressures are making us ask hard questions about what the FAA needs to deliver in the coming years to ensure the safety and efficiency of the NAS and how to do it most cost-effectively.

In addition, we will face major changes in our workforce in the coming years.  About one third of FAA employees will be eligible to retire starting in 2014.  So for us, succession planning remains a crucial aspect of the agency’s focus, and we realize that we will begin to lose a vast amount of corporate knowledge in the coming years.  To prepare for that, we must impart this knowledge to today’s emerging leaders and experts to ensure a successful agency in the 21^st century.  We need to embrace innovation and to work efficiently.

Efficiencies are not just for the future.  Given the economic challenges we are facing, FAA has worked very hard to find cost savings and we have been quite successful.  In fiscal year 2012, FAA efficiencies and cost cutting resulted in $81 million in savings.  Prior to sequestration, we have set a target of $91 million in cost savings for fiscal year 2013.  We recognize that the status quo is not an option and we will continue to strive to achieve additional efficiencies moving forward.

Finally, we must chart innovative and collaborative ways to engage with all segments of the aviation sector, from airlines to association groups, to general aviation, to unions.  We must embrace the opportunity to make long-lasting changes together that ensure a vital and vibrant aviation industry that serves the needs of this nation.

Advance Global Collaboration

The world is increasingly interdependent, so international collaboration is essential if we want to move forward effectively.  FAA needs to continue to work with international partners to improve global aviation safety and sustainability.  This effort will require us to improve the harmonization and interoperability of new technology with international aviation standards and procedures to improve safety on a global basis.  We need to work to ensure the roadmaps agreed to by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to advance communications, navigation, and surveillance improvements for global air navigation are compatible with our NextGen concepts and implementation and our domestic regulatory plan.  We are working at ICAO to find practical and collaborative solutions to address aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions and are encouraged by the European Union decision to “stop the clock” on application of their emissions trading system on foreign airlines.  Our international partnership will require us to develop and begin to implement a strategic plan for technical assistance, training, and other activities to maximize the value of FAA’s expertise and United States resources.  The FAA is committed to working proactively with countries around the world to create the initiatives and achieve the outcomes we need in the areas of safety, air traffic management, and the environment to foster a safe, efficient and sustainable global aviation sector. 

Conclusion

Let me conclude by saying that it is essential to the effective management of FAA’s programs to have stability and predictability that can be relied upon.  The many extensions over the last few years took a toll on FAA’s work in certain areas.  Now we face an even more extreme uncertainty under sequestration.  All of us in this room want the same things.  We want to get better at what we do, think smarter, improve safety, streamline processes, and remain the agency that can work collaboratively with the world to develop safer and more efficient practices.  Sequestration will not stop us from trying to attain these goals, but it will make it much, much harder.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.  I will be happy to take questions at this time.

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL P. HUERTA,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION ON

A LOOKBACK ON REAUTHORIZATION – ONE YEAR LATER,

FEBRUARY 27, 2013.

Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.  This is the first time I am testifying before you as the confirmed Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  It is a privilege to hold this position and I welcome the challenges it presents.  I also want to acknowledge that, while I am a newly confirmed Administrator, this is also my first hearing before the new Chairman and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. I hope to enjoy a long and effective relationship with you and this Subcommittee. 

Today is just over a year after the passage of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reauthorization).  As the returning Members of this Subcommittee may recall, passage of the bill was a long odyssey that involved 23 extensions before a comprehensive bill was passed.  During that period, I spoke with Members individually about the impact the short-term extensions were having on our programs.  The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) was adversely impacted without the stability of a long-term authorization.  Airports across the country postponed important capital projects due to the concern that funding was being authorized in very small amounts due to the short length of the extensions. As a consequence, there was always uncertainty about committing to projects of all sizes, ranging from safety improvements to crucial infrastructure preservation to environmental impact mitigation, such as sound insulation.  During extension periods, those impacts  affected the ability of engineers, construction contractors, material and equipment suppliers to place orders and conduct work.  Only small amounts of funding were made available in accordance with the short-term extensions, so committing to long-term investments was problematic.  We very much appreciated the passage of a comprehensive authorization that promised important stability and predictability. 

