STATEMENT OF

NANCY KALINOWSKI,
VICE PRESIDENT,
SYSTEM OPERATIONS SERVICES,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

ON

THE IMPACT OF WIND FARMS ON MILITARY READINESS,

JUNE 29, 2010.

Chairman Ortiz, Congressman Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  My name is Nancy Kalinowski and I am the Vice President of System Operations Services for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  In that capacity, I am charged with overseeing the process by which we evaluate the impact of proposed construction on the navigable airspace.  Any proposed structure that could potentially interfere with navigable airspace must be evaluated by my office.  The evaluation results in an agency finding of whether the proposed structure is a hazard for air navigation.  During the evaluation, our Obstruction Evaluation Services office works with the individual or entity that submits the proposal, as well as other interested FAA offices and government agencies, as required.  In recent years, as the need for alternative energy has become a major focus of government and industry, the volume of proposed wind turbines submitted to the FAA for review has increased dramatically.  As such, it is certainly fitting to discuss how we review these proposals to understand the process and evaluate potential improvements.

The FAA is vested with broad authority to manage the navigable airspace and develop plans and policies for its use.  Whether by regulation or agency order, the FAA ensures the safety of aircraft and efficient use of the airspace.  Navigable airspace is a limited national resource and the FAA’s primary mission in this context is to preserve that resource for aviation; however, we are also called upon to negotiate equitable solutions to conflicts over the use of the airspace for non-aviation purposes.  There is a statutory requirement that a person or entity (a “proponent”) give adequate public notice of the construction, alteration, establishment or extension of any structure when such notice would ensure the safety of air commerce as well as the efficient use and preservation of navigable airspace and/or airport capacity.  Generally, public notice is required if the structure is more than 200 feet in height above ground level, near or on an airport (military or public use) or heliport, or if such a notice is specifically requested by the FAA.  The notice provides the FAA with the opportunity to identify the potential aeronautical hazards to minimize any adverse affects to aviation.  It is the proponent’s responsibility to propose mitigation in response to identified hazards.  If the FAA can take action to address the hazard, that action can be part of the mitigation plan, but the cost of mitigation, including upgrading navigational aids, if required, is borne by the proponent.  Mitigating actions could also include revising published data or issuing a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to alert pilots to airspace or procedural changes made because of a structure.  In addition, mitigation could include recommending appropriate markings and lighting to make the structure visible to pilots or depicting structures on aeronautical charts to inform pilots and improve safety.

Structures that require notice may include buildings to antenna towers – essentially anything that meets the criteria noted above.  This would include wind turbines and the new generation of wind turbine generators, which can be more than 400 feet in height and have blades that spin up to 200 miles per hour.  Each wind turbine is evaluated separately, but the cumulative effect of the wind turbines on navigable airspace will obviously be more significant based on the total number of turbines grouped together.  The number of wind turbine cases handled by the FAA has increased from 3,030 in 2004 to 25,618 last year.  To date in 2010, we have 18,685 wind turbine cases.  One concern that the wind turbines raise is that the blade tips rotate above the radar, thus affecting the capability of the target to be received on the radar equipment.  Additionally, they reflect radio waves, and exceed the line of sight protection criteria.  To give you an idea of the impact of wind turbines on long range radar, there is a radar cross section spectrum that identifies how clearly a range of objects are picked up on the radar.  Insects and birds are at the low end.  Conventional cruise missiles are in the mid range.  Most aircraft are a little higher in the spectrum, with large aircraft (e.g., a Boeing 747) and the space shuttle at the highest end of the spectrum.  Wind turbine blades spinning, in some instances, at more than 200 miles per hour are picked up by radars with a signal strength greater than a Boeing 747.  Because the radar repeatedly sees this large return, the radar will not pick up actual aircraft in the same area.

The clutter that is created by wind turbines can result in a complete loss of primary radar detection above a wind farm.  When that clutter occurs, it appears at all altitudes, so simply directing the aircraft to a different altitude does not solve the problem.  Similarly, on the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), wind farm activity looks remarkably like storm activity, thus complicating the communication of precise weather information by controllers to pilots.  (Wind turbine impacts on NEXRAD, which are owned and operated by the National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration, are not currently considered in FAA’s evaluation process.)  Existing FAA radars have limited capability to filter out clutter.  The radar can be modified by increasing the sensitivity to reduce clutter from the wind turbines, but in doing so, what the radar can see is also reduced, to the point where actual aircraft targets can drop off.  Consequently, there are real and significant issues that must be evaluated by the government prior to the approval of wind turbines. 

Although not an issue of consideration in the evaluation process, another issue of some concern is that there is competition for the land which both the radars and the wind turbines need to occupy.  Lease holders who currently have primary radars are now being offered substantial financial incentives not to renew their leases with the FAA and instead, lease to companies that want to install wind turbines.  This puts the FAA in the undesirable position of having to condemn property at fair market value to avoid losing the use of the navigational aid.  The call for the FAA to simply move its radars to accommodate requests to install wind turbines fails to take into account that this is not a realistic option for a number of reasons.  The FAA cannot take down a radar without an unacceptable loss of coverage.  Even assuming an acceptable, alternate site could be identified, the radar could not simply be moved.  Rather, a new radar would have to be installed at the new location.  The reality is that the FAA does not have extra radars available for replacement and there are no spare long range radars.  Even if a new radar were available, moving the radar site would require changes to the national airspace system.  Airways, reporting points, and airspace fixes are parts of the airspace system that could be impacted.  Depending on the situation, such changes could require regulatory action.  The bottom line is that moving radars around the country is a costly, disruptive, unacceptable, and unworkable proposition.  It may sound simple, but in fact, it is not something the FAA can accommodate or the taxpayers can afford.

So having set forth the complexity and concerns of locating wind turbines near primary radars, let me now turn to how we attempt to strike the balance between the need for an uninterrupted radar signal and the clean energy that wind turbines supply.  The current regulatory requirement is that the proponents must file notice with the FAA as early in the planning process as possible, but no later than 30 days prior to the date the proposed construction is expected to begin.  The 30 day timeframe has been in place for 45 years and was appropriate for single, stationary structures that the FAA largely dealt with at that time.  Wind turbines have a cumulative effect, so the evaluation of their impact is significantly more complicated than single, stationary structures. 

