Statement of

The Honorable John D. Porcari
Deputy Secretary
and
Michael Huerta
Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives

September 12, 2012

A Review of and Update on the Management of FAA’s NextGen Program

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the state of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen. 

NextGen is one of the nation’s largest infrastructure projects underway today, but it is more than just a single project, plan or new system.  It is the integration of many systems, projects, concepts, technologies, plans, and organizations working with our National Airspace System (NAS) stakeholders to deliver new service capabilities that meet increasing air transport demands. The future of the NAS depends on the success of NextGen, and NextGen’s success depends on FAA’s effective management and oversight of program implementation, as well as collaboration with our industry partners and our employee labor representatives. We would like to highlight the significant progress we have made to date, and outline how our program management and industry collaboration have contributed to our successes and helped us meet challenges. 

Airline passenger travel is expected to nearly double in the next 20 years. That translates into many more aircraft carrying a lot more passengers who will need to arrive at their destinations safely and on time.  NextGen can meet that challenge.  Our latest estimates show that by 2020, NextGen improvements will reduce delays, in the air and on the ground, by 38 percent as compared to what would occur without those improvements.  Such delay reductions are estimated to result in $24 billion in cumulative benefits to aircraft operators, the traveling public and the FAA.  Full implementation, which is defined in the NextGen Implementation Plan as occurring in 2020, will result in 1.4 billion gallons of fuel saved and a 14 million metric ton reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

While we are on track to meet these long-term goals, it is important to stress that NextGen is happening now.  Across the country, we are creating satellite-based procedures that will transform the NAS.  Satellite navigation is essential to deliver benefits to users right away.  The new flight tracks will relieve bottlenecks, improve safety and efficiency, and foster the flow of commerce. 

NextGen programs are delivering benefits to users of the system and the traveling public today.  Through our work with an advisory group composed of industry stakeholders, we received expert input on the problem of congested airspace in busy metropolitan areas.  We have turned those recommendations into specific action by launching our Metroplex initiative.  This is a collaborative effort with industry to bring benefits to the public as soon as we possibly can.  We are creating new, more direct routes across the country that will relieve bottlenecks and congestion, in addition to improving safety and efficiency.  We are making progress in many  different areas, including Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, the San Francisco bay area in northern California, the Los Angeles area in southern California, the Dallas-Fort Worth area in northern Texas and right here in the metropolitan Washington, D.C.  We are also working on additional metropolitan areas.  Satellite-based navigation is expected to cut a total of seven million nautical miles from flight plans around these cities each year.  These shorter routes, together with gradual descents under reduced engine power, are projected to save at least 22 million gallons of fuel annually.  For these cities, that’s a total reduction in carbon emissions of 220,000 metric tons annually, or the equivalent of taking more than 43,000 cars off the nation’s streets.

Each Metroplex is unique and requires an integrated solution that yields benefits to the specific users of the airspace.  The development of flight tracks and procedures must take into consideration numerous factors, including the area’s terrain, the number and location of airports, the volume of operations, and the mix of equipped and non-equipped aircraft operating in the area.  The precision of satellite-based navigation being deployed under the Metroplex initiative helps us to use our airspace more efficiently by deconflicting traffic headed to adjacent airports and allowing general aviation better access to smaller airports near big cities.  It also provides GPS precision approaches to smaller airfields that do not have expensive instrument landing systems on the ground. 

NextGen is also providing the general aviation community access to airports that have previously been inaccessible in low visibility conditions. Sixty percent of general aviation aircraft that fly under instrument meteorological conditions are equipped to take advantage of satellite-based navigation into airports that have no ground navigation capability. This has the added benefit of reducing congestion around larger airports that have previously been the only available choice in bad weather.

Another initiative that is yielding positive results is the Greener Skies Over Seattle initiative, a collaborative project between the FAA, Alaska Airlines, the Port of Seattle, and the Boeing Corporation.  This initiative will create new NextGen approaches for multiple aircraft and airlines flying into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), leaving Seattle’s skies quieter and greener.  These flight tracks are shorter, more fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly.  Thanks to a lot of hard work by all of our partners, we reached a milestone this summer.  For the first time, Alaska Airlines is flying customers into Sea-Tac using these new NextGen approaches.  The importance of Greener Skies is not just that we are creating more efficient flight paths into Sea-Tac, but that we are developing a template for how to implement these kinds of airspace improvements in cities across the country.

Finally, I would like to share another example of how the FAA is partnering with industry to advance NextGen technology.  The FAA entered into an agreement with JetBlue last year to provide data and conduct real-time operational evaluations.  JetBlue will equip up to 35 of its A320 aircraft with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) avionics.  ADS-B will provide air traffic controllers with precise positioning of the aircraft by using GPS satellite signals, enabling the aircraft to fly more direct routes off the East Coast where ground-based radar coverage is unavailable.  Field trials are scheduled to begin in early 2013.  The FAA will collect valuable NextGen data by observing and conducting real-time operational evaluations of ADS-B on revenue flights.  This agreement is beneficial to both the airline and the FAA and has the potential for industry-wide benefits.

While we’ve made significant progress in accelerating the benefits of new technology, we recognize that, as with any large-scale infrastructure program, we need to position ourselves to address the challenges that will inevitably arise.  The FAA’s Foundation for Success initiative, which we implemented last year, is helping the agency use our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible, while improving agency accountability.  The changes that we made include attaining greater productivity by improving internally-shared services, redesigning FAA’s governance and implementing a revised NextGen management structure.  We recognized that the agency needed to be more proactive and flexible in order to keep pace with anticipated growth and advancements in aviation world-wide.  We also recognized that our commitment to maintaining the safest, most efficient aviation system in the world could not be compromised in any way.  Safety will always remain our number one priority.

We have learned lessons from previous large acquisition programs, and are developing new best practices moving forward.  As an agency, we are also going through a positive transformation. You may recall that in 2010, we embarked upon Destination 2025, a long-term strategic vision for transforming not only the national aviation system, but also the agency responsible for making it happen.

In support of that vision, we launched our Foundation for Success initiative, which is putting an improved organizational structure in place to ensure the agency has the flexibility necessary to keep pace with the expected growth and advancement of aviation worldwide. As part of that initiative, we reorganized the structure of the NextGen office, moving it from the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and elevating its top official to the position of Assistant Administrator for NextGen. This newly realigned position, reporting directly to the FAA Deputy Administrator, oversees an organization dedicated entirely to delivering NextGen benefits.  Under a revised management structure, the new NextGen organization provides technical assistance and systems integration expertise, as well as promoting collaboration and accountability across the FAA.

We also created a program management office to improve our administration and coordination of key air traffic development programs. Through the Foundation for Success, we also established a new organization solely focused on implementing major technology programs.  The Program Management Organization (PMO) is part of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization and is responsible for strategically managing our major acquisition programs.  The PMO helps us to work across organizational boundaries to help continue to advance NextGen initiatives, ushering them from the drawing board to live operation.  Equally important, we moved responsibility for these programs out of the components of the ATO which also have responsibility and primary expertise in running the day-to-day operation of the aviation system.  As a result, both the daily operation and the transformational programs can get the focused attention they need.

This new approach is already working with the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM), a foundational NextGen program.  ERAM has successfully been refocused and is on-time and on-budget.  Changes to the program oversight, contract management and implementation approach over the last year have delivered significant progress in deployment of the technology.  ERAM is now operating in some capacity at nine of the 20 en route centers, and five of those centers are currently using ERAM as the primary technology to direct high-altitude air traffic.  Since December 2011, the system has accumulated more than 20,000 hours of operations across a range of varying airspace needs and traffic volumes. All of the en route centers will be operating ERAM by 2014.  This turn-around is, in no small part, attributable to an improved relationship between a newly appointed management team and our labor organizations, the National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA) and the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS).  We created collaborative work groups and established new program governance and oversight that included a steering committee and regular program management reviews.  We standardized procedures to transition to continuous operations on ERAM, and made a series of process improvements across all aspects of the ERAM technology lifecycle.  The success of ERAM is an essential component of moving forward with NextGen, and we will apply the lessons we’ve learned from the turn-around of ERAM to other initiatives. 

Just as collaboration with the workforce has paid dividends on the ERAM program, industry partners continue to play a key role in transforming the way we travel and communicate in the NAS.  The FAA has a longstanding history of engaging with industry.  The agency has used the RTCA to develop industry consensus around policy, program and regulatory decisions for many years. 

To facilitate NextGen specific recommendations, the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) was formed within the RTCA.  The NAC’s goal is to develop a common understanding of NextGen priorities in the context of NextGen capabilities and implementation constraints, with an emphasis on near and mid-term initiatives.  Under the leadership of JetBlue Airways President and CEO Dave Barger, the NAC has helped foster a common understanding of success with joint performance objectives and development milestones, and focuses on implementation issues, including joint investment priorities, and the location and timing of capability implementation.  The NAC is comprised of top-level executives representing operators, manufacturers, air traffic management, aviation safety, airports, environmental, civil and military, and domestic and international interests.  Within the scope of the NAC’s purpose, the FAA will issue tasks that reflect an FAA request for aviation community advice and recommendations on a particular operational or investment topic. Representatives of FAA, MITRE, and the RTCA are non-voting members of the NAC.

The NAC is working to define accepted metrics in six areas to enable measurement of the impact of NextGen on system performance.  They include improved situational awareness, increased operational efficiency, increased capacity, increased fuel efficiency, reduced NAS costs, and improved access to the NAS. Agreed-upon NextGen metrics are critical to ensuring continued investment by users of the system, government and the international community.

Of course, the full range of NextGen goes well beyond what we have discussed.  The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is the organization responsible for interagency coordination on NextGen and other select aviation issues. The JPDO is also the primary body to consider long-term concepts for NextGen and to ensure alignment of agency priorities. 

The NextGen Institute, established by the FAA in 2005, is the mechanism through which the JPDO enables collaboration between government and the private sector to coordinate long-term NextGen goals and priorities. Key objectives are to foster a shared vision, facilitate concepts and approaches and to encourage innovations]. The Institute Management Council (IMC), comprised of 16 senior industry representatives, oversees the NextGen Institute.

The JPDO charters a variety of collaborative networks that include study teams, discussion groups, information-sharing sessions and community review and validation opportunities. Each has defined expectations and performance periods.  These collaborations have produced a long-term avionics roadmap, examined research and simulation needs for safety of more automated systems and share environmental approaches.