It is, therefore, a bit ironic that I have been asked to testify before you just two days before sequestration goes into effect.  The stability and predictability that is so essential to the agency’s ability to meet the current demands of both air traffic and aviation safety.  Our agency has been working hard to plan for the required cuts if Congress does not act. Seventy percent of FAA’s Operations budget is dedicated to employee salaries and benefits, so they will bear a significant portion of the cuts.  I can assure you that safety is the FAA’s top priority.  If sequestration means fewer flights can be safely accommodated in the National Airspace System (NAS), then there will be fewer flights. 

I have notified FAA’s employees that they should be prepared to be furloughed one or two days per by-weekly pay period during the sequestration.  We are also planning to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country, close over 100 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial operations per year, and reduce preventative maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all NAS equipment.  All of these changes will be finalized as to scope and details through collaborative discussions with our users and our unions.  We will commence furloughs and start facility shut-downs in April.

As a result of employee furloughs and prolonged equipment outages resulting from lower parts inventories and fewer technicians, travelers should expect delays.  Flights to major cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we will have fewer controllers on staff.  We are aware that these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate, and general aviation operators.  We also expect that, as airlines estimate the potential impacts of these furloughs, they will change their schedules and cancel flights.

Beyond the impacts to air traffic, aviation safety employees will also experience furloughs that will impact airlines, aviation manufacturers, and individual pilots who need FAA safety approvals and certifications.  While the agency will continue to address identified safety risks, a slowed certification and approval process due to furloughs could negatively affect passengers and all segments of the aviation industry.

The threat of sequestration has been hanging over us for quite some time and, in some respects, it has been more unsettling than the short-term extensions.  Many of the positive benefits of the long-term reauthorization are being undermined by the threat of sequestration.  I know I speak for all of FAA’s workforce when I say that it is vital that Congress remove the uncertainty of sequestration and allow our dedicated employees to continue to do the important work that they want to perform. 

Turning to the topic of today’s hearing, Reauthorization required over 200 separate deliverables, nearly half of which were due within the first year of enactment.  FAA is on track to meet or has met approximately 80% of those action items required to date in the law.  We have currently completed about half of the deliverables in the law.  Now, as I’m sure you can appreciate, all action items are not created equal.  Some are very complex and require a good deal of input from our workforce and industry partners.  I believe that meaningful collaboration is the only way to achieve a workable path forward. Doing what we need to do to get the most effective work product is our goal, even if it means that certain deadlines are not met. 

Safety

Safety is FAA’s number one mission.  Nothing is more important.  Our system has never been safer.  There has not been a fatal commercial passenger accident in the United States since 2009.  That represents approximately 39.7 million flights that were operated safely.  I am proud of the hard work that has gone into providing a basis for achieving this level of safety.  We need to make aviation safer and smarter through risk based approaches.  The only way to prevent accidents before they happen is to accurately identify risk areas and work to mitigate them.  This is possible due, in part, to voluntary reporting for both FAA and industry employees, safety management systems (for both FAA and industry) and the creation of the Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office.  All of these efforts have been providing the agency with data and information to which we have never before had access.  More information results in FAA being able to see trends that could lead to accidents, and mitigate the associated risks to prevent accidents from happening.  Adjusting the safety culture to ensure employees that they can provide information without fear of reprisal is a cornerstone of our approach to safety.

Prior to Reauthorization, we had been working on the requirements of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010.  That act mandated rulemakings to revamp flight and duty time regulations to better address the issue of pilot fatigue, to increasing the required number of hours of flight experience before a pilot can qualify to be a commercial pilot, to revising pilot training to better simulate challenging conditions so that pilots can better handle serious, but rare situations.  We completed the flight and duty time rulemaking just over a year ago, and we are committed to completing our work on the final pilot qualification rulemaking by August 2013[1] and pilot training by October[2].  Reauthorization has since added rulemaking requirements that we are currently pursuing. 

With respect to other safety directives in Reauthorization, FAA commissioned an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to develop recommendations to improve our aircraft certification process: we delivered our Report to Congress on that effort in August of last year and we are evaluating these recommendations to determine next steps.  We also established an advisory panel of government and industry experts to develop recommendations on improving the consistency of aviation safety inspections.  We are in the process of finalizing a report informing Congress of the recommendations presented to the FAA.