Ninety-seven percent of the notices the FAA receives are sent electronically, where the proponents simply fill out a form online.  The FAA acknowledges receipt of the notice and, after an initial study, issues a determination of whether or not a hazard exits.  The initial study normally takes 30 days, but as noted, a wind turbine’s cumulative implications can require more extensive evaluation within the FAA, the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  Each time the status of the applicant’s proposal is changed, the applicant will be notified by FAA of the change.  The initial evaluation includes review by FAA’s Offices of Airports, Flight Standards, Frequency Management, and appropriate military organizations.  The offices typically respond online with whether they have an objection and what the objection is.  It is then incumbent on the proponent to propose mitigation. 

The FAA’s authority to issue hazard determinations is limited to the scope of Part 77 of Title14, Code of Federal Regulations.  The FAA lacks the authority to evaluate impacts to airspace not within our jurisdiction.  For example, if wind turbines are located more than 12 miles offshore and, therefore, are not in U.S. territorial waters, the FAA lacks the authority to declare them a hazard, even if the military has concerns with the placement or cumulative impact of those wind turbines. 

Our role in making hazard determinations can require the FAA to facilitate the exchange of information between the proponent and the objecting governmental entity.  This process can take a considerable period of time depending upon how well negotiations proceed between the parties.

In conclusion, the FAA has an efficient means of processing wind turbines proposals, which includes evaluating all valid aeronautical comments, reviewing all pertinent analytical reports, and issuing determinations that take into account all comments and findings.  Although we believe the process works well, we are always considering potential improvements and modifications, including whether the 30 day review is realistic when considering the latest highly complex structures, a grouping of which can have an unwanted cumulative effect.  We are open to discussion of how to improve the process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to describe FAA’s role in this very important process.  This concludes my statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.

JOINT STATEMENT OF

NANCY KALINOWSKI,
VICE PRESIDENT, SYSTEM OPERATIONS SERVICES,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
AND
JOHN ALLEN,
DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE,
AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM,

ON

THE ROLE OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS ON BORDER SECURITY,

JULY 15, 2010.

Chairman Cuellar, Congresswoman Miller, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to this hearing.  We are Nancy Kalinowski, Vice President of System Operations Services in the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and John Allen, Director of the Flight Standards Service in the Office of Aviation Safety at the FAA.  Together, we have distinct yet related duties in carrying out the FAA’s mission to ensure the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS).  Mr. Allen’s organization is charged with setting and enforcing the safety standards for air operators and airmen.  Ms. Kalinowski’s role is to provide overall guidance for air traffic procedures and airspace issues and her office is the focal point for daily ATO interface with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding air transportation security issues. 

As the most complex airspace in the world, the NAS encompasses an average of over 100,000 aviation operations per day, including commercial air traffic, cargo operations, business jets, etc.  Additionally, there are over 238,000 general aviation aircraft that represent a wide range of sophistication and capabilities that may enter the system at any time.  There are over 500 air traffic control facilities, more than 12,000 air navigation facilities, and over 19,000 airports, not to mention the thousands of other communications, surveillance, weather reporting, and other aviation support facilities.  With this volume of traffic and high degree of complexity, through diligent oversight, the FAA maintains an extremely safe airspace.   

With regard to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), we – the FAA  – set the parameters for where a UAS may be operated and how those operations may be conducted safely in the NAS.  Our main focus when evaluating UAS operations in the NAS is to avoid any situations in which a UAS would endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground.  The FAA recognizes the great potential of UASs in national defense and homeland security, and as such, we strive to accommodate the DoD and DHS’ needs for UAS operations, but we must do so without jeopardizing safety.  Because airspace is a finite resource, to help mitigate risk, FAA sets aside airspace for an operator’s exclusive use when needed.  These exclusive use areas are known as Restricted or Prohibited Areas.  The DoD conducts most of its training in such airspace.  Along the southern border of the country, the DoD has elected to share that restricted airspace with Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  However, the CBP also operates UASs in civil airspace, as discussed below.

When new aviation technology becomes available, we must first determine whether the technology itself is safe and whether it can be operated safely.  Whether the technology is to be used by pilots or air traffic controllers, we determine the risks associated with putting that technology into the NAS.  Once we address and mitigate those risks, we move forward with integration in stages, assessing safety at each incremental step along the way.  Unforeseen developments, changing needs, technological improvements, and human factors all play a role in whether the new technology is safe enough to be permitted into the system.

The FAA is using this same methodology to manage the integration of the new UAS technology into the NAS.  While many view UASs as a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available does not support expedited or full integration into the NAS.  For example, some of the data that we do have comes from the CBP, and while we have reason to believe that the safety data that we do have may not be a representative sampling of UAS operations, it is all we have.   To the extent that this limited data from CBP are representative, they suggest that accident rates for UASs are higher than in general aviation and may be more than an order of magnitude higher than in commercial aviation. 

For example, from Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year-to-Date 2010 (July 13, 2010), CBP reports a total of 5,688 flight hours.  The CBP accident rate is 52.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours (the standard safety data normalization factor/the standard on which safety data is reported).  This accident rate is more than seven times the general aviation accident rate (7.11 accidents/100,000 flight hours) and 353 times the commercial aviation accident rate (0.149 accidents/100,000 flight hours).

While the CBP accident rate appears to be higher than general or commercial aviation, we note that CBP’s total reported flight hours of 5,688 are very small in comparison to the 100,000 hour standard typically used to reflect aviation safety data and accident rates.  CBP has had seven deviations (where the aircraft has done something unplanned or unexpected and violates an airspace regulation) so far this fiscal year in over 1,300 hours of flight time, as compared to the five deviations in 1,127 hours of flight time in Fiscal Year 2009.   Continuing review of UAS operations will enhance FAA’s ability to assess the safety to improve ongoing use of this technology.  