NextGen is a comprehensive undertaking, and can’t succeed without industry collaboration, effective management, and engaging our workforce. Continued investment in NextGen is critical to transforming the NAS and delivering benefits to the flying public.  It is not something FAA can do alone; rather, it will require partnership and commitment by the aviation industry if these endeavors are to be successful.  We know that this Committee is committed to supporting NextGen and understands its significance.  We, both government and industry, appreciate and rely on that support.  There is certainly much more to NextGen than can be discussed in a single statement or appearance before this Committee.  We will continue to work with you as we move forward delivering near-term benefits of NextGen and long-term success in modernizing our nation’s aviation system.

This concludes our prepared statement.  We will be happy to address any questions that the Subcommittee might have.

#

STATEMENT OF

DR. GEORGE C. NIELD,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

ON

THE OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST,

MARCH 20, 2012.

Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello, and Distinguished Members of the Committee:

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to meet with you today to update you on the ongoing activities in commercial space transportation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as some of the recent developments in this area.  

We are all well aware of the historic change that has taken place in the U.S. space program with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.  We watched with mixed emotions as Atlantis lifted off the pad for its final mission on July 8 of last year.  That final mission left many wondering about the future of space transportation in this country.  While it is certainly true that the launch marked the end of an era, it also represented the beginning of what I am confident will be an exciting future in space for our nation.  Today, I would like to give you my perspective on that future and to highlight some of the ways that the FAA and the U.S. commercial space transportation industry are dealing with the challenges that we will be facing in the years ahead. 

The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) was established in 1984. Our two-fold mission is to ensure protection of the public, property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space transportation. To carry out our safety responsibilities, we develop and issue regulations; grant licenses, permits, and safety approvals; and conduct safety inspections during every licensed or permitted launch. 

We are also responsible for licensing the operation of launch and reentry sites or "spaceports," as they are popularly known. Since 1996 we have licensed the operation of the California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base; Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia; Mojave Air and Space Port in California; Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska; the Oklahoma Spaceport in Burns Flat, Oklahoma; Spaceport America near Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Florida.

I am very proud of the men and women who work in AST and our outstanding safety record.  Since 1989, we have licensed 205 commercial launches without any loss of life, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the general public.  We conduct safety inspections to ensure licensees and permittees are adhering to regulatory requirements.  Inspections include at least one annual inspection at commercial launch site operations and at least one inspection of launch operations at time of flight.  In addition to inspections, AST activities in support of Department of Transportation safety goals include granting licenses, experimental permits, and safety approvals, developing and issuing regulations, performing accident investigation and prevention activities, and supporting federal range operations and related aircraft traffic management.

Safety inspection is an AST core function that involves the monitoring of all licensed and permitted commercial space transportation activities. These activities include those conducted by the licensee/permittee, its contractors, and subcontractors.  All AST safety inspectors are credentialed and carry their credentials during inspections.  These inspectors use approved safety inspection plans, templates, and checklists to conduct and document inspections.  A safety inspection encompasses more than flight activities alone.  Inspectors also monitor and participate in mission dress rehearsals, safe and arm checks, flight termination system installation and checkout, accident investigation, and other activities related to public safety.  The program is built upon a firm foundation comprised of written documentation developed by AST.  Inspections are coordinated with other relevant and appropriate Agencies.

Licensing is an AST core function that fulfills statutory mandates and regulatory requirements that are designed to ensure public health and safety, safety of property, and compliance with U.S. foreign policy and national security requirements.  Licensing includes policy and payload reviews to ensure that the proposed activity does not adversely affect U.S. foreign policy or national security interests.

Looking forward, one of the most significant impacts of the Shuttle retirement is that currently, the U.S. must rely on other nations to deliver supplies to our astronauts onboard the International Space Station.  Over the next several months, two different American companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation, are planning to demonstrate their ability to take on that responsibility.  Those missions will be licensed by the FAA, and we are working closely with both companies, and with NASA, to ensure their success.  

While it may well be several years before we see U.S. rockets carrying people all the way to orbit, there is plenty of work going on right now that is aimed at ending our reliance on foreign interests to transport crewmembers to and from the International Space Station. American companies are eager to show that they can do the job as part of the Commercial Crew Development Program. The FAA is working directly with these companies, and with NASA, to ensure public safety during those launches, when they take place.  Over the next few years, we expect to see several abort tests being conducted, followed by uncrewed demonstration launches of the vehicles being designed for the commercial crew mission. 

The FAA is also actively engaged in collaborative planning for suborbital operations. As part of the Flight Opportunities Program, NASA recently awarded contracts to seven different companies six of which are developing reusable launch vehicles that are capable of carrying various science or technology payloads on suborbital missions.  Once the program gets underway, NASA hopes to be able to conduct those missions, under FAA licenses, as often as once per week, depending on payload demand for flights and flight opportunities program and funding level.

Space tourism represents another important segment of the industry.  Several companies are currently designing, developing, and testing vehicles that will be capable of carrying people up to the edge of space, with maximum altitudes in excess of 100 kilometers.  Based on market studies, we expect to see this type of activity result in a billion dollar industry within the next 10 years.  

States and local agencies are also continuing to approach our office with proposals for the development of commercial spaceports, with tenants ranging from NASA, to the military, to private industry.  These groups recognize the potential for jobs and economic development that could result from growth in our nation’s aerospace activities.

The President’s FY 2013 budget request for FAA AST is $16.7 million and provides for 73 full-time employees (FTEs).  Our FY 2013 request represents an increase of $429,000 over the FY 2012 enacted budget.  The request includes $15.7 million for core business operations.  It also includes $1 million for industry-based research and development and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education through the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation.  The Center of Excellence was established to encourage the teaming of resources and capabilities from academia, industry, and government to focus on research areas of primary interest to the FAA and to the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. 

AST is currently administering 14 active launch and reentry licenses for launches of Pegasus, Taurus (now called Antares), Atlas V, Delta IV, Delta II and Falcon 9.  There are currently eight active licenses for launch site operations and two license amendments submitted for significant launch site license modifications.  Based on industry launch manifests and planned flight test programs, AST forecasts a significant increase in launch and reentry operations in 2013.  This forecasted increase reflects a higher flight rate by experienced launch operators under multi-launch operator’s licenses from existing spaceports and launch sites, and new launch licenses and permits for newly-developed launch systems and proposed commercial spaceports.  AST is already performing initial safety analyses for some of the new launch systems planned to be operational in 2013.

The greater activity levels in the commercial space transportation industry will result in significant increases in the corresponding number of licenses evaluated and issued, environmental assessments, safety analyses, and safety inspections for our office.  To meet these increased workload demands, AST is planning to employ several additional flight safety and operations experts.  This will allow us to double the number of our staff assigned to operational safety oversight functions in our field offices at Cape Canaveral in Florida; in Houston, Texas; Mojave and Vandenberg AFB, California; and Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.  It will also allow us to increase the number of simultaneous safety analyses we can perform.

We will also be collaborating within the FAA to ensure commercial space transportation requirements and operating characteristics are effectively captured within the evolving NextGen system requirements and that commercial spaceflight operations (both orbital and suborbital) are safely integrated with the National Airspace System (NAS).

AST’s FY 2013 request also provides for focused operations to address the emergence of commercial human spaceflight and related technological and infrastructure needs.  Operational safety oversight of human spaceflight will require developing technical expertise in several new areas including environmental control, life support, and crew survivability.  To date, AST’s launch safety oversight experience and authority has been primarily focused on uncrewed launches of satellites into orbit using expendable launch vehicles.  Regulatory standards governing human spaceflight will evolve as the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle. technology development nor exposed crew or spaceflight participants to avoidable risks.  In accordance with the new FAA reauthorization language, the FAA will continue to work with industry to explore these areas, but will refrain from proposing regulations to protect persons on  board during the learning period until October 1, 2015. 

The FAA stands ready to support our national interest in the future of commercial space transportation.  Space exploration is a great American story.  Our history in space has been dynamic, often innovative, sometimes tragic, but always courageous and ultimately triumphant.  And with your help and leadership, that great American story will not only continue to unfold in our favor; but it will also create new jobs, produce new technologies, and expand our reach into the deep unknown of the universe.  Again, I am honored by this opportunity to come before you today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION
AND
JULIE OETTINGER,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON THE SAFETY AND COST OF THE FAA’S CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM,

JULY 18, 2012.

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the status of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) contract tower program.  Since its inception in 1982, this program has been part of how FAA delivers safe and cost-effective air traffic control management to the users of the national airspace system (NAS).  There is a general consensus that the program has been successful and it has created measurable efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators, while delivering safety benefits to the traveling public.  The FAA, the users of the system and the IG are confident that the contract controllers are competent and maintain the highest degree of safety. 

The program has grown significantly over the years.  It began as a pilot program to contract for air traffic control services for five Level I, lower activity towers that were closed as a result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike in 1981.  The program grew to 27 towers by 1993.  In 1994, Congress provided funding for a multi-year program to convert additional FAA-operated Level I towers to contract operations.  The Program was further expanded by including towers at airports that never had an FAA-operated tower.  Today there are 250 contract towers in the program across 49 states and territories.  

As this program has developed over the years, it has been the subject of great interest and, at times, controversy.  There were fears that this was the first step toward privatization of air traffic control.  There were fears that contact towers would not provide the same level of safety as those staffed by federal government employees.  There were fears that cost savings would overrule safety in the execution of this program.  I think the good news is this program has evolved in way to be a valuable component of how the FAA manages the NAS.   

As you consider this program today, let me note a number of factors that are shaping the program. 

First, the NAS is going through some significant changes.  The economic downturn that hit the U.S. in 2008 had a profound impact on the general aviation system, and the airport operations where many contract towers are located.  There has been a decline in commercial operations at contract towers by 13%, and an overall decrease in operations at those towers by 23%.  Critically, looking forward, our forecasts do not see operational levels returning to those seen prior to the economic downturn anytime soon.  So we need to make sure we are managing a program that delivers the safety and efficiency benefits to deal with this changing pattern of aviation activity.

Second, Congress has spoken in consistent support of this program, including how to find creative public-private partnerships to foster this program.  In 2000, Vision-100 authorized a cost share program so some communities that had an airport that did not meet the required cost-benefit ratio to qualify as a contract tower could instead qualify for a contract tower where the costs are shared between the FAA and the community based on the cost-benefit ratio.  Last year, the consolidated appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 2012 (PL 112-55) included a provision that capped the amount any community could be required to pay toward the operating costs of a contract tower in the cost share program at 20% of the total cost of the tower’s operation.  We agree with the Congress about the importance of the cost share program and are committed to working in an effective fashion with stakeholders to optimize how this program can contribute to our optimal management of the NAS.

Third, as the latest IG update on the status of this important program demonstrates, towers operated by individuals who do not work directly for the federal government generally function safely and cost-effectively.  The program creates measurable efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators while ensuring a high-level of safety in the NAS. 