Reauthorization also required a number of safety-related reports.  We have delivered the report required on runway safety alert systems and the first annual report of the Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office summarizing the complaints the office has received and how they were handled. In the upcoming weeks, we expect to issue reports on the National Service Air Carrier Evaluation Program, night vision goggles for helicopter pilots, improved pilot licenses, and limiting access to the cockpits in all cargo aircraft.

Pursuant to Congressional direction, we have also worked with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) to draft a statement of policy which permits some OSHA standards to be applied to improve workplace safety for aircraft cabin crew.  We published a draft policy statement in the Federal Register in December of 2012 for comment, and are in the process of reviewing those comments.

Delivering Technology

Our goal in the area of delivering technology is to efficiently and sustainably deliver benefits to our stakeholders and society.  As an aside, one of the responsibilities of the Deputy Administrator is to serve as our Chief NextGen Officer.  Now that I have been confirmed, I hope to appoint a Deputy relatively quickly.  This should be made easier now that the Deputy no longer has to be confirmed by the Senate. 

Throughout Title II of the Reauthorization, there is a theme that modernization of the system must be done in collaboration with our industry partners.  FAA wholeheartedly agrees with this concept.  Imposing technological changes without the input of the users would be a recipe for disaster. We continue to engage through our work with Optimization of Airspace and Procedures (OAPM) initiatives, which are being done in close collaboration with industry and stakeholders.  OAPM is actively working in nine of the 13 metroplexes identified in Phase 1 of the program.  Of these, one of the metroplexes (Houston) is currently in the implementation phase with two additional sites planned to start implementation of the new procedures later this summer (DC and North Texas).  The metroplex initiative optimizes procedures in a geographic area where there are a number of airports, rather than focusing on each airport separately.  Through this initiative, we are untangling our busiest airspace and creating more direct routes, cutting fuel, and becoming more environmentally friendly.  In the congested airspace in the skies above our busiest metropolitan areas, these new modifications are being put in place in three years, much more quickly than the five to ten years it had taken previously.  We are also actively engaged with our industry and government partners in the development of NextGen through the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).  This group is helping to guide many aspects of our air traffic modernization work.  The NAC also works with FAA on developing and tracking performance metrics and advising on the technical challenges of one of the new categorical exclusions included in Reauthorization. 

Reauthorization also provides FAA with the ability to consider using operational and financial incentives for commercial and general aviation operators to equip their aircraft with NextGen technology.  We are actively engaging aircraft operators and potential private partners to assess interest and receive feedback on equipage incentive programs and how use of this authority could attract additional investment in NextGen technologies and training.

FAA has completed a departure queue management pilot program that was required in the statute in order to continue to advance plans to enhance surface management at airports.  Also, in accordance with Reauthorization, we have issued interim guidance for AIP funding eligibility that supports the importance of sustainability initiatives in the way that airports do business, and expect to issue further guidance in 2013.  We have also initiated a new study on the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which is a long-established process for identifying and prioritizing strategic investments.  The new study will ensure we are making the best use of available data in supporting our decisions to advance safety, capacity, efficiency, and sustainability initiatives.

Finally, less than two weeks ago, pursuant to Reauthorization, the FAA requested proposals for interested state and local governments, eligible universities, and other public entities to develop six Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) research and test sites around the country.  We expect to select the six sites by the end of the year.  These sites will conduct critical research that will help determine how best to integrate UAS into the NAS.  Once the sites are operational, we expect to learn how UAS operate in different environments and how they impact air traffic operations.  I know this Committee is very interested in UAS integration.  Use of the six sites will provide us with essential information to facilitate integration.  Prior to finalizing the FAA’s UAS five-year “Roadmap”, the FAA is coordinating the roadmap with other UAS stakeholder agencies and ensuring alignment of that roadmap with the Interagency Comprehensive UAS Plan.

Empower and Innovate FAA’s Workforce

In the current fiscal climate, we have to find a way for FAA’s employees to work smarter and enhance our productivity. You tasked us to undertake a thorough review of each program, office, and organization within the agency.  Our report on FAA Review and Reform highlights 36 initiatives to improve and update processes, eliminate duplication and waste, and make the agency more efficient and effective.  The initiatives identified cover many aspects of our operations and include improvements to cost analysis, governance, acquisition processes, standard operating procedures, and human resources.  Of the 36 initiatives, 16 have been implemented and 20 are in progress.  In addition, we are actively engaging our employees in the development of recommendations for facilities consolidation and realignment.