This is the crux of the FAA’s responsibility.  More data is needed before an informed decision to fully integrate UASs into the NAS can be made.  Because of this, the FAA must make conservative decisions with respect to UAS NAS integration.  Until such time as the data can support an informed decision to integrate UASs in the NAS – where the public travels every day – in accordance with our safety mandate, the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously. 

For UASs to gain access to the civil airspace, the FAA has a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process.  This is the avenue by which public users (government agencies, including Federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as state universities) that wish to fly a UAS can gain access to the NAS, provided that the risks of flying the unmanned aircraft in the civil airspace can be appropriately mitigated.  Civil UAS operators must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate – Experimental Category to gain access to the NAS.  This avenue allows the civil user to operate the UAS for research and development, demonstrations, and crew training.  The Special Airworthiness Certificate does not permit carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.  Commercial UAS operations in the U.S. are not permitted at this time. 

Risk mitigations required to grant a COA frequently include special provisions unique to the requested type of operation.  For example, the applicant may be restricted to a defined airspace and/or operating during certain times of the day.  The UAS may be required to have a transponder if it is to be flown in a certain type of airspace.  A ground observer or accompanying “chase” aircraft may be required to act as the “eyes” of the UAS.  Other safety enhancements may be required, depending on the nature of the proposed operation.

To apply for a COA, public entities may submit an application online with the FAA.  The FAA then evaluates the request.  Internally, ATO first examines the application for feasibility – airspace experts review and ensure the operation will not severely impact the efficiency of the NAS.  The application is then sent to Flight Standards to evaluate the operational concept, the airworthiness release of the aircraft, the pilot/crew qualifications, and the policies and procedures used by the operator.  From that in-depth evaluation, special provisions are written.  These internal FAA offices then confer together to address any remaining concerns and harmonize the provisions needed to ensure the safe operation of the UAS.  Once these steps have taken place, the COA is signed and given to the applicant.

We have recognized the need to streamline our process for evaluating COA applications.  To address the timeliness concerns of applicants, the FAA is working to simplify the COA process and has also increased staffing levels by more than a dozen people.  The FAA is working to better standardize the review process and increase communication and transparency between the agency and the applicants.  We take this process seriously and while we are taking specific steps to improve the COA application process, we will always take the time needed to ensure these operations can be conducted safely.  

These efforts are already showing improvements.  In 2009, we issued 146 COAs.  So far this year, we have issued 122 COAs, and we are on track to issue over 200 this year.  At the current time, we have 268 active COAs on 133 different aircraft types, issued to 151 proponents.  CBP currently has 11 COAs issued to them. 

Normally, COAs are worked on a first-come, first-served basis.  However, given that there are emergency and disaster situations where the use of UASs has saved lives and otherwise mitigated emergency situations, the FAA has issued three special disaster COAs, one to CBP and two to the DoD.  Both agencies have requested COAs using the special process, and most disaster COAs have been issued before either agency had the aircraft and personnel in place to fly the mission.  In addition, there is a second type of special “emergency” COA.  Emergency COAs have been used to help with California wildfires, the Deepwater oil spill, and special law enforcement missions. These have been issued in minutes or hours, not days and weeks.  The FAA has issued three disaster COAs and 16 emergency COAs to CBP for its use.

These are only a few of the many improvements that the FAA is implementing to address the concerns with the COA application process.  In the meantime, we are working with our partners in government and the private sector to advance the development of UAS and the ultimate integration into the NAS.  First, in accordance with Section 1036 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law 110-417, the DoD and FAA have formed an Executive Committee (ExCom) to focus on conflict resolution and identification of the range of policy, technical, and procedural concerns arising from the integration of UASs into the NAS.  Other ExCom members include DHS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capture more broadly other Federal agency efforts and equities in the ExCom.  The mission of this multi-agency UAS ExCom is to enable increased, and ultimately routine, access of Federal public UAS operations into the NAS to support the operational, training, developmental, and research requirements of the FAA, DoD, DHS, and NASA.  All of these partner agencies are working to ensure that each department and agency is putting the proper focus and resources to continue to lead the world in the integration of UAS.  We thank the Congress for enabling the formation of the ExCom to advance the work of UAS integration into the NAS and streamline the COA process.

The FAA expects small UASs to experience the greatest near-term growth in civil and commercial operations because of their versatility and relatively low initial cost and operating expenses. The agency has received extensive public comment on small UASs, both from proponents who feel their size dictates minimal regulation and from groups concerned about the hazards that UAS pose to piloted aircraft as well as persons and property on the ground.

In April 2008, the FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to examine these operational and safety issues and make recommendations on how to proceed with regulating small UASs. The agency has received the ARC’s recommendations, and is drafting a proposed rule.  Ensuring the safety of all airspace users while not putting undue burdens on small UAS operators is a challenging task; the FAA hopes to publish the proposed rule by mid-2011.

Additionally, the FAA has asked RTCA – an internationally recognized standards organization that frequently advises the agency on technical issues – to work with the FAA and industry and develop UAS standards.  RTCA will answer two key questions: 

1. How will UASs handle the challenges of communication, command, and control? and
2. How will UASs “sense and avoid” other aircraft?

These activities are targeted for completion before 2015.

As the FAA moves forward with improving the processes for integrating UAS into the NAS, we want to acknowledge and thank our partner agencies from DHS in helping to keep our skies safe.  CBP, in cooperation with the FAA, conducted a comprehensive training session for all of their UAS pilots and sensor operators just last month.  The 16-hour CBP training safety meeting was conducted June 14^th and15^th with classroom training, as well as guided discussion periods involving pilots and sensor operators from CBP.  This approach to safety provided the two agencies with an environment to share knowledge and experience and forged a partnership that takes into account both the security of the homeland as well as the safety of our airspace.  We look forward to continuing that partnership with the CBP, as well as the other Federal agencies, as UAS technology matures.