Fourth, in light of the economic realities, the FAA’s ability to maximize its resources to benefit the overall needs of the NAS is extremely important.  That is why we proposed in our FY 2013 budget request to recover up to 50%, rather than the 20% currently imposed, of costs for towers that are not fully cost-beneficial.  The FAA is always investigating ways to operate more cost-effectively by reviewing and adjusting, as necessary, staffing levels, operating hours, and deployment of system enhancements.  We welcome opportunities to safely incorporate best practices from the contract tower program into FAA tower operations.

Fifth, we are updating the cost-benefit analysis for this important public-private partnership.  We last did an update of the cost-benefit analysis in 2008.  We delayed a new update for a couple of years given our uncertainties about the direction of activity levels and pending legislation that might change the program.  We are now moving forward, as existing operational trends appear to represent the new normal and Reauthorization has been enacted.   We continue to use the same basic model for our current cost-benefit work while updating inputs including traffic changes, revision to the Department of Transportation’s valuation for avoiding fatalities and injuries, and data from the FAA’s maturing cost accounting system.  We are discussing our approach to incorporating this new information with the U.S. Contract Tower Association to ensure that FAA is considering all pertinent factors in its calculations of individual towers.  FAA is determined not to make any final decisions until we have had a full and informed discussion with interested parties. 

Finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a well-grounded longer term approach.  The FAA’s Aviation Safety organization is currently conducting a study to compare safety data between airports with manned control towers (federal or contract) and airports that are unmanned.  This information will provide the FAA with important information about the future investment in air traffic control facilities and risk management.

We also need to make sure the contract tower program is well integrated into our NextGen endeavors.  How we manage air traffic, how we use technologies, and how we organize our facilities and infrastructure will all change over time as we bring NextGen technologies into the system.

In closing, I think we all recognize we live in challenging times and are dealing with a dynamic aviation system.  Taking a static view of equipment and services that are in a given place at a given time will not deliver the system the traveling public requires.  As new technologies emerge and are integrated into the system, the needs of the NAS, including those of contract towers, may change in order to take the best advantage of safety and efficiency opportunities.

“One size fits all” never has, and never will, be an effective way to make safety and efficiency decisions that affect the NAS and the travelling public.  FAA is the guardian of a system that has achieved a safety level that is envied around the world.  We remain committed to the contract tower program as an important component of how we deliver safety and efficiency in the NAS.  While fiscal realities must play a role in aviation investments, the FAA will not tolerate any degradation in safety, and we recognize that Congress and the traveling public share that view. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you.  I am happy to answer any questions you might have at this time.

STATEMENT OF
J. DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

THE CONSOLIDATION AND REALIGNMENT OF FAA FACILITIES,

MAY 31, 2012.

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you regarding the consolidation and realignment of the federal aviation administration’s (faa) facilities.  The FAA’s ability to meet the future needs of the aviation system, including the implementation of NextGen, fundamentally relies on the agency’s ability to optimize our facilities and workforce, to take advantage of emerging technologies and to serve the needs of those using the national airspace system (NAS).

Section 804 Requirements

I would like to say at the outset that we at the FAA view Sec. 804 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, as an invaluable opportunity to obtain Congressional support to move forward with the transformation of the FAA air traffic control facilities infrastructure.  The provision directs the FAA, with input from labor and industry to develop consensus recommendations on the realignment and consolidation of  FAA services and facilities, and to report to Congress on those recommendations within 120 days from the date of enactment.  The process is collaborative in nature and will require FAA to consider the input from several sources, including the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (IG).

Inspector General Draft Audit

While Sec. 804 applies to the facility consolidation and realignment plans for the entire agency, the Inspector General’s (IG) Office has a draft audit evaluating the Air Traffic Organization’s (ATO) efforts in this area. These efforts will form the foundation for proceeding with the implementation of NextGen technologies, while maintaining the safety and reliability of the infrastructure upon which we must rely until NextGen technologies come on-line.  The FAA has not yet had an opportunity formally to provide official input to the IG’s findings.    Nevertheless, we agree with the IG’s assertions in the draft audit that FAA has not sufficiently developed the metrics necessary to quantify the merits of various alternatives with respect to consolidation and realignment.  We are working hard to determine the appropriate criteria for making FAA’s decisions moving forward.  The criteria we used previously focused primarily on capital costs of brick and mortar, which was relatively simple to apply, but failed to address critical operating costs and issues.   Contract obligations and their impact on consolidations or realignment proposals, and location-specific differences in other operating costs make these larger decisions more complex.  As we work toward developing our criteria and analytic tools, we will continue to seek the best information available to us.

The FAA currently operates 542 facilities, including air traffic control centers, TRACONs, and airport towers.   Of these, 292 are staffed by FAA employees and 250 are contract towers.  FAA is responsible for the maintenance and/or replacement of 402 of these facilities, many of which are quite old.  As noted in the IG audit, as recently as 2008, FAA was making short term decisions about how to invest its fiscal resources on facilities based primarily on the immediate need to sustain the operations in the NAS.  As the facilities aged and required more and more maintenance, it became evident that short term, facility-specific investments were not a long-term, cost-effective method of maintaining our critical infrastructure and could not adequately support the implementation of NextGen.

Framework

The U.S. airspace is the most complex in the world.  It accommodates, not only XXX commercial operations a year, but also a robust general aviation community, as well as military operations.  This mix represents an extraordinary range of aircraft types, capabilities, and missions. For several years, we have recognized the need for a more holistic approach to address the combination of aging infrastructure and advancing technologies—technologies which no longer require that controllers be located near the airspace they are controlling in order to safely separate aircraft.  Because we can combine controller groups and their airspace, we can reduce the number of boundary hand-offs and, thus, the possibility of human error.  Working with our unions over the past two years, we have developed a strategy to address different areas of airspace over the contiguous 48 states.  The strategy adopts a segmented approach, prioritizing on the basis of need and optimization opportunity for the airspace and facilities in question.

Initial Efforts

Our initial focus is on the New York area, which is encompassed in Segment One of the FAA’s Capital Investment Plan.   Problems that develop in this airspace have consequences across the country.  We are currently engaged in a collaborative process to address the future in New York with our unions and facility management playing a central role.  We need their input and acceptance in order to proceed effectively.  There are 49 facilities to be considered in Segment One. How their consolidation or realignment is accomplished is something that is receiving our utmost attention and we expect to deal with a number of them in the proposal that we submit to Congress.  Also, as required by law, we will solicit input from industry stakeholders and impacted communities to achieve a proposal with all perspectives having been considered.  While obtaining and considering the views of a broad range of affected entities will take some time, it will result in a better product.  The proposal will include consideration of the existing facilities, their condition, their location, the anticipated needs of the region, whether and where new facilities should be constructed and how FAA employees would be impacted.  The cost of different alternative approaches will also need to be considered including, the tradeoff between capital costs and long-term operating costs.

Going Forward

Similarly, as we look beyond replacing the New York facilities, we anticipate our process to make consolidation and realignment decisions will be adjusted based on lessons learned, changing demands on the system and emerging technologies.  Consequently, while FAA’s segmented plan extends out for several decades, the plan submitted to Congress pursuant to the legislation will only cover the time period into the future for which we have reasonably reliable visibility.   As a result, the plan will  go out about 5-8 years.

We all recognize the importance of meeting tomorrow’s demands as quickly as possible while continuing to ensure the safety of the air transportation system.   With respect to consolidation, realignment, and transforming to NextGen, FAA appreciates the opportunity Sec. 804 affords us to make difficult decisions with the support of Congress.  We think the segmented approach ATO has developed strikes the right balance allowing us to make challenging decisions as quickly as possible.    We agree with the IG determination that there is more work to be done to quantify and justify difficult decisions.  We expect this ongoing process to be ever more refined as we progress.

Coordination with FAA Partners

With respect to the broader Sec. 804 directive, ATO has the largest role to play, given its size and the changing mission we must support as we transition to NextGen.  However, I want to assure you that other FAA organizations, led by the Shared Services Regions and Center Organization, are working together to ensure the FAA’s approach to consolidation, particularly in administrative space around the country which will contribute to the goal of the provision.  Each affected offices/lines of business have plans to meet with appropriate union representatives to develop a target plan that can be used as a platform to begin to include aviation stakeholders and impacted communities as required by the law. 

Until the passage of the most recent authorization, there was no requirement for a single agency-wide consolidated plan.  Consequently, the different needs and goals of each organization within the FAA were treated separately and included different time frames.  All of these different goals and timeframes must be coordinated and consolidated into a single proposal for Congressional consideration.  We believe this process will be complicated, but certainly worth doing, so we are up for the challenge of meeting the Congressional mandate.  I can state with certainty that the agency’s work is underway and advancing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to again thank the Committee for inviting me to testify today and for affording the FAA the chance to take advantage of the opportunity offered by Sec. 804.  I also appreciate the IG audit that confirms the complexities of our mandate and the work we must do to make the most effective decisions.  I would also like to thank our National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) partners for their collaboration in recognizing the need for significant change and to support the future of aviation.  We look forward to working with Congress, the IG, NATCA and the industry to achieve the best possible outcome for this ongoing process.

This concludes my statement.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.   

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER FOR AIR TRAFFIC,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

A REVIEW OF AVIATION SAFETY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

APRIL 25, 2012.

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting us here today to update the Subcommittee on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) progress in implementing the safety enhancement initiatives in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Act), and other operational issues related to air traffic management.  

First, we would like to begin with our progress on the initiatives in the 2010 Act. Over the past three years, the aviation industry, as with many other industries, has faced some tough economic challenges.  During this period, we have remained vigilant in our oversight responsibilities to ensure that we continue to have the safest aviation system in the world, while also advancing aviation for the future. The provisions in the 2010 Act helped facilitate several of these major advancements, such as new flight, duty and rest requirements for pilots, and issuing a proposal to require air carriers to implement safety management systems.  Although some of the provisions have taken longer than Congress anticipated under the provisions of the Act, we have made significant strides in accomplishing many of the objectives and I am here today to outline this progress for you.

The first area we would like to highlight for you is on pilot fatigue, which was identified as a top priority in the FAA’s 2009 call to action.  The FAA completed the final rule, which uses the latest fatigue science to address cumulative fatigue and how flight schedules affect the body’s 24-hour clock in calculating appropriate duty periods for pilots.  Flight duty periods under the new rule are more comprehensive and include flight-related activities such as time spent in training in an aircraft simulator, and standing by on-call for flights at an airport. These duties are part of the workday, contribute to fatigue, and must be counted as part of the core job of flying the airplane.  We also took into account that off-duty activities, such as playing golf or commuting, have an impact on fatigue. To address this, the final rule establishes new fitness for duty requirements that serve as a reminder to both airlines and pilots of their professional responsibilities to ensure that rest periods are used for what they are intended--to rest.