At your direction, we are looking closely at improvements to staffing and training for our employees.  Four studies are underway looking at frontline manager staffing, technical training and staffing, and air traffic controller staffing and air traffic training and scheduling.  We also delivered and implemented a staffing model for safety inspectors that was documented in the Aviation Safety 2012 Workforce Plan.  Finally, in accordance with Reauthorization, we developed staffing standards and scheduling plans for New York City and Newark air traffic control facilities.

Develop and Fund the Efficient FAA of the Future

FAA must not only meet our day to day responsibilities, we must also look to the future and figure out how to shape the agency to meet the demands and opportunities of the future.  As noted earlier, the U.S. aviation system is going through significant, even revolutionary changes.  NextGen is a major transformation which will increase our efficiency and safety, reduce delays and reduce fuel consumption.  UAS have the potential to change the face of aviation.  In the midst of these changes, budget pressures are making us ask hard questions about what the FAA needs to deliver in the coming years to ensure the safety and efficiency of the NAS and how to do it most cost-effectively.

In addition, we will face major changes in our workforce in the coming years.  About one third of FAA employees will be eligible to retire starting 2014.  So for us, succession planning remains a crucial aspect of the agency’s focus, and we must realize that we will begin to lose a vast amount of corporate knowledge in the coming years.  To prepare for that, we must impart this knowledge to today’s emerging leaders and experts to ensure a successful agency in the 21^st century.  We need to embrace innovation and to work efficiency.

Efficiencies are not just for the future.  Given the economic challenges we are facing, FAA has worked very hard to find cost savings and we have been quite successful.  In fiscal year 2012, FAA efficiencies and cost cutting resulted in $81 million in savings.  We have set a target of $91 million in cost savings for fiscal year 2013.  We recognize that the status quo is not an option and we will continue to strive to achieve additional efficiencies moving forward.

Finally, wemust chart innovative and collaborative ways to engage with all segments of the aviation sector, from airlines to association groups, to general aviation, to unions.  We must embrace the opportunity to make long-lasting changes together that ensure a vital and vibrant aviation industry that serves the needs of this nation.

Advance Global Collaboration

The world is increasingly interdependent, so international collaboration is essential if we want to move forward effectively.  FAA needs to continue to lead the charge to improve global aviation safety and sustainability.  This effort will require us to improve the harmonization and interoperability of new technology with international aviation standards and procedures to improve safety on a global basis.  We need to work to ensure the roadmaps agreed to by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to advance communications, navigation, and surveillance improvements for global air navigation are compatible with our NextGen concepts and implementation and our domestic regulatory plan.  We are working at ICAO to find practical and collaborative solutions to address aviation’s greenhouse gas emissions and are encouraged by the European Union decision to “stop the clock” on application of their emissions trading system on foreign airlines.  Our leadership role will require us to develop and begin to implement a strategic plan for technical assistance, training, and other activities to maximize the value of FAA’s expertise and United States resources.  The FAA is committed to working proactively with countries around the world to create the initiatives and achieve the outcomes we need in the areas of safety, air traffic management, and the environment to foster a safe, efficient and sustainable global aviation sector. 

Conclusion

Let me conclude by saying that it is essential to the effective management of FAA’s programs to have stability and predictability that can be relied upon.  The many extensions over the last few years took a toll on FAA’s work in certain areas.  Now we face an even more extreme uncertainty with the specter of sequestration looming.  All of us in this room want the same things.  We want to get better at what we do, think smarter, improve safety, streamline certification, and remain the agency that can work collaboratively with the world to develop safer and more efficient practices.  Sequestration will not stop us from trying to attain these goals, but it will make it much, much harder.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.  I will be happy to take questions at this time.

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET M. GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

THE CERTIFICATION OF THE BOEING 787 AIRCRAFT AND THE LESSONS LEARNED,

JUNE 12, 2013.

Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) certification of the Boeing 787 airplane.  There were two widely reported incidents earlier this year involving the malfunction of one of the Lithium-Ion batteries on in-service 787s that resulted in the FAA grounding the fleet and initiating a comprehensive safety review of the 787 critical systems, including design, manufacturing, and assembly.  Today, after extensive design and certification work, 787s are once again part of the commercial fleet, flying passengers safely around the world.  The comprehensive review will be completed this summer.