Unmanned aircraft systems are a promising new technology, but one that was originally and primarily designed for military purposes.  Although the technology incorporated into UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants careful review.  Now, as we attempt to integrate these aircraft into the NAS, we need to take a hard look at the risk that UASs pose to the traveling public as well as the risk to persons or property on the ground.  As the agency charged with overseeing the safety of our skies, the FAA seeks to balance our partner agencies’ security, defense, and other public needs with the safety of the NAS.  We look forward to continuing our work with our partners and the Congress to do just that.

Chairman Cuellar, Congresswoman Miller, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our prepared remarks.  We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF

HANK KRAKOWSKI,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY
JOHN ALLEN,
DIRECTOR,
FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE,
OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

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

FIELD HEARING ON

THE INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UASs) INTO THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS): FULFILLING IMMINENT OPERATIONAL AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS,

SEPTEMBER 13, 2010.

Chairman Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy:

Thank you for inviting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to this hearing.  Accompanying me today is John Allen, Director of the Flight Standards Service in the Office of Aviation Safety at the FAA.  Together, we have distinct yet related duties in carrying out the FAA’s mission to ensure the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS).  Mr. Allen’s organization is charged with setting and enforcing the safety standards for aircraft operators and airmen.  My role as the head of the Air Traffic Organization is to oversee the nation’s air traffic control system, to move flights safely and efficiently, while also overseeing the capital programs and the modernization of the system.

As the most complex airspace in the world, the NAS encompasses an average of over 100,000 aviation operations per day, including commercial air traffic, cargo operations, business jets, etc.  Additionally, there are over 238,000 general aviation aircraft that represent a wide range of sophistication and capabilities that may enter the system at any time.  There are over 500 air traffic control facilities, more than 12,000 air navigation facilities, and over 19,000 airports, not to mention the thousands of other communications, surveillance, weather reporting, and other aviation support facilities.  With this volume of traffic and high degree of complexity, the FAA maintains an extremely safe airspace through diligent oversight and the strong commitment to our safety mission.

With regard to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the FAA sets the parameters for where a UAS may be operated and how those operations may be conducted safely in the NAS.  Our main focus when evaluating UAS operations in the NAS is to avoid any situations in which a UAS would endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground.  The FAA acknowledges the great potential of UASs in national defense and homeland security, and as such, we strive to accommodate the needs of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for UAS operations, always with safety as our top priority. 

When new aviation technology becomes available, we must determine if the technology itself is safe and that it can be operated safely.  Whether the technology is to be used by pilots, operators or air traffic controllers, we determine the risks associated with putting that technology into the NAS.  Once the known risks are mitigated, we move forward with integration in stages, assessing safety at each incremental step along the way.  Unforeseen developments, changing needs, technological improvements, and human factors all play a role in allowing operations within the civil airspace system.

The FAA is using this same methodology to manage the integration of the new UAS technology into the NAS.  While UASs offer a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available to date does not yet support expedited or full integration into the NAS.  Because current available data is insufficient to allow unfettered integration of UASs into the NAS—where the public travels every day—the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously, in accordance with our safety mandate. 

Because the airspace is a finite resource, and in order for us to carry out our safety mission, the FAA has developed a few avenues through which UAS operators may gain access to the NAS.  First, the FAA has a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process.  This is the avenue by which public users (government agencies, including Federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as state universities) that wish to fly a UAS can gain access to the NAS, provided that the risks of flying the unmanned aircraft in the civil airspace can be appropriately mitigated.  Risk mitigations required to grant a COA frequently include special provisions unique to the requested type of operation.  For example, the applicant may be restricted to a defined airspace and/or operating during certain times of the day.  The UAS may be required to have a transponder if it is to be flown in a certain type of airspace.  A ground observer or accompanying “chase” aircraft may be required to act as the “eyes” of the UAS.  Other safety enhancements may be required, depending on the nature of the proposed operation.

The FAA may also set aside airspace for an operator’s exclusive use to segregate the dangerous activity or protect something on the ground, when needed.  Some of these exclusive use areas are known as Restricted, Warning or Prohibited Areas.  The DoD conducts most of its training in such airspace.  In order to set aside Restricted or Prohibited Area airspace, the FAA would need to undertake rulemaking to define the parameters of that airspace.  This is typically a time-consuming process that would also include environmental reviews that could impact the proposed airspace.

Civil UAS operators must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate – Experimental Category to gain access to the NAS.  This avenue allows the civil users to operate UAS for research and development, demonstrations, and crew training.  The Special Airworthiness Certificate – Experimental Category does not permit carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire.  Thus, commercial UAS operations in the U.S. are not permitted at this time. 

We are working with our partners in government and the private sector to advance the development of UAS and the ultimate integration into the NAS.  First, in accordance with Section 1036 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law 110-417, the DoD and FAA have formed an Executive Committee (ExCom) to focus on conflict resolution and identification of the range of policy, technical, and procedural concerns arising from the integration of UASs into the NAS.  Other ExCom members include DHS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capture more broadly other Federal agency efforts and equities in the ExCom.  The mission of this multi-agency UAS ExCom is to increase, and ultimately enable routine, access of Federal public UAS operations in the NAS to support the operational, training, developmental, and research requirements of the member agencies.  All of these partner agencies are working to ensure that each department and agency is putting the proper focus and resources to continue to lead the world in the integration of UAS. 

The ExCom’s work has also facilitated the work of the Red River Task Force (RRTF), the interagency working group that was established to work on issues regarding the basing of UAS at Grand Forks Air Force Base (RDR).  With the ExCom’s work and the RRTF’s work running in parallel, the FAA is able to support more easily and fully the DoD’s needs at RDR.  One of the RRTF’s first tasks was to establish two separate tracks for DoD’s goals at RDR:  one would be an aeronautical proposal that would involve establishment of a new restricted area(s), while the other would be a broader menu of operational options that could be used either as a stand-alone solution or as a layered approach for the operation of UASs at RDR.  We have done this in numerous places and continue to streamline the approval process.