In regard to commuting, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its study on pilot commuting in July 2011.  The work by the NAS represents the most recent effort to determine whether there is a link between commuting and safety. The NAS panel identified neither a correlation between pilot commuting and safety nor a unique risk to aviation safety. However, the NAS also indicated that it was unable to find enough data to appropriately determine the relationship between commuting and safety.  Based on the NAS study, and the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation for the FAA to address commuting, the Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that we survey the data in order to conduct a proper analysis on what impact commuting may have on fatigue.  We have committed to reviewing the available data and reporting to the Inspector General this fall on whether a further data collection effort would be warranted.  

The next area we would like to address for you is our progress on developing requirements for air carriers to implement safety management systems.  The FAA met the statutory deadline in the 2010 Act and issued a rulemaking proposal on October 29, 2010. It was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2010 and the comment period closed March 7, 2011.  The FAA and industry recognize SMS as a holistic approach to safety that allows for trend spotting to help identify possible safety problems and correct them before they lead to accidents or incidents.    We know that SMS is not a substitute for FAA oversight, inspection, and audits of air carriers to ensure compliance with existing regulations and will continue to ensure our responsibilities in these areas are met. SMS would allow us, however, to take a more proactive approach to focus on risk prediction and mitigation strategies in order to tailor our oversight resources in a more effective manner.

In the areas of pilot qualification and training requirements, the FAA has initiated two rulemaking projects to address the pilot training and experience requirements highlighted in the 2010 Act. The first rulemaking project, Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, is a comprehensive proposal that would revise the current qualification and training requirements for pilots, flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers.  We first proposed this revision in 2009, one month prior to the Continental Flight 3407 accident.  The FAA received over 3,000 pages of comments in response to this proposal. Following the accident, the National Transportation Safety Board issued several recommendations related to training requirements for air carrier pilots.  The 2010 Act mandated some additional training requirements as well.  In order to fully consider the comments, address many of the NTSB’s recommendations resulting from the accident of Flight 3407, and incorporate the mandates of the Act, the FAA issued a supplemental proposal to permit interested parties to comment on the new requirements.  The supplemental proposal was issued on May 20, 2011 and the comment period closed on September 19, 2011. The FAA is actively reviewing the comments to develop a final rule that addresses these training enhancements.

The second rulemaking proposal would substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers (sometimes referred to as “co-pilots”) who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines, consistent with the mandate in the 2010 Act.  The proposed rule would require first officers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours of pilot flight time in most cases.  Currently, these pilots are required to have a commercial pilot certificate, which requires only 250 hours of flight time.  Some other highlights of the proposed rule include requiring pilots to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a pilot in air carrier operations that require an ATP prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; enhanced training requirements for an ATP certificate, including 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience; and completion of a new FAA-approved training program. 

            In the 2010 Act, Congress clearly acknowledged that the measurement of experience in determining when an individual may be ready to serve is not limited solely to the number of hours flown.  Rather, education and other commercial flying experience must also be considered.  Consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Act, this proposal also allows pilots with fewer than 1,500 hours of flight time to apply for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges.  As proposed, this certificate would only be issued to graduates of a four-year baccalaureate aviation degree program with 1,000 hours of flight time, provided they have obtained a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from a pilot school affiliated with the university or college.  Former military pilots with 750 hours of flight time may also qualify for this restricted ATP certificate.  Pilots with this restricted certificate would only be able to serve as first officers for U.S. airlines. They could not use it to serve as a captain in any commercial flying operation that requires an ATP, nor use it to teach other pilots.  Pilots seeking a restricted ATP would be tested to the same standard required for full ATP certificates, and they would be required to have the equivalent minimum instrument time and night time flight hours as a full ATP certificate would require. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closes April 30, 2012, and we will work diligently to develop a final rule that addresses the safety initiatives required in the 2010 Act.

Finally, we would like to address two areas of the 2010 Act that have presented some additional challenges for the FAA. The first concerns the area of pilot professionalism.  We, and industry, recognize the need to continuously improve professional standards to improve flightdeck discipline.  On September 15, 2010, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop recommendations on appropriate leadership training and professional development requirements for pilots.  That group of experts delivered its recommendations in November 2010, and the FAA has considered them in developing a rule to address the mentoring mandate in the 2010 Act.  We have not met the statutory deadline for this proposal because it has been difficult to draft a proposal that appropriately balances effectiveness and resulting benefits, with regulatory burden and cost, as we are required to do.

The second area concerns the requirements in the 2010 Act for the FAA to develop a centralized database of pilot records, which would include a pilot’s training and experience history.  While we have several major milestones in place and anticipate the database proof-of-concept by August 2012, there are many technical challenges.  Some of these challenges include defining requirements for the records to be reported, and integrating thousands of records kept on all forms of media, from paper to microfiche to various automated records. 

These initiatives are very complicated, and in some cases, very expensive. As the rulemakings progress, we are constantly evaluating how these provisions may best be leveraged to improve safety, while ensuring that the aggregate costs to society are not greater than these benefits as we are required to do. We remain committed to addressing these safety enhancements while continuing with our daily oversight responsibilities, and satisfying the requirements recently set forth in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.  In the 2012 Act, we have identified approximately 20 required rulemakings, and up to as many as 10 additional projects that will likely result in rulemaking, in addition to the 2010 Act’s rulemaking requirements.  Meeting the intent of Congress as anticipated under these Acts, while complying with our other requirements in conducting rulemaking, may present some challenges.  However, as we have demonstrated with the provisions of the 2010 Act, our dedicated safety-minded aviation professionals will continue to aggressively work on these issues, while they also continue to perform inspections, analyze data, look for areas for improvement, and work with air carriers to enhance aviation safety.

We would also like to address the advancements we have made within our air traffic safety programs.  The FAA has embraced a culture change in air traffic safety. As catastrophic events become extremely rare, the new approach focuses on risk, system design and the management of behavioral choices rather than forensics. 

We have put in place an Air Traffic Management System that will provide more insight into the types of events that occur in the National Airspace System that could affect safety. The goal is to identify and mitigate risks early before an accident occurs. It is important to look at precursors because they provide a window into how the safety system is working and they help identify risks. 

One area we have targeted is occurrence reporting within the FAA Air Traffic Organization.  Occurrence reporting, which is now mandatory, emphasizes the responsibility of all FAA employees involved with air traffic services to report suspected unsafe air traffic occurrences. This gives the organization an opportunity to collect safety information to determine why adverse safety events happen and to develop interventions based on quantifiable data. The objective is to collect enough information to identify system risks, make long term corrections and prevent adverse safety events.  We have made reporting this information easier by establishing a common software platform for all facilities which will also facilitate analysis now that it is in a digital format.

To collect and analyze this information, in 2010, the Air Traffic Organization began tracking losses of separation electronically, which include those errors commonly referred to as operational errors or pilot deviations.  The tool that enables this new collection of data is known as the Traffic Analysis and Review Program (TARP) and is installed at all terminal radar facilities.  TARP is an analytical tool available to local facilities and quality assurance staff to facilitate the detection of trends and development of corrective action.  Quality assurance staff has also begun centralized processing of TARP alerts collected from over 20 facilities.  These facilities are capable of collecting alerts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and we are adding new facilities operating at this level every month. Our goal is to be able to process alerts from all facilities by September 2012.

Another tool that has had an impact on our cultural change is our Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP).   ATSAP is a confidential, non-punitive reporting program that empowers FAA employees to play a direct role in safety.  Using this tool, we have seen an increase in safety reporting that has produced a wealth of information to help the FAA identify potential risks in the system and take swift action to address them.

            The FAA is also continuing efforts to improve safety on the nation’s airport runways. The FAA is working with all stakeholders on innovative programs and techniques to reduce the number and severity of surface incidents. Some of the runway incursion prevention actions include the deployment of technology, better communication and instructions such as line-up-and- wait, explicit taxi instructions for runway crossings, and deploying local runway safety action teams throughout the country.  These efforts have contributed to a reduction in total runway incursions from 1,009 runway incursions in FY 2008 to 954 in FY 2011.

As the results of these programs have demonstrated, we have embraced the necessary cultural changes to allow us to identify and mitigate risks early.  We remain committed to empowering our employees to be proactive and providing them with the tools they need to play a direct role in the safety of the National Airspace System. 

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our prepared remarks.  We would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY,

ON

AVIATION SAFETY:  UPDATE ON H.R. 5900. 

MARCH 20, 2012.

Chairman Cantwell, Senator Thune, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to update the Subcommittee on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) progress in implementing the safety enhancement initiatives in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010.   Just last month, we remembered the third anniversary of the tragic accident of Continental Flight 3407.  Over the past three years, the aviation industry, as with many other industries, has faced some tough economic challenges.  During this period, we have remained vigilant in our oversight responsibilities to ensure that we continue to have the safest aviation system in the world, while also advancing aviation for the future. The provisions in the 2010 Act helped facilitate several of these major advancements, such as new flight, duty and rest requirements for pilots, and issuing a proposal to require air carriers to implement safety management systems.  Although some of the provisions have taken longer than Congress anticipated under the provisions of the Act, we have made significant strides in accomplishing many of the objectives and I am here today to outline this progress for you.

Pilot Flight, Duty, and Rest Requirements.

In 2009, the Department of Transportation identified the issue of pilot fatigue as a top priority in the Safety Call to Action following the accident of Flight 3407.  The FAA launched an aggressive effort to create a new pilot flight, duty and rest proposal, which we issued in September 2010. On December 21, 2011, Secretary LaHood and Acting Administrator Huerta announced the completion of the final rule.   This new rule provides the necessary protections for passenger airline pilots, allowing for responsible pilots to be fully rested and alert when reporting for duty, which is what the traveling public expects when they board an airplane.  Using the latest fatigue science, the rule addresses cumulative fatigue and how flight schedules affect the body’s 24-hour clock in calculating appropriate duty periods for pilots, providing pilots a greater opportunity for rest.  Factors such as the time of day a pilot takes his or her first flight, the number of scheduled flight segments, and the number of time zones crossed, will now all be considered when determining how long a pilot can remain on duty without a rest period.

            This rule also expands the definition of a flight duty period to include more than just flying the airplane.  Flight duty periods are now more comprehensive, and include flight-related activities such as time spent in training in an aircraft simulator, and standing by on-call for flights at an airport.   These duties are part of the workday, contribute to fatigue, and must be counted as part of the core job of flying the airplane. The rule also provides for a 10-hour minimum rest period before a flight duty period, which is two hours more than required under the old flight and duty time provisions. We have also addressed cumulative fatigue by placing weekly and 28-day limits on a pilot’s schedule.