FAA Certification Process

The FAA certifies aircraft and components that are used in civil aviation operations.  Some version of our certification process has been in place and served us well for over 50 years.  This does not mean the process has remained static. Since 1964, the regulations covering certification processes have been under constant review.  As a result, the general regulations have been modified over 90 times, and the rules applicable to large transport aircraft, like the 787, have been amended over 130 times.  The regulations and our policies have evolved in order to adapt to an ever-changing industry that uses global partnerships to develop new, more efficient and safer aviation products and technologies.

As this committee knows, the FAA is using a risk based approach to improving aviation safety.   The FAA focuses its efforts on those areas that have the highest risk.  The FAA type certification team members, who I will discuss in more detail below, must review the applicant’s design descriptions and project plans, determine where their involvement will derive the most safety benefit, and coordinate their intentions with the applicant.  When a particular decision or event is critical to the safety of the product or to the determination of compliance, the FAA must be involved either directly or through the use of our designee system.  

The designee program was originally authorized by Congress in 1938 and is critical to the success and effectiveness of the certification process.   In aircraft certification, both individual and organizational designees support the FAA.  The FAA determines the level of involvement of the designees and the level of FAA participation needed based on many variables.  These variables include the designee's understanding of compliance policy; consideration of any novel or unusual certification areas; or where adequate standards may not be in place.  

There are some issues that will always require direct FAA involvement, including rulemakings required to approve special conditions and equivalent level of safety determinations.  The FAA may choose to be involved in other project areas after considering factors such as our confidence in the applicant, the applicant’s experience, the applicant’s internal processes, and confidence in the designees. 

Something that is not well understood about the certification process is that it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that an aircraft conforms to FAA safety regulations.  It is the applicant who is required to develop the plans and specifications and perform the inspections and tests necessary to establish that an aircraft design complies with the regulations.  The FAA is responsible for determining that the applicant has shown that the design meets the standards.  We do that through review of data and by conducting risk based evaluations of the applicant's work.  

When a new design of aircraft is being proposed, the designer must apply to the FAA for a type certificate.  While an applicant usually works on its design before discussing it with the FAA, we encourage discussions with the FAA well in advance of presenting a formal application.  Once an applicant approaches us, a series of meetings are held both to familiarize FAA with the proposed design, and to familiarize the applicant with the applicable certification requirements.  A number of formal and informal meetings are held on issues ranging from technical to procedural.  Once the application is made, issue papers are developed to provide a structured way of documenting the resolution of technical, regulatory, and administrative issues that are identified during the process. 

The applicant must show that its design meets applicable existing airworthiness requirements.   Title 14 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 25 comprises the safety requirements for transport category airplanes.  The regulations also provide for the issuance of special conditions when the FAA finds that the existing airworthiness standards do not address new or novel design features.    

When the FAA proposes to apply special conditions to an airplane design, a notice of proposed special conditions is published in the Federal Register and the public has an opportunity to comment.  As is the case with other rulemakings, those comments are considered and addressed before the special condition is finalized.  This process is intended to allow important innovation, while maintaining the level of safety consistent with the existing regulations.  Special conditions address the unique risks associated with a particular new technology.  They do not replace general safety requirements, they supplement them. 

Once the certification basis is established for the proposed design, the FAA and the applicant develop and agree to a certification plan.   In order to receive a type certificate, the applicant must conduct a series of tests and reviews to show that the product is compliant with existing standards and the special conditions. This includes analysis, lab tests, flight tests, conformity inspections, and detail-and airplane-level compliance findings, all of which are subject to FAA oversight.  If the FAA finds that a proposed new type of aircraft complies with safety standards, it issues a type certificate. 