Currently, the FAA is working with the DoD to determine and evaluate the scope and details of its operational needs at RDR.  In addition, the RRTF has examined 18 option sets that can provide short, mid- and long-term solutions to UAS NAS access at RDR.  The FAA continues to be committed to working with the DoD on matters relating to UAS operations at RDR in a manner consistent with our safety mission.

Unmanned aircraft systems are a promising new technology, but one that was originally and primarily designed for military purposes.  Although the technology incorporated into UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants caution.  As we attempt to integrate these aircraft into the NAS, we will continue to look at any risks that UASs pose to the traveling public as well as the risk to persons or property on the ground.  As the agency charged with overseeing the safety of our skies, the FAA seeks to balance our partner agencies’ security, defense, and other public needs with the safety of the NAS.  We look forward to continuing our work with our partners and the Congress to do just that.

Chairman Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy, this concludes our prepared remarks.  We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF

CATHERINE M. LANG,
ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRPORTS,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

ON

Residential Through-the-Fence Agreements at Public Airports: Action to Date and Challenges Ahead.”  

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010.

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) proposed policy regarding access to airports from residential property.  Since the 1930’s, the United States has pursued the development of a national system of airports to meet the nation’s air transportation demands.  When Congress created the first airport development program, it tasked our precursor agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, with ensuring that airports that receive monies from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund be available for public use and to serve a variety of public purposes.  As the aviation industry has evolved, there have been many changes, from the types of aircraft and aeronautical users to the way we plan, build, and develop airports to ensure the highest possible levels of safety.  However, one thing has remained constant: when we invest in an airport, Congress has mandated certain guarantees to ensure both the longevity and the public nature of that investment. 

We apply this principle in two ways.  First, we indentify the airports critical to our national system because out of the 21,000-some airports and landing strips in the United States, only 3,332 are designated as a part of the “national system of airports,” and therefore eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants.  From the inception of this program, a guiding principle in the selection of airports as part of the national system has been the ability of an airport to be expanded and adapted to meet both current and future needs of the public air transportation system. 

Second, it is a long-standing principle that with the expenditure of any federal grant funds certain conditions attach, such as non-discrimination requirements.  In keeping with this principle, every time we make a financial investment at an airport, the sponsor agrees to 39 federal assurances, the vast majority of which are explicitly Congressionally mandated.  These assurances are designed to protect the public aeronautical characteristics of the airport, encourage good airport management, and impose conditions to protect the public purpose for which the investment of taxpayer dollars was made. These conditions include requirements pertaining to fair and reasonable rates and charges, airport layout plans, maintenance and operation consistent with safety standards, and prohibitions on discrimination and revenue diversion.  We may not always be able to predict where demand will grow and drive future capacity needs, but we can make long-term investments and through the assurances require airport operators to ensure a solid foundation to serve the needs of future aeronautical users.  These principles and assurances have for 60 years protected and expanded the most robust system of airports in the world.

Today, I’ll be discussing the FAA’s proposed policy regarding access to airports from residential property.  Although the vast majority of residential through-the-fence agreements involve general aviation airports, this policy applies to all airports in the NPIAS.  I’d like to explain why we decided to initiate a policy review earlier this year, how we conducted that policy review, and what we learned.  My testimony will be confined to airport compliance and capacity issues and will not address any potential security issues.

In order to frame this discussion properly, let me first explain what a public use airport is and how it differs from a private airpark.  Our national plan of integrated airport systems (NPIAS) is comprised of public use airports that must be open to all aeronautical users, must be sufficiently expandable and adaptable so as to accommodate new aircraft types, and must develop in a way that meets FAA safety standards. These airports are eligible for federal Airport Improvement Program grants.  Conversely, private airparks are financed and maintained by the aviation community that uses them and are free to set their own standards for use, access, and safety.

Through-the-fence access agreements create a right to taxi an aircraft from adjacent or nearby private property across the airport boundary through an established access point. Historically, FAA’s national policy did not focus on residential through-the-fence access to federally obligated airports.  Rather, the principal focus was commercial though-the-fence access.  In general, we discouraged commercial through-the-fence arrangements in most instances.  To promote self-sustainability of an airport (a statutory grant condition), it is a preferable business practice that airports promote on-airport commercial tenants, and airport layout plans include land for such purposes.  However, airports sometimes lack sufficient space for all commercial interests, and in those limited cases we acknowledge the need for commercial through-the-fence arrangements.  In light of these limited exceptions, we have not banned these types of agreements. 

Operating on the prima facie assumption that residences are inconsistent with the values for expandability and adaptability, we did not consider it necessary to put out guidance explicitly banning residential through-the-fence.  However, ambiguity in the language with regard to commercial through-the-fence agreements left insufficient guidance for field staff.  Our lack of awareness and consideration of this issue was further exacerbated by our heavy reliance on our state aviation partners to conduct land use inspections at GA airports. 

In 1999, the Government Accountability Office issued a report titled “General Aviation Airports Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for Improved Oversight and Enforcement.”  This report cited serious deficiencies in the way the FAA monitored sponsor compliance with regard to land use and recommended on-site inspections.  As a result, in 2001, we began conducting land use inspections in each of the FAA’s nine regions, as agreed to with GAO. 

Shortly thereafter, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21^st Century established a specific grant program for general aviation airports.  These nonprimary entitlements (NPE) have had a profound effect on the FAA’s relationships with, and expectations from, GA airports.  In working more closely with GA sponsors, we realized that some had a better understanding of their federal obligations than did others.  As a result, we have sought to educate GA sponsors and promote our principles for long-term investment by helping GA airports engage in master planning to identify both immediate and long-term needs.  Since the NPE program started, the FAA has issued $132,483,327 in master planning grants at 1,005 GA airports.

The FAA’s increased involvement with GA airports led to increased knowledge about their facilities and activities. It was shortly after initiating the NPE program that FAA staff in the field began alerting headquarters about proposals to develop residential housing near, and in some cases, on airport property.