This rule provides the necessary flexibility to use fatigue science as it progresses to combat fatigue.  Air carriers will be allowed to develop a fatigue risk management system, which provides an opportunity to create an alternative model for combating fatigue by incorporating the latest innovations in mitigating fatigue.

This final rule also establishes new fitness for duty requirements that serve as a reminder to both airlines and pilots of their professional responsibilities to ensure that rest periods are used appropriately and that pilots arrive at the start of an assignment alert and ready for work.  In establishing these requirements, we took into account that off-duty activities do have an impact on fatigue for pilots, regardless of the type of activity, such as playing golf or commuting to work. We expect pilots to manage their off-duty rest to ensure they report ready for work. We expect the air carriers to support pilots who self-report fatigued and not assign them to duty.

Due to the complexity of the rule, completing this rulemaking effort took longer than expected.   As many in Congress have noted, new rules may add new costs.  As with discretionary rules, in instances where the FAA has been directed by Congress to issue a final rule, we are still required to do so in a manner in which the benefits resulting from the rule justify the costs.  In evaluating this rule under this requirement, it became clear that applying this rule to cargo operators was not clearly justified compared to the benefits generated for this segment of the industry.  The final rule does allow cargo operators to voluntarily adopt provisions of the rule, and some of these operators are already improving rest facilities for pilots. We have encouraged, and continue to encourage cargo carriers to continue improving their rest and fatigue related policies.

Safety Management Systems. 

The 2010 Act required the FAA to issue a proposal to require air carriers to develop and implement a safety management system (SMS) within 90 days of the Act’s enactment.  The FAA met this statutory deadline and issued the proposal on October 29, 2010. It was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2010 and the comment period closed March 7, 2011.  As proposed, the SMS rule would give air carriers a set of business processes and management tools to examine data from everyday operations, isolate trends that may be precursors to incidents or accidents, and develop and carry out appropriate risk mitigation strategies.  The FAA and industry recognize SMS as a holistic approach to safety that allows for trend spotting to help identify possible safety problems and correct them before they lead to accidents or incidents.  In the proposal, the FAA described what an acceptable SMS might look like, not how the SMS requirements would be met. This allows air carriers to develop and implement an SMS that best matches the size and complexity of their own unique operating environments.  SMS is not a substitute, however, for FAA oversight, inspection, and audits of air carriers to ensure compliance with existing regulations. 

Pilot Qualification Standards.

On February 29, 2012, we published a proposal that would substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers (sometimes referred to as “co-pilots”) who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines, consistent with the mandate in the 2010 Act.  The proposed rule would require first officers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours of pilot flight time.  Currently, these pilots are required to have a commercial pilot certificate, which requires only 250 hours of flight time.  Some other highlights of the proposed rule include requiring pilots to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a pilot in air carrier operations that require an ATP prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; enhanced training requirements for an ATP certificate, including 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience; and completion of a new FAA-approved training program. 

            In the 2010 Act, Congress clearly acknowledged that the measurement of experience in determining when an individual may be ready to serve is not limited solely to the number of hours flown.  Rather, education and other commercial flying experience must also be considered.  Consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Act, this proposal also allows pilots with fewer than 1,500 hours of flight time to apply for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges.  As proposed, this certificate would only be issued to graduates of a four-year baccalaureate aviation degree program with 1,000 hours of flight time, provided they have obtained a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from a pilot school affiliated with the university or college.  Former military pilots with 750 hours of flight time may also qualify for this restricted ATP certificate.  In both cases, pilots with this restricted certificate would only be able to serve as first officers for U.S. airlines. They could not use it to serve as a captain in any commercial flying operation that requires an ATP, nor use it to teach other pilots.  Pilots seeking a restricted ATP would be tested to the same standard required for full ATP certificates, and they would be required to have the equivalent minimum instrument time and night time flight hours as a full ATP certificate would require. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closes April 30, 2012, and we will work diligently to develop a final rule that addresses the safety initiatives required in the 2010 Act.

Crewmember Training Requirements:

In January 2009, one month prior to the Continental Flight 3407 accident, the FAA published a proposal to enhance training programs by requiring the use of simulation devices by pilots.  The FAA received over 3,000 pages of comments in response to this proposal. Following the accident, the National Transportation Safety Board issued several recommendations related to training requirements for air carrier pilots.  And the 2010 Act mandated some additional training requirements as well.  In order to fully consider the comments, address many of the NTSB’s recommendations resulting from the accident of Flight 3407, and incorporate the mandates of the Act, the FAA issued a supplemental proposal to permit interested parties to comment on the new requirements.  The supplemental proposal was issued on May 20, 2011 and the comment period closed on September 19, 2011. The FAA is actively reviewing the comments to develop a final rule that addresses these training enhancements.

In addition to this rulemaking, in 2011, the FAA established the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather (SPAW) Aviation Rulemaking Committee to examine upset prevention and recovery training and provide recommendations to address stick pusher and adverse weather events.   

Mentoring and Professionalism:

The FAA recognizes the need to continuously improve professional standards to improve flightdeck discipline.  On September 15, 2010, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop recommendations on appropriate leadership training and professional development requirements for pilots.  That group of experts delivered its recommendations in November 2010, and the FAA has considered them in developing a rule to address the mentoring mandate in the 2010 Act.  We have not met the statutory deadline for this proposal because we are evaluating how this effort aligns with existing rulemaking projects.  We aim to find a set of proposals that appropriately balances   effectiveness and resulting benefits, with regulatory burden and cost.

These rulemakings are very complicated, and in some cases, very expensive. As these rules progress, we are constantly evaluating how these provisions may best be leveraged to improve safety, while ensuring that the aggregate costs to society are not greater than these benefits as we are required to do.

We remain committed to aggressively addressing these safety enhancements while continuing with our daily oversight obligations.  In the time since the passage of the 2010 Act, approximately 1.3 billion passengers have travelled on U.S. commercial airlines without a single fatality.  At the same time, the FAA has overseen the safe management of the merger of 8 airlines, resulting in 4 new entities –each larger and more complex than ever before.  While these mergers had a significant impact on FAA resources, they were handled efficiently and in a manner that ensures continued compliance with regulations and safe operating practices.  We have also approved and assisted in implementing the use of new technologies to support NextGen – making operations safer and more efficient. And every day our air carrier safety workforce of 840 dedicated professionals performed inspections, analyzed data, spotted areas for improvement and worked with air carriers to enhance aviation safety.

Our success in advancing these safety enhancements, while continuing to manage our daily safety oversight responsibilities and plan for the future, is due in large part to the dedication of safety-minded aviation professionals in all parts of our industry, including the FAA’s inspector workforce.

In conclusion, we believe that the collective efforts of FAA, the airlines, labor unions and, of course, Congress, will continue to result in ensuring the safety enhancements identified in the 2010 Act are addressed.  Safety is at the core of the FAA’s mission, and we will always strive to make a safe system safer.  

Chairman Cantwell, Senator Thune, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks.  I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

PILOT FATIGUE,

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts to mitigate the impacts of pilot fatigue to enhance aviation safety.  Updating FAA’s regulatory requirements on pilot fatigue has been a high priority for Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt. As you know, Administrator Babbitt was formerly a commercial pilot, so his interest in and insights about pilot fatigue have been longstanding, and were helpful in making rulemaking on this matter an Administration priority.  Their assistance and guidance on this matter have been invaluable.  I am pleased that their focus has enabled the FAA to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 14, 2010, that proposes changes to the current flight duty and rest regulations.  The NPRM represents a comprehensive proposal that is the result of extensive outreach to the aviation industry, labor and the scientific community.  Unlike the existing requirements, the proposal would establish a single, scientifically-based regulatory approach for all Part 121 operators, including domestic and international passenger and cargo operations, as well as supplemental carriers.

While the publication of this NPRM is a huge step forward, I want to stress that it is the latest step in a long history of FAA efforts to mitigate fatigue.  We held symposia on fatigue and worked with aviation industry and the scientific community to gather data to meet the scheduling demands of the industry (including ultra long-range flights), without compromising safety.  As the science of fatigue matured, we worked to educate the industry to mitigate risks as they were identified.  The new proposal reflects our drive to reach consensus across different facets of the aviation industry.

In the past, I have said something that is worth repeating now: regardless of what regulatory framework is in place, mitigating the effects of fatigue is a shared responsibility.  The FAA has the responsibility to put the framework in place.  The air carrier has the responsibility to schedule its flight crews responsibly and in accordance with that framework.  The pilot has the ultimate responsibility to use the hours set aside for rest to actually rest, to report for duty in a fit condition, and to notify the airline when he or she is too fatigued or otherwise not fit for duty.  Nothing about the latest proposal changes those basic responsibilities.

In the aftermath of the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident in February 2009, the FAA placed great emphasis on all safety factors that either were, or could have been, a contributing cause to the accident.  Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt issued an Airline Safety Call to Action for the foremost aviation safety experts to discuss the best ways to make an already safe industry even safer.  Fatigue was clearly a factor of some concern, given that one member of the Colgan flight crew commuted from the West Coast prior to reporting for duty and the evidence suggested that she may not have had sufficient rest.

In addition to the Call to Action, Administrator Babbitt convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) comprised of representatives from airline management and pilot labor unions to review fatigue-related issues and to make specific scientifically-based recommendations that could be the basis of rulemaking.  The ARC delivered its report and recommendations in September 2009.  The report and recommendations reflected consensus on many issues, but there were a handful of issues where the ARC did not reach consensus.  In addition, the ARC was not charged with performing any type of economic analysis, which the FAA must provide in any rulemaking initiative. 

The NPRM utilizes accepted assumptions as to what causes fatigue and creates a framework that addresses those risks.  For example, it is generally accepted that higher levels of activity cause more fatigue and that most people need eight hours of sleep in a 24 hour period in order to perform effectively and remain alert.  It is also acknowledged that an average person needs in excess of nine hours of sleep in order to recover from accumulated sleep deprivation and the quality of the sleep an individual gets is usually affected by the time of day in which it occurs, with nighttime sleeping being more restorative.

Using these assumptions as a basis, the NPRM focuses on the nature of the operation.  During a duty period, how many take-offs and landings does the pilot fly?  Do the operations involved cross time zones and, if so, how many?  Are the operations during the day or at night?  The proposal recognizes that basing hourly restrictions solely on the total number of hours of duty time or flight time does not have as much meaning as factoring in what kind of operations were being flown during that period.  Different operations result in different fatigue levels and that reality must be recognized in any new regulatory framework.