FAA Certification of the Boeing 787

Using the framework described for obtaining a type certificate for a proposed airplane design, I would like to provide some information about the certification of the Boeing 787.  Boeing first applied for a type certificate for this aircraft on March 28, 2003.  The FAA formed a certification team comprised of certification engineers, inspectors, flight test pilots, flight test engineers, human factors specialists, technical advisors, specialists from the FAA Technical Center, and several of our Chief Scientists in various disciplines.  The team was supplemented by experts from other aviation authorities, industry technical organizations such as RTCA and SAE, and government, such as the DOT’s Volpe Center.  As a result of regular meetings between the FAA and Boeing teams, FAA identified a number of design features of the proposed airplane where the current standards did not address the new or novel features, including the lithium ion main and auxiliary power unit (APU) batteries.  At that time, there was a general standard – an FAA regulation - for the design of nickel cadmium and lead acid batteries, but these standards did not fully address the safety issues associated with lithium-ion battery systems.  Therefore, the FAA developed a special condition to establish a comparable level of safety with the standards that were in place at the time of certification.

In order to develop the special conditions necessary to achieve the equivalent level of safety required for certification, we reviewed the available lithium battery literature.  This also included consideration of the hazards of other battery technologies, such as nickel cadmium batteries.  This review and analysis resulted in an issue paper, which led to publication in the Federal Register of proposed special conditions on April 30, 2007.  The special conditions identified requirements to produce a level of safety equivalent to existing requirements in place for other types of batteries.  The special conditions became effective in November 2007 and supplemented the existing part 25 requirements.

The development and approval of the special conditions focused on two related safety concepts; the function the system performs, and the hazards associated with its failure.  The primary governing rule, part 25.1309, establishes general requirements for system safety.  There is also an Advisory Circular that accompanies the rule that describes methods applicants can use to describe and analyze systems to demonstrate compliance. System descriptions and functional hazard assessments help us understand what happens to system functions when failures occur. 

With respect to the lithium ion batteries, from a functional standpoint, they were not critical because they were only intended to provide power if some of the six generators on the airplane failed. 

In summary, the certification of the Boeing 787 required extensive FAA involvement over an eight year period.  A total of 150 issue papers were developed.  Engineers spent thousands of  hours on the certification.  There were over 900 hours of flight testing during the process.    The certification process was detailed and thorough, but, as is the case with newly certified products, we often learn more about the product after it is certified and gains service experience.  As we obtain pertinent information, identify potential risk, or learn of a system failure, we analyze it, we find ways to mitigate the risk, and we require operators to implement the mitigation.  And that is what happened in the case of the 787.

787 Incidents and the Decision to Ground the Fleet

New products and technologies, in all industries, often have operating failures when they first go to market.  Aviation is no different, but the consequences of failure can be so much more significant, that mitigations of potential failures are built into the certification process.  On January 7, 2013, when a battery on the 787 operated by Japan Airlines (JAL) overheated and started a fire on an empty aircraft at Boston Logan Airport, FAA immediately investigated the incident.  On January 11, 2013, FAA announced a comprehensive review of the 787’s critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly of the aircraft.  The Japan transport ministry and the National Transportation Safety Board also opened investigations. On January 16, an All Nippon Airways (ANA) 787 made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport after flight crew received a computer warning that there was smoke inside one of the electrical compartments.  ANA said that there was an error message in the cockpit indicating a battery system malfunction. 

Far and away the most important fact concerning these incidents is that no one on board the aircraft was injured.  Even when the battery system failed in flight, the incident did not result in injury to anyone on board.  This is in part because the FAA certification process requires manufacturers to assume that system failures will occur and to design mitigations for those failures to protect the aircraft so that no injury occurs to persons on board the aircraft.  From a certification standpoint, that goal was met.

After the second event, we gathered all the data we had.  Given the limited operational experience we had with the airplane, the fact that the two battery events occurred in quick succession, and that one of the events occurred in flight, we decided to ground the fleet.  This would allow us to take the time necessary to develop and implement the right safety solution without compromising safety.

Prior to January, the FAA had not grounded an aircraft fleet since the DC-10 in1979, so this is not an action the agency takes lightly.  Unlike that previous fleet grounding, the 787 was grounded, despite the fact that the incidents, thankfully, did not result in death or injury to passengers or crew. 

The accident rate for commercial aircraft operations is at an all time low.  Neither the public nor the FAA has the tolerance for that accident rate increasing.  Failures of systems on airplanes with hundreds of thousands of flight hours provide us with a tremendous amount of service data we can use to put an operational incident into the appropriate context and determine the corresponding mitigation.  When the number of flight hours that can be evaluated is limited, FAA’s ability to develop an appropriate mitigation is more challenging.