In the mid-2000’s, the Airport Compliance Division responded to several on-airport residence and residential through-the-fence proposals from airport sponsors and developers.  In light of the national policy of constructing and operating aviation facilities so as to minimize current and projected noise impacts on nearby communities, as well as the agency’s experience with noise abatement and residential encroachment, residential through-the-fence arrangements were viewed as being in conflict with policies on compatible land use planning.  We responded to each request, citing actual and potential violations of the sponsor assurances that could occur as a result of these plans.  In 2007, we issued a Director’s Determination, which stated that residential development adjacent to airport property is an incompatible land use.  We also started training our staff in the field about the need to better educate airport sponsors and to mitigate residential through-the-fence problems.  Unfortunately, the ultimate result was mixed.  Some airport sponsors heeded our advice while others did not, and some FAA regional offices sought to identify and mitigate all existing residential through-the-fence access agreements while others chose to wait until an actual grant assurance violation had already occurred.

As these inconsistencies became apparent, we recognized that a more comprehensive approach was warranted.  At that time, we were in the process of updating our Airport Compliance Manual and used that opportunity to clarify our policy residential through-the-fence arrangements.  New Order 5190.6B states: “under no circumstances is the FAA to support any ‘through-the-fence’ agreement associated with residential use since that action will be inconsistent with the federal obligation to ensure compatible land use adjacent to the airport.”  While this Order is internal guidance and binding only on FAA employees, we realize that it is a widely used reference within the airport community.  Although not required to do so, we made the Order available for public comment for a period of six months. 

FAA then followed up the Order by issuing for comment Draft Compliance Guidance Letter 2009-1 - Through-the-Fence and On-Airport Residential Access to Federally Obligated Airports.  The Draft Compliance Letter reiterated our views, in more detail, with regard to through-the-fence access and offered some additional suggestions to FAA staff working with airports with such arrangements.  We received a number of comments from through-the-fence homeowners and other interested parties on both documents.  Neither the updated Order nor the Draft Compliance Guidance Letter offered much discussion with regard to what steps the FAA expected airports with existing through-the-fence arrangements to take.  We now realize that vacuum created a very uncertain environment for what we believe to be approximately 75 of the 2,829 GA airports in the continental United States included in the NPIAS.

In January, the Administrator asked the Office of Airports to review its policy on residential-through-the-fence access.  We quickly assembled a policy review team, which began detailed analysis of a core sample of residential through-the-fence arrangements.  In the course of eight months, the policy review team met with a wide variety of interested parties, including aviation associations, state officials, airport sponsors, and impacted residents. The team also conducted site visits at five airports with residential through-the-fence access.  Additionally, staff reviewed the approximately 250 comments filed in response to FAA Order 5190.B, Airport Compliance Manual and the Draft Compliance Guidance Letter, and began compiling an inventory of federally-obligated airports with known residential through-the-fence access arrangements.

During its site visits, the policy review team observed a number of concerning conditions first hand.  First, we noted the diversity and complicated nature of the various residential through-the-fence arrangements.  We also learned that while some of these arrangements were entered into over the FAA’s objections; others were erroneously approved by FAA field staff.  Finally, we observed that the residential through-the-fence arrangements we visited had compromised one or more of the inherent features of public use airports that taxpayer-funded projects are expected to support. To be clear, these conditions would make these airports ineligible for inclusion in the NPIAS, were they to be considered today.

Conversations with interested parties also provided a wealth of information.  Perhaps the most important, and most disconcerting, observation the staff made was the intense protectiveness homeowners feel toward “their” airport and the preservation of their access from their private residence.  At many of the sites we visited, the fundamental distinctions between public use, public purpose airports and private airparks have begun to blur.  While private airparks serve an important and cherished purpose for members of the aviation community, AIP funds must be used strategically and responsibly at NPIAS airports that serve public purposes and retain those characteristics expected from public use airports. 

We are particularly concerned by incidents in which adjacent residents, both with residential through-the-fence access and their neighbors, have attempted to prevent an airport sponsor from preserving its rights and powers regarding airport property or future development, a key grant assurance any recipient of AIP funds must agree to meet. As an example, at one location that we visited the airport sponsor lacks full control of the access points.  When the sponsor proposed a fencing project to rectify this situation, adjacent homeowners objected to the placement of the fence, even though the fence was being placed on airport property. Although we now understand that the project is finally moving forward, we believe the influence adjacent homeowners have had over the airport in the process is inappropriate and creates the potential for additional future problems.  An airport sponsor must retain sufficient autonomy and authority to make crucial planning decisions that ensure the long-term usefulness of the airport and to protect the airport’s role as part of the national system.

The agency’s statutory charge to invest in a national aviation system for the long-term, coupled with the fact that residential through-the-fence arrangements continue to compromise the ability of some airports to serve the broader public purpose expected of federally-obligated airports, led us to the policy we are proposing.  This policy is two-fold.  While we establish minimum requirements that airports with existing residential through-the-fence access must meet, we are also proposing to amend Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, to prohibit sponsors from entering into new arrangements.

Airports with existing access, as defined in the proposed policy, would be required to develop access plans to address general authority for control of airport land access, the safety of airport operations, cost recovery, airspace protection, and compatible land use.  To ensure the appropriateness and adequacy of the mitigation components in these access plans, we would consider the nature and parameters of the sponsor’s agreement with the property owner or homeowners on a case by case basis.   These plans will be approved by the Manager of Airport Compliance in headquarters, and sponsors will have approximately two years to develop their access plans.  While these arrangements continue to be undesirable, we believe this will address our more serious concerns, while offering a common-sense and fair solution for the communities involved.

Additionally, the policy would require sponsors with through-the-fence access arrangements to immediately depict the access points on their airport layout plans using a “pen and ink” change.  They will have additional time to formally update this document – three years from the date the FAA accepts their access plan.