The NPRM would impose requirements for rest, flight time, and duty time.  There is a proposed nine hour rest requirement prior to flying related duty.  In addition, flight time restrictions include limits for every 28-day period, as well as annual limits.  The flight time restrictions also reflect all operations flown for the carrier by the pilot, even if some of those flights are ferrying operations or other flights not flown under Part 121.  Finally, both the flight time and duty time restrictions proposed would reflect differences in the types of operations flown as well as when they are flown, and require shorter duty periods for certain times of day and quantities of takeoffs and landings.   

The proposal would also gives carriers the option of integrating a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) into their scheduling systems.  FRMS is a carrier-specific method of evaluating how best to mitigate fatigue, based on active monitoring and evaluation by the carrier and flightcrew members.  In this case, the carrier would model its schedules to determine where there may be risk from fatigue.  The carrier would develop mitigation strategies to eliminate or mitigate that risk.  The FAA will determine that the FRMS provides an equivalent level of protection as afforded by the rule and approve the carrier’s system.  FRMS were strongly supported by both labor and management in the ARC, because it ensures that each schedule is analyzed and proper mitigation is implemented.

This approach has the potential to provide a cooperative and flexible means of monitoring and mitigating fatigue during operations when the prescriptive approach is not optimal.   We are seeking public comments about how best to realize that potential.  An FRMS requires a carrier to develop numerous processes and structures within an operation.  These measures lead to effective management and mitigation of fatigue on the part of both the carrier and its employees that might affect the operation.

One area that I know is of great interest to this Committee is pilot commuting, which our NPRM discusses in the preamble.  The ARC made no recommendation on commuting.  However, the ARC did point out that pilots are required to report to work fit for duty; and that means rested.  Although our proposal does not include specific restrictions on commuting, it does make some modifications to ensure that all pilots, including those who commute, are meeting the existing requirements to report fit for duty.

As I noted at the beginning of this statement, pilot personal responsibility is critical to whatever fatigue rule is ultimately adopted, whether or not commuting restrictions are imposed.  Pilots must commute responsibly, but this proposal broadens that responsibility to include the air carrier, who must be aware of how pilots are commuting to work and must make a determination that each pilot is fit for duty.  It is unreasonable to assume that a pilot is resting while commuting, either locally or long distance, and our proposal requires air carriers to consider the commuting times pilots needs to reach their home base while still receiving the required opportunity for rest.  It also calls on co-workers – other crew members, dispatchers, etc. – to determine that pilots they’re working with are fit for duty.  We believe mandating this shared responsibility will address the risks posed by a pilot failing to identify that he or she is not sufficiently rested – and therefore not fit for duty.

Finally, one of the most challenging issues we have had to resolve in order to move forward with a new fatigue regulatory proposal is that of the costs associated with a new rule compared with the benefits that are expected to accrue from a new requirement.  All of us in government and industry associated with aviation are dedicated to enhancing aviation safety.  This is what we work for day in and day out.  At the same time, we seek to ensure that rules do not impose excessive, unjustified, or unnecessary costs on airlines, airline employees, and consumers.  We are required to provide the public with information about the projected costs and benefits associated with any regulatory proposal.  Reducing fatigue, through whatever means, may result in the carriers having to add more pilots to comply with new standards, thus adding costs.  We believe, however, that carriers will optimize their crew schedules within any new regulatory requirements to continue to be as efficient as possible. 

While we prefer and seek out regulatory options that result in net benefits, there is no absolute requirement that monetary benefits of regulatory proposals outweigh monetary costs.  But the benefits, both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, must justify the associated costs.   While we have explicitly sought public comments about possible improvements in the proposed rule, we believe it meets that standard.  It is important to understand that increasing airline safety creates a number of important social benefits, some of which are hard to quantify.

Though producing this NPRM did take longer than we expected, we believe we have a solid starting point for a new and better way forward in this area.  While this is not the last step in this process, I am extremely proud of the FAA team for this achievement.  I would like to thank the many, many members of the Administration, the aviation and labor community, and the scientific community for their tireless efforts to assist Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt in moving forward with the proposed fatigue NRPM.  I would also like to acknowledge the support of Congress and the families of victims of the Colgan accident and other family groups in this area.

There is work to be done in order to make the NPRM ultimately into a final rule,  but I am confident that this comprehensive proposal is a step forward and I look forward to receiving public comments and to working with all interested parties, including this Committee, to finalize improved flight duty and rest standards that will enhance safety because that is our shared ultimate goal.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.  I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL P. HUERTA,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,

ON

THE FUTURE OF UNMANNED AVIATION IN THE U.S. ECONOMY; SAFETY AND PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS,

JANUARY 15, 2014.

Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Thune, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).  This emerging technology has been of great interest to state and federal government agencies, the public, and Congress for the past several years.  Many new technologies have abstract benefits that are sometimes hard to succinctly describe or understand.  UAS have applications that are not only readily understandable, but have the potential for broad benefits for virtually all Americans.  From homeland security, emergency management and law enforcement, to food and package delivery, the potential uses for UAS technology are limitless.  Realistically, neither the technical nor operational capabilities necessary exist today to implement the opportunities described by visionaries, but their promises for 21^st century conveniences are compelling.

Meeting the challenges for realizing this potential will take a concerted effort and must achieve the requisite balance of maximizing the technological benefits, while maintaining safety and efficiency of the national airspace system (NAS).  I would like to update you on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts as we work with government and industry to improve the technologies associated with UAS so that their integration into the NAS can be achieved in a safe and acceptable manner.

It is important to put the integration of UAS into the NAS in its proper context.  The FAA has a history of accommodating new technology into the NAS safely and effectively.  UAS is the latest technology to be developed that FAA is working to integrate.  While FAA’s role in this effort is critical, it is limited to NAS safety and operational efficiency.  As with other manned technologies, FAA’s role does not extend to directing or otherwise limiting the underlying purposes for which the aircraft is used.   Consequently, if a particular UAS operation does not impact the safety or efficiency of the NAS, it is beyond FAA’s authority to enforce or otherwise correct that action.  However, because FAA is uniquely positioned to gather information from our regulated entities, we are committed to sharing pertinent information to better enable the resolution of all issues affecting the use of UAS, even when they are not specifically safety-related.

For example, in November 2013, FAA released a privacy policy that will apply by contract to the UAS test sites that were selected on December 30, 2013.  This will enable interested organizations and government partners to evaluate a broad range of information provided by the work done at the test sites and assess the potential impact of UAS operations on privacy concerns. 

I am very interested in the selection of the test sites and the important work they will be doing, but before getting ahead of myself, I would like to set forth a basic framework for how the FAA will integrate unmanned aircraft into the NAS.  In some ways, unmanned aircraft are inherently different from manned aircraft.  They possess a wider operational range than manned aircraft, with a wider number of different physical and operational characteristics.  Some UAS are the size of a fist, and fly at low altitudes and slow speeds.  Others have glider-like bodies with the wing span of a 737 and can fly above 60,000 feet.  Many can fly and hover longer than manned aircraft.  Their common characteristic, distinguishing UAS from manned aircraft, is that their pilot is on the ground and not on board the aircraft.  This is a very new and different common denominator.

For the last two decades, the FAA has authorized the limited use of unmanned aircraft for important missions in the public interest.  These include firefighting, disaster relief, search and rescue, law enforcement, border security, military training, and testing and evaluation.  About 36 law enforcement agencies operate unmanned aircraft now under certificates of authorization.  Universities also use unmanned aircraft for research into weather, agriculture, and industrial uses. 

FAA estimates that we can expect 7,500 small unmanned aircraft in the NAS over the next five years, provided regulations and operational guidelines/policies are in place to handle them.  We recognize that, while the expanded use of UAS presents great opportunities, integrating them also presents significant challenges.  Operational issues, such as pilot training, must be addressed.  Additionally, we need to make sure that unmanned aircraft can detect and avoid other aircraft and that they operate safely, even if they lose the link to the pilot in command.  Likewise, manned aircraft must be able to detect these aircraft as well.

Our airspace system is not static and it is important for industry to understand that unmanned operations will evolve over time, just as they have over the past decade.  Today, unmanned aircraft are used to keep our borders safe.  They help with scientific research and environmental monitoring.  They support law enforcement agencies and help state universities conduct research. 

As we move forward, the use of small unmanned aircraft is likely to grow most quickly in civil commercial operations.  These UAS are extremely versatile and have relatively low initial cost and operating expenses.  The FAA is working on a proposed rule governing the use of a wide range of smaller UAS, which, in accordance with the roadmap, we expect to issue this year.

FAA’s long term goal of UAS integration will rely on the test sites to answer key questions and provide solutions to the issues noted above, as well as how they will interface with the air traffic control system.  This information will help the FAA to develop regulations and operational procedures for future civil commercial use of UAS in the NAS.

Last year, the FAA, often in consultation with other key government partners and industry stakeholders, issued a number of key documents intended to assist in defining parameters to safely integrate these very diverse systems into the world’s most complex airspace.  The Integration of Civil UAS in the NAS Roadmap outlines, within a broad timeline, the tasks and considerations needed to enable UAS integration into the NAS.  The five year Roadmap, updated annually, provides stakeholders with proposed agency actions to assist with their planning and development.  One concrete achievement facilitated by the roadmap took place in September 2013 when the first commercial flight of an unmanned aircraft took place in the skies above the Arctic Circle.  A Scan-Eagle completed a 36 minute flight to view marine mammals and survey ice.  There are hopes that UAS can be used to meet environmental and safety requirements in the Artic.   The flight was coordinated by Insitu (the UAS manufacturer), Conoco Phillips, and other federal and international agencies.  The Arctic region is the only area to date where we have authorized the use of small unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes.

The UAS Comprehensive Plan was drafted by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) in coordination with JPDO Board participants from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Commerce (DOC), Homeland Security (DHS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the FAA.  It is a document that considers UAS issues beyond 2015, including technologies necessary for safe and routine operation of civil UAS and the establishment of a process to inform FAA rulemaking projects related to certification, flight standards and air traffic requirements.  The Comprehensive Plan details work that has been accomplished, along with future efforts needed to achieve safe integration of UAS into the NAS.  It sets overarching, interagency goals, objectives, and approaches to achieving integration.  Each partner agency will work to achieve these national goals and may develop agency-specific plans that are aligned to the national goals and objectives.

The safe integration of UAS in the NAS will be facilitated by new technologies being deployed in the NAS as part of NextGen.  The NAS Voice System will allow unmanned aircraft pilots to communicate directly with the air traffic controllers – a key requirement in integration.  Safe integration will lead us from today’s need for accommodation of UAS through individual approvals to a time when unmanned aircraft can “file and fly” in the NextGen environment.