Grounding the 787 fleet gave the FAA the ability to consider necessary mitigations without compromising passenger safety.  The fact that the incident was limited in nature helped us focus our analysis and agree upon a mitigation that could be implemented. 

Post Grounding Review

The comprehensive review of the Boeing 787 and the root cause analysis of the two battery incidents was a data driven process.  Based on past accident investigations, we know that, while it is sometimes not possible to determine the actual cause of an incident, that does not prevent us from developing effective mitigations to prevent further malfunctions. 

Boeing, with support from industry and government battery experts, conducted a comprehensive review of the design of the battery systems.  Based on the information obtained from the review, the focus of mitigation efforts was on the possible causes that could result in an internal short within the cells and the battery.  The changes Boeing proposed addressed the initiation of a short, propagation of the malfunction from one battery cell to another, and containment of the event should another propagation occur.  FAA specialists were involved in developing the mitigation effort throughout the process. 

On April 19, 2013, after Boeing completed the certification plan and demonstrated compliance with the standards, the FAA approved Boeing’s design for modifications to the 787 battery system.  The changes were designed to address risks at the battery cell level, the battery level, and the aircraft level.  A team of FAA certification specialists observed the rigorous tests we required Boeing to perform.  They devoted weeks to reviewing the detailed analysis of the design changes.

On April 26, 2013, the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) superseding the previously issued AD mandating that operators install of the main and auxiliary power (APU) unit battery enclosures and environmental control system ducts; and replacing the main battery, APU battery, and their respective battery chargers.  This AD also requires revision of the maintenance program to include an airworthiness limitation reflecting a requirement to replace certain parts related to the battery enclosure.

To assure proper installation of the new design, the FAA closely monitored modifications to the U.S. fleet and staged teams of inspectors at modification locations.  Further, as the certifying authority, FAA continues to provide support to other authorities around the world as they finalize their own acceptance procedures.

Lessons Learned from the 787 Certification Process

The FAA has a standard review of the process of every design we certify.  Short term, we often find administrative and procedural issues that are immediately evident and can be implemented for the next certification.  For example, with respect to the 787, while the “multi-tiered supplier” dynamic is not new to industry, the FAA has determined that we need to spend more time overseeing communication and ensuring a clear line of accountability of all required changes down the supplier chain.  We also look for ways to improve the integrity of the process with the addition of independent review of the work done.

While understanding the lessons learned as the result of a technical failure can take time because the root cause is not readily evident, the FAA has demonstrated its ability to develop mitigations which ensure the safety of passengers and crew.  In cases such as the flammability of the center fuel tank or the 737 rudder malfunctions, mitigations had to be developed that we were confident protected the passengers and crew without knowing the exact root cause of the particular problem. For example, it was not possible to know what caused the spark that caused the explosion in the center fuel tank and brought down TWA Flight 800.  The safest path to mitigation was to find a way to inert the center fuel tank, so that, regardless of what caused the spark, no harm could result.  With respect to the 737 rudder system, which was the cause of two fatal accidents in the 1990s, operational, procedural, training and design changes were implemented to protect flights from potential malfunctions. 

Technical Expertise

Finally, I would like to address the concern expressed by some that FAA’s use of aviation experts who do not work for the FAA suggests that we do not have the requisite expertise to resolve technical problems as they arise.  Such concerns are unfounded.  The aviation industry is filled with intelligent, innovative people.  Certification of aviation products and systems is not limited to the participation of a single certifying entity and a single manufacturer.  It is a worldwide industry and any new airplane design contains parts and products made by hundreds of companies in dozens of countries.  Certification of an airplane, in the United States or abroad, requires the efforts of the best and brightest minds.  FAA seeks the participation of industry experts who can add a level of safety or knowledge that can improve the process or the product.  Likewise, when, as an industry, we face a problem, bringing together the best and the brightest minds to work on solving the problem and making industry-wide safety improvements, should be considered a best practice.  Limiting the use of technical experts because of who they work for is the equivalent of imposing limitations on problem solving.  That is not a limitation that FAA would ever support.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this hearing helps the Committee understand the complexity of the certification process and the commitment of industry and FAA to support both the certification of new and innovative technologies and work to resolve problems as they arise.  I am proud of the safety record we have achieved together.  I am confident we have the best people in place to meet the challenges ahead.

This concludes my prepared statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.