Based on what we’ve learned over the last nine months, most of the airports with existing access agreements should be able to satisfy the bulk of our concerns associated with the legal terms and conditions associated with receiving AIP grants.  If the sponsor cannot address these minimum requirements, it will be necessary to reexamine that airport’s role in the NPIAS and evaluate if it should remain in our national airport system.  We would also determine what type of AIP investments continue to be appropriate.  If an airport sponsor refuses to develop an access plan, the FAA may consider initiating an investigation.

There are currently several airports that have through-the-fence arrangements that are in noncompliance for specific grant assurance violations.  To date, we have not put any sponsors into a noncompliant status solely because they have a through-the-fence arrangement.   This proposed policy will not have a significant impact on the eight noncompliant sponsors.  They will be required to continue working with local FAA staff to develop a corrective action plan to address their grant assurance violations.  Once the FAA accepts that corrective action plan, it will become their residential through-the-fence access plan.

The proposed policy also establishes a process for renewing or extending existing residential through-the-fence access arrangements as well as addressing the rare circumstance in which an airport with existing access might need to develop a new access point or allow a new homeowner to use an existing access point.  We refer to this limited development of new access points as “additional” access.  For an airport to propose “additional” access, it must have had existing access as of September 9, 2010.  In light of the fundamental concerns that are guiding the new policy, any additional access would be subject to stringent requirements to ensure the new access will not limit the airport’s ability to fulfill its role in the NPIAS.  This is also why we propose to limit additional access agreements to twenty years.  We use twenty years as a natural planning horizon, and it’s also used to define the useful life of most capital grants.

The proposed policy is currently out for public comment, and the comment period will remain open until October 25, 2010.  My office has worked extremely hard to arrive at a policy that addresses the concerns and needs of state and local governments and of the general aviation community while fulfilling our obligation to protect the role that NPIAS airports play in the national system.  I encourage those users to comment and look forward to receiving their input.  I believe our staff has given full and fair consideration to all the ideas and feedback we have received up to this point in the process, and I assure you that we will continue to be open minded as we review the public comments on our draft policy.

The FAA’s Office of Airports appreciates the important role general aviation plays in our national aviation system.  GA airports play a vital role in the NPIAS, as well as in their local communities.   For communities all over the country, GA airports have for decades been where we train our pilots, have provided medical and law enforcement response, enabled aviation to be at the front lines of response to natural disasters, been the backbone of agricultural communities, and enabled deliveries to remote locations.  It is for these purposes that Congress enacted the Airport Improvement Program, and it is these purposes that are protected by grant assurances. 

As a result, part of the FAA’s responsibility is to safeguard the general aviation infrastructure in this country.  Based on our experience and observations, we believe that residential through-the-fence arrangements have the potential to do far greater harm than good.  If the control exercised by an airport sponsor is compromised, harm is done.  If an airport that was selected for inclusion in the NPIAS based on a strategic long-term vision no longer has the ability to grow and fulfill its role, harm is done.  If public monies can be spent to correct deficiencies or problems caused by residential through-the-fence arrangements, harm is done.

The FAA takes seriously its responsibility to make wise, value-maximizing investments with its AIP grant funds. I believe our proposed policy regarding access to airports from residential property reflects the long view this Committee expects us to take when we invest $3.5 billion in our airport system annually. This responsibility must also include the continued advancement of the principles that have built the strongest national aviation system in the world.  We may not be able to predict where the demand will grow or how our capacity needs might change, but we must use every available tool we have to ensure the airports selected to serve in our national system remain flexible enough to expand and adapt.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mica, Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared remarks.  I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

STATEMENT OF

DR. KARLIN TONER,
DIRECTOR,
JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
SENIOR STAFF ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

ON

NEXTGEN: LONG-TERM PLANNING AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

APRIL 21, 2010.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Joint Planning and Development Office’s (JPDO) work in long-term planning and interagency cooperation in developing the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). When I appeared before you last March, I was on detail from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) as the Senior Staff Advisor for NextGen coordination. In that capacity, I also served as the liaison between the NextGen partner departments and agencies and the Chair of the Senior Policy Committee, Secretary LaHood. I am appearing before you today as the new Director of the JPDO, a position that I have had the privilege of serving in since late February of this year. Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt have committed to advancing and accelerating NextGen, and I am eager to help carry out their vision.

As this Committee is aware, NextGen is changing the way the national airspace system operates – with goals to improve safety, reduce congestion, noise, and emissions, expand capacity to meet future demand, and improve the passenger experience. NextGen is not a single piece of equipment or a program or a system that will instantaneously transform the air transportation system. NextGen builds on legacy systems to modernize air traffic control and ultimately will deliver a series of programs that transform the National Airspace System (NAS). NextGen takes advantage of relatively new technologies that have already been transforming our personal lives and the way we do business, such as GPS, analog-to-digital, and network-to-network data sharing.

Parts of NextGen are already being implemented. The aviation community has done a tremendous amount of work with planning, research and development, testing, and deployment. Research products are maturing and operational capabilities are moving into place to enable aircraft to fly as efficiently on rainy days as they do on sunny days. In fact, the FAA has deployed Automatic Dependant Surveillance - Broadcast (more commonly known as ADS-B) ground infrastructure and is now providing operating capability over the Gulf of Mexico and some operators are already reaping these benefits of more efficient travel. Still, the next few years are critical to the transformation of the national air transportation system – a system that must meet the civil aviation, defense, and homeland security needs of the United States.

As NextGen moves forward, the role of the JPDO has also evolved. Initially, the office was created by Vision-100 as an interagency group to work across government and with the industry to define the NextGen integrated plan. During the earlier planning stages, I was fortunate to be part of that visionary group as a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) researcher serving on an integrated product team, helping to brainstorm ideas and concepts that might benefit the modernization of our air transportation system. As the planning matured, the JPDO focused more exclusively on the long-term research planning.

On November 18, 2008, Executive Order 13479 was issued. Entitled “Transformation of the National Air Transportation System,” it required the Secretary of Transportation to establish within the DOT a staff, including employees from other departments and agencies involved in NextGen, to support the Secretary and the Senior Policy Committee. The partner departments and agencies include the FAA, NASA, DOT, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Commerce, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Senior Policy Committee, which sets the policy direction for NextGen, is chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, and includes the Secretaries, Administrators, and Directors of the above agencies, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as an ex officio member.