With respect to another important issue for UAS development, in November 2013, FAA also released a privacy policy that applies to the UAS test sites.  This policy requires operators to comply with all local, state and federal laws concerning privacy and civil liberties.  FAA is requiring the test site operators to create a privacy policy that is available to the public.  The test site operator must require anyone operating unmanned aircraft at the site to have a written plan for how they will use and retain any test data acquired.  On a broader level, agencies across the government are coming together to work on privacy issues that may arise with the increasing use of unmanned aircraft beyond these test sites.  Ensuring that UAS integration does not erode individuals’ privacy is a goal supported by both government and industry.

This brings me to the announcement of the selection of the test sites.  FAA received 25 applications from 24 states, so I was quite pleased with the depth and range of the proposals we reviewed.  In selecting the sites, FAA considered many factors.  We made a concerted effort to pick sites that reflected both geographic and climactic diversity.  We also took into consideration the location of ground infrastructure.  We looked at the type of research that would happen at each site and the aviation experience of the applicants, as well as the type and volume of aircraft that fly near the sites.  Our research goals are focused on (1) gathering system safety data, (2) aircraft certification, (3) command and control link issues, (4) control station layout and certification criteria, (5) ground and airborne detect and avoid capabilities, and (6) impacts on affected populations and the environmental. 

The following test sites were selected by the FAA, after consultation with DOD and NASA:

• University of Alaska.  The University of Alaska proposal contained a diverse set of test site range locations in seven climatic zones as well as geographic diversity with test site range locations in Hawaii and Oregon. The research plan includes the development of a set of standards for unmanned aircraft categories, state monitoring and navigation.  Alaska also plans to work on safety standards for UAS operations. 
• State of Nevada. Nevada’s project objectives concentrate on UAS standards and operations as well as operator standards and certification requirements. The test site’s research will also include a concentrated look at how air traffic control procedures will evolve with the introduction of UAS into the civil environment and how these aircraft will be integrated with NextGen.  Nevada’s selection contributes to geographic diversity.
• New York’s Griffiss International Airport.  Griffiss International plans to work on developing test and evaluation as well as verification and validation processes under FAA safety oversight. The test site also plans to focus its research on sense and avoid capabilities for UAS and its sites will aide in researching the complexities of integrating UAS into the congested, northeast airspace.
• North Dakota Department of Commerce.  North Dakota plans to develop UAS airworthiness essential data and validate high reliability link technology. This test site will also conduct human factors research. North Dakota’s application was the only one to offer a test range in the Temperate (continental) climate zone and included a variety of different airspace which will benefit multiple users.
• Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi.  Texas A&M plans to develop system safety requirements for UAS vehicles and operations with a goal of protocols and procedures for airworthiness testing. The selection of Texas A&M contributes to geographic and climatic diversity.
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech).  Virginia Tech plans to conduct UAS failure mode testing and identify and evaluate operational and technical risks areas. This proposal includes test site range locations in both Virginia and New Jersey.

As required by Congress, we expect the first test site to be operational within 180 days of the December 30, 2013, announcement and that the test sites  will continue to operate until at least February 2017.

As I noted at the outset, the FAA has successfully brought new technology into the nation’s aviation system for more than 50 years, and I have no doubt that we will do the same with unmanned aircraft.  The announcements of the UAS Roadmap, the Comprehensive Plan, the test site privacy policy and the test site selections are all concrete steps in support of an emerging technology that has extraordinary potential.  We have the safest aviation system in the world, and our goal is to introduce this new and important technology while still maintaining safety as our highest priority.

We are cognizant of the goals that have been set by Congress for us to integrate UAS into the NAS.  We will meet these goals with the collective technological and creative innovations of our government and industry colleagues.

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

STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL P. HUERTA,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012: TWO YEARS LATER,

ON

FEBRUARY 5, 2014.

Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to review the accomplishments of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) during the past two years since Congress passed, and the  President signed into law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act).  For those of us who were working on developing and passing the Act, and I was only in office for part of it, we remember the long and difficult road we travelled to achieve passage.  In part because the bills were works in progress for so long, when the legislation passed, it was truly comprehensive in nature.  It contained over 200 deliverables, nearly half of which were due within the first year after enactment.  FAA takes the Congressional direction we receive very seriously and our employees work hard to achieve the goals and directives you legislate.  Given the breadth and depth of the Act, it would be difficult to provide a comprehensive review of all FAA responses its provisions.  I will, therefore, focus on three main areas that I know are of concern to this Subcommittee: Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and the consolidation and realignment of FAA facilities, often referred to as section 804.  I think my time before you would be best spent updating you on these three vital initiatives because they are critical to how the agency, the aviation industry and the safety and efficiency of the national airspace system (NAS) will evolve over the coming years.

Before I begin, I would like to note what a difference a year makes.  Last year, I sat before you days before the funding restrictions of sequestration were imposed.  I know everyone in government was challenged by the effects of those restrictions.  I would like to express my gratitude that Congress worked through the many serious compromises and potentially crippling funding issues and passed the Omnibus Appropriations bill.  This vital legislation provides needed predictability during a very uncertain budget environment.  I appreciate the effort and the achievement.

NextGen

Let me begin with NextGen.  Following the Reauthorization, I named Michael G. Whitaker, who assumed the role of Deputy Administrator on June 3, 2013, 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.  I knew that he was the right choice for this role and I am confident that NextGen will continue to flourish under his leadership.  Mr. Whitaker made it clear that helping to build and deploy NextGen was one of the principle reasons he joined the FAA and he has great commitment to ensuring that we reap the maximum benefits from NextGen enhancements. 

In September 2013, Air Force Major General Edward L. Bolton Jr. became the new Assistant Administrator for NextGen.  Mr. Bolton’s accomplished military career involved many leadership positions.  Most recently, he served as Assistant Secretary for Budget in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller, where he led a team of financial managers responsible for the Air Force's $110 billion annual budget.  His leadership and commitment to public service is apparent.  I am confident that he is well-suited to lead the talented workforce responsible for transforming the NAS under NextGen.  NextGen is already delivering concrete benefits to users of the national airspace.  Because of NextGen improvements, we are able 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. NextGen procedures have resulted in reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, as envisioned at the time of the Reauthorization.  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.^[1]  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.

The agency has made consistent progress in delivering NextGen in several key areas since the Reauthorization.  One such area is Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B).  This system transitions 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.  To date, the FAA has installed more than 596 ADS-B ground stations, 566 of which are operational.  ADS-B ground stations provide traffic and weather information to more than 1,700 properly equipped aircraft and supporting air traffic control separation services at eight En Route and 38 Terminal facilities.  Users with ADS-B capabilities are already achieving increases in efficiency and fuel burn.  They can also increase flight hours by virtue of being able to operate in periods of low visibility, which is particularly important in areas like Alaska and over the Gulf of Mexico.

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.

We are in the final stages of the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program, which will provide benefits for users and the flying public by increasing capacity and efficiency, as well as allowing us to add new capabilities into the airspace system.

One of the most exciting new capabilities we have underway is Data Communications (Data Comm).  Data Comm allows us to communicate through written instructions to pilots, which reduces the possibility of  error with radio communications.  More importantly, Data Comm allows us to communicate highly complex clearances that are not practical to convey over the radio – instructions that can be automatically loaded into the aircraft’s flight management system.  This will ultimately save operators and passengers time and money, and will vastly improve the flexibility and efficiency of our operations. The FAA has awarded the Data Communications (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.

NextGen’s Performance Based Navigation (PBN) facilitates more efficient design of airspace and procedures which collectively result in improved access, capacity, predictability, operational efficiency, and environmental benefits.  PBN’s Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance (RNAV and RNP) procedures are providing greater operational flexibility and  capabilities. Optimized Profile Descents allow aircraft to reduce engine power and virtually glide down to the runway.  This leads to reduced fuel burn, which reduces the carbon footprint of large air carriers, as well as reduced noise.  New departure procedures, made capable by NextGen at major airports across the country, are reducing delays and increasing capacity.  The optimization of airspace and procedures in the Metroplex program has seven active teams in various phases of development.

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.

In this month’s release, we have added three new key performance indicators:

1. Effective gate-to-gate time at Core 30 airports. An efficiency indicator, it measures the duration of travel from scheduled gate-out time to the actual gate-in time.  As outlined in Sec. 214 of the FAA Reform Act, gate-to-gate is an important metric of NextGen success.
2. Effective gate-to-gate predictability for city pairs. This too is an efficiency indicator, and we have chosen city pairs as recommended by the NextGen Advisory Committee, our industry-government partnership that advises the FAA on key NextGen initiatives.  Based on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the metric measures whether flight duration is consistent over time between NAC-recommended city pairs
3. Average Daily Capacity for Core 30 airports.

The NextGen Performance Snapshots reports the average daily capacity at Core 30 airports during reportable hours.  For instance, at MEM, reportable hours cover all hours of a day, while at JFK, they include the 6:00 to 23:59 time period.  Another reauthorization metric, the user reference provides the data sources and definitions as well as the methodology to compute the metrics.

In the latest release, we added a metroplex section highlighting the FAA’s initiatives to improve air traffic flows in busy metropolitan areas.  The metroplex concept revolves around traffic flow de-confliction in a complex airspace where airports are in close proximity. There are 21 metroplexes and each metroplex is linked to an individual page that provides:

• the list of airports included in the metroplex,
• a description of operations by user class (commercial air carriers, GA, military),
• passenger volume as well as
• the expected benefits expected to accrue upon completion of the NextGen near-term procedural improvements implemented by the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) program

Additionally, we updated our efficiency, access, city pair and environmental metrics with the latest available data.  We also introduced four more success stories that highlight some of the more significant results we are seeing from NextGen implementations. 

1. Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance at a GA airport in California - NextGen procedure enables pilots of equipped aircraft to land even when the approach to the runway is covered in fog.   LPV provides a great backup (to the ILS) and it is another means for pilots to get their passengers into airports they otherwise could not.
2. The use of Performance-Based Navigation at Jackson Hole - A satellite-based precision procedure that makes the landing path to Jackson Hole both safer and shorter for equipped aircraft.  The new procedure, which keeps aircraft on a tightly-defined track along a smooth, curved path, provides a safety cushion between the approach path and the higher terrain to the west.
3. Area Navigation off-the-ground at DFW - The FAA has put in place a NextGen procedure that triples the number of departures the airport can accommodate, a significant increase in the airport's throughput up to 20% on an average day.  The NextGen procedure makes it possible for flights to take off with less distance between each aircraft — 1 nautical mile compared to the standard 3 nautical miles.  This enables an increase of 15-20 percent of departures per hour when the airport is congested compared to conventional methodology
4. Airborne Collision Avoidance System X - As NextGen technology enables aircraft to safely fly closer, the FAA is developing a new collision avoidance system.  Terrain Collision Avoidance System was introduced in 1989; however, the system needs an upgrade to accommodate new capabilities that are being introduced in the National Airspace System.  With satellite-based NextGen technologies, aircraft are tracked with a higher precision than with radar and safe separation distances may be reduced.  This means that ATC can get aircraft through busy airspace more efficiently.

As we continue to move forward with NextGen development and deployment, I am confident that we will continue to see benefits to the operation of the national airspace. 

UAS

Many new technologies have abstract benefits that are sometimes hard to succinctly describe or understand.  UAS have applications that are not only readily understandable, but have the potential for broad benefits for virtually all Americans.  From homeland security, emergency management and law enforcement, to food and package delivery, the potential uses for UAS technology are limitless.  Realistically, neither the technical nor operational capabilities necessary exist today to implement the opportunities described by visionaries, but their promises for 21^st century conveniences are compelling.

Meeting the challenges for realizing this potential will take a concerted effort and must achieve the requisite balance of maximizing the technological benefits, while maintaining safety and efficiency of the NAS.  The FAA has a history of accommodating new technology into the NAS safely and effectively.  UAS is the latest technology to be developed that FAA is working to integrate.  While FAA’s role in this effort is critical, it is limited to NAS safety and operational efficiency.  As with other manned technologies, FAA’s role does not extend to directing or otherwise limiting the underlying purposes for which the aircraft is used.  That is left to government agencies with the appropriate jurisdiction and Congressional mandates.

I would like to set forth a basic framework for how the FAA will integrate unmanned aircraft into the NAS.  In some ways, unmanned aircraft are inherently different from manned aircraft.  They possess a wider operational range than manned aircraft, with a wider number of different physical and operational characteristics.  Some UAS are the size of a fist, and fly at low altitudes and slow speeds.  Others have glider-like bodies with the wing span of a 737 and can fly above 60,000 feet.  Many can fly longer than manned aircraft.  Their common characteristic, distinguishing UAS from manned aircraft, is that their pilot is on the ground and not on board the aircraft.  This is a very new and different common denominator.

FAA estimates that we can expect 7,500 small unmanned aircraft in the NAS over the next five years, provided regulations and operational guidelines/policies are in place to handle them.  We recognize that, while the expanded use of UAS presents great opportunities, integrating them also presents significant challenges.  Operational issues, such as pilot training, must be addressed.  Additionally, we need to make sure that unmanned aircraft can detect and avoid other aircraft and that they operate safely, even if they lose the link to the pilot in command.  Likewise, manned aircraft must be able to detect these aircraft as well.

Our airspace system is not static and it is important for industry to understand that unmanned operations will evolve over time, just as they have over the past decade.  Today, unmanned aircraft are used to keep our borders safe.  They help with scientific research and environmental monitoring.  They support law enforcement agencies and help state universities conduct research. 

As we move forward, the use of small unmanned aircraft is likely to grow most quickly in civil commercial operations.  These UAS are extremely versatile and have relatively low initial cost and operating expenses.  The FAA, in accordance with the Act, is working on a proposed rule governing the use of a wide range of smaller UAS, which, in accordance with the roadmap, we expect to issue for comment this year.

FAA’s long term goal of UAS integration will rely on the test sites to answer key questions and provide solutions to the issues noted above, as well as how they will interface with the air traffic control system.  This information will help the FAA to develop regulations and operational procedures for future civil commercial use of UAS in the NAS.

Last year, the FAA, often in consultation with other key government partners and industry stakeholders and in accordance with provisions of the Act, issued a number of key documents intended to assist in defining parameters to safely integrate these very diverse systems into the world’s most complex airspace.  The Integration of Civil UAS in the NAS Roadmap outlines, within a broad timeline, the tasks and considerations needed to enable UAS integration into the NAS.  The five year Roadmap, updated annually, provides stakeholders with proposed agency actions to assist with their planning and development.  One concrete achievement facilitated by the roadmap took place in September 2013 when the first commercial flight of an unmanned aircraft took place in the skies above the Arctic Circle.  A Scan-Eagle completed a 36 minute flight to view marine mammals and survey ice.  There are hopes that UAS can be used to meet environmental and safety requirements in the Artic.   The flight was coordinated by Insitu (the UAS manufacturer), Conoco Phillips, and other federal and international agencies.  The Arctic region is the only area to date where we have authorized the use of small unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes.  This flight was organized to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the Artic provisions in the Act.

The UAS Comprehensive Plan was drafted by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) in coordination with JPDO Board participants from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Commerce (DOC), Homeland Security (DHS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the FAA.  It is a document that considers UAS issues beyond 2015, including technologies necessary for safe and routine operation of civil UAS and the establishment of a process to inform FAA rulemaking projects related to certification, flight standards and air traffic requirements.  The Comprehensive Plan details work that has been accomplished, along with future efforts needed to achieve safe integration of UAS into the NAS in the NextGen timeframe.  It sets overarching, interagency goals, objectives, and approaches to achieving integration.  Each partner agency will work to achieve these national goals and may develop agency-specific plans that are aligned to the national goals and objectives.

With respect to another important issue for UAS development, in November 2013, FAA also released a privacy policy that applies to the UAS test sites.  This policy requires operators to comply with all local, state and federal laws concerning privacy and civil liberties.  FAA is requiring the test site operators to create a privacy policy that is available to the public.  The test site operator must require anyone operating unmanned aircraft at the site to have a written plan for how they will use and retain any test data acquired.  On a broader level, agencies across the government are coming together to work on privacy issues that may arise with the increasing use of unmanned aircraft beyond these test sites.  Ensuring that UAS integration does not erode individuals’ privacy is a goal supported by both government and industry.

This brings me to the announcement of the selection of the test sites, the creation of which were mandated in the Act.  FAA received 25 applications from 24 states, so I was quite pleased with the depth and range of the proposals we reviewed.  In selecting the sites, FAA considered many factors.  We made a concerted effort to pick sites that reflected both geographic and climactic diversity.  We also took into consideration the location of ground infrastructure.  We looked at the type of research that would happen at each site and the aviation experience of the applicants, as well as the type and volume of aircraft that fly near the sites.  Our research goals are focused on (1) gathering system safety data, (2) aircraft certification, (3) command and control link issues, (4) control station layout and certification criteria, (5) ground and airborne detect and avoid capabilities, and (6) impacts on affected populations and the environment. 

The following test sites were selected by the FAA, after consultation with DOD and NASA: University of Alaska; the State of Nevada; New York’s Griffiss International Airport; North Dakota Department of Commerce; Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi; and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). 

As required by Congress, we expect the first test site to be operational within 180 days of the December 30, 2013, announcement and that the test sites will continue to operate until at least February 2017.

FAA Facility Consolidation and Realignment – Section 804

When I testified before you last year, I noted that not all Congressional deliverables were created equal.  One of the sections of the Act that holds great potential for the FAA is section 804, a provision which is intended to assist with the consolidation and realignment of FAA facilities.  In order for FAA to be well positioned to meet future demands, we must have strategically placed, state of the art air traffic control facilities.  

While FAA appreciates the importance of this provision, executing the intent of the provision has proven to be challenging.  As originally envisioned, the Act contemplated a single plan being presented to Congress with a comprehensive recommendation encompassing all FAA facilities.  After working extensively with our labor unions, we now believe the most effective workable approach to consolidation and realignment is a segmented one utilizing a repeatable process and incremental steps toward thoughtful and agreed upon recommendations.  Subsequent to providing the details of this process to this Committee’s leadership late last year, we kicked off the first step of this important initiative on January 22, 2014, along with our union colleagues.  We will begin this effort focusing on our terminal facilities with a goal of making an initial recommendation to Congress early next year. 

We expect to evaluate approximately 25 facilities this fiscal year.  The evaluation will include a review of the infrastructure of the facility, the technology the facility can support, including its readiness for NextGen, and how people working at the facility will be impacted by any decision made.  Step two begins the development of business case plans that document the benefits and risks associated with different scenarios.  This includes evaluating each proposed pairing of receiver and transfer candidates.  It also includes an initial outreach to industry stakeholders who might be impacted by the recommendation.  Step three is a more detailed quantification of the costs, benefits and risks of the potential recommendations.  Step four is a ranking the recommendations of the fully developed scenarios and clearing the recommendations throughout the FAA and the Department.  Agreed upon recommendations will then be presented to Congress for your consideration.  After submission to Congress, FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register to solicit public comment.  We will also be using existing communication opportunities to speak to airlines and system users regarding the status of the process and recommendations.

Throughout this process, five prioritization criteria will be consistently applied and given equal weight.  Factors, such as whether the facility’s airspace borders the airspace of another terminal facility, whether it  provides approach control for core airports, whether it operates full or part time, what its facility condition index is, and whether it is an FAA investment priority will be considered.  Life cycle costs and benefits have also been identified and agreed upon.

There is always great sensitivity surrounding decisions affecting where people will work.  This process took a long time to develop, but I think it was time well spent.  We have worked out all of the details so that employees and management alike can understand why the recommendations that are made got made.  In turn, we can justify the recommendations to Congress at the appropriate time. 

We recognize that facility consolidation and realignment are fundamental to FAA moving forward and meeting its challenges and responsibilities.  With this new process in place, it will support a segmented and repeatable format for identifying and quantifying the difficult decisions that must be made in this area.  I certainly believe that by this time next year, we will have made good use of the authority provided in section 804 and I look forward to being able to report on that.

Conclusion

These are only three of the important areas FAA is working on to meet the future needs of government and the aviation industry without compromising the safety or efficiency of the NAS.  We have an enviable safety record, which means we must constantly look at ways to raise the bar on safety and be smarter about the use of data to keep ahead of emerging safety concerns.  We must learn how to recruit and train our workforce to better adapt to innovation so that we more efficiently and effectively approach our critical mandates.  These are broad priorities.  As we work through completing the directives of the last reauthorization and think about what goals should be included in the next one, we must keep these priorities in mind because there are a lot of details we must work through collectively, government and industry, to support them. 

FAA, government generally, is being asked to do more with less.  Given the fiscal challenges we have seen in the past year and the continued difficult financial environment, we are going to have to have thoughtful conversations about how FAA should prioritize its role – what it makes sense for FAA to continue doing, and how we should do certain things differently.  We need to be strategic in how we prioritize our resources. 

We in this room, the people who are watching this hearing, care about aviation.  We must continue to lead take on the challenges before us.  I very much look forward to working with you as we do.

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