Late last year, Secretary LaHood asked Administrator Babbitt to redefine the duties of the Director of the JPDO to include the NextGen Senior Staff Advisor responsibilities. In restructuring these duties, Administrator Babbitt designated that the Director report directly to the FAA Deputy Administrator. Thus, the JPDO Director’s position has been elevated for increased responsibility and visibility within the FAA. Additionally, by wrapping the Senior Staff Advisor duties into the Director’s position, this realignment brings greater DOT involvement directly to the JPDO by formalizing the support relationship of the JPDO to the Secretary and the Senior Policy Committee.

The new organization’s strength is its connections and its ability to leverage the best of the Executive Order and the enabling legislation. The realignment has raised the visibility of the office, in keeping with the Administration’s commitment to advancing NextGen. With direct access to both the FAA Deputy Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation, the JPDO is able to have regular, high-level input from senior policymakers at both FAA and DOT.

Moreover, the Director’s new responsibilities expand the opportunity for collaboration among agencies. It is critical that we effectively and efficiently leverage the work of other agencies to achieve our NextGen goals.  When issues arise involving more than a single agency, the JPDO provides a forum for engagement and monitors follow-up of the partner agencies on decisions.

We directly provide interagency support to the cabinet-level officials on the Senior Policy Committee. As the JPDO Director, I continue to serve as Secretary LaHood’s advisor for NextGen and liaison to the partner agencies. In my prior role as NextGen advisor, I worked to institutionalize NextGen across the Office of the Secretary of Transportation while reaching out to the JPDO for multi-agency staff support. The realignment of the JPDO streamlines and solidifies that support.

The NextGen vision, expressed in the JPDO’s Concept of Operations, contains a wide variety of possible ideas that might be helpful to meet our Nation’s air traffic needs. However, neither the vision nor avenues being considered are static. NextGen capabilities are beginning to be implemented today, and as we gain experience, our past work will help us refine how we more effectively implement future NextGen goals.

Today’s world is different than the one in which the NextGen Concept of Operations was originally envisioned. The economy, the airlines, the environment, energy issues, and our security needs have changed dramatically. To account for these changes, we must take a more flexible approach to longer-term NextGen planning, blending evolution and transformation to meet the national needs for air transportation. We must test and prioritize our options against these realities.

My job is to refine our longer-term goals, by accounting for the changing realities of our aviation world. For example, more precise navigation (RNAV/RNP) is better understood to be an underpinning not only for capacity and efficiency, but may give us much better environmental performance as well. Conversely, the market of very light jets has diminished and our plans should reflect that. We also need to recognize that NextGen capabilities will be implemented where they are needed and best suited; for example, closely spaced parallel runways won’t be a solution for everyone – only for some airports.

With this in mind, we expect that by 2025, our system will still rely on pilots and air traffic controllers, but their roles will be different than they are today, and may be different from what we currently predict them to be in 2025. We want to make sure that they will have the tools and systems they need to perform their functions safely and effectively.

We also intend to continue to consult with industry as we move forward. Given where we are in implementation, we are assessing how industry can best contribute to longer-range plans, and I have asked some of our industry groups to give me ideas on how best to leverage their expertise and input.

The JPDO has some past successes that I plan to build on with regard to interagency cooperation. We can use our experiences working in these contexts as models for future interagency coordination on other projects.

For example, the JPDO is working with the Department of Commerce (through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)), FAA, and DOD on developing a vision for aviation weather management that is focused on the aviation user. We need to know how to best put weather information in a format that can be used by pilots, controllers, and dispatchers. The concept, called NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) enables the publication of the same weather information to all airspace users. NOAA’s role is to provide quality weather data to all its users including weather that meets the FAA’s Air Traffic Control (ATC) requirements. The FAA integrates the weather forecast information into tools expressly for air traffic management. The JPDO facilitates an active senior executive panel, known as the NextGen Executive Weather Panel, who oversaw the development of a joint program plan. A technology transition team will work out the specific technical requirements. A prototype demonstration will connect interagency products thus demonstrating information sharing protocols.

As the new Director of the JPDO, I am looking at all of the possibilities for successful interagency cooperation. We are fortunate that with the increased visibility and responsibility of the JPDO, and the Administration’s focus on NextGen, we now have even more tools in the toolbox to choose from to ensure productive partnerships throughout the government. Of course, the more productive these cooperative efforts are, the better service the FAA can provide to the traveling public.

Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me here today. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

TESTIMONY OF

JAMES H. WASHINGTON,
ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE,
AND
JOHN STAPLES,
DIRECTOR,
FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAM OPERATIONS,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

THE TRANSITION FROM FAA TO CONTRACTOR-OPERATOR FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS:  LESSONS LEARNED

October 10, 2007

Good Morning, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee, and discuss an important issue; the transition from the FAA to a contractor operated system of Automated Flight Service Stations.  My name is Jim Washington, and I am Vice President for Acquisition and Business Services of the Air Traffic Organization, and the Acquisition Executive for the Federal Aviation Administration.  Accompanying me is John Staples, Director of Flight Service Program Operations for the Air Traffic Organization. 

As you know, the FAA and our contract partner, Lockheed Martin, are working together to provide the customer with the best, most efficient and cost effective system of flight service stations possible.  Let me also state that efficiency and cost savings are not the first priority for the FAA and Lockheed Martin.  The first priority is, and always will be, the safety of the aviation system, no matter the size of the aircraft or the number of persons on board.

Let me take a moment here to quickly review the history of the Automated Flight Service Station contract.  On February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a performance-based contract to Lockheed Martin for the services provided to general aviation pilots through a government network of 58 Automated Flight Service Stations (AFSSs). The contract was awarded following a 15-month A-76 study begun in 2003. 

Prior to the modernization effort, pilots could telephone, and in some cases visit, a flight service station in their area to receive weather information for their region and along their planned route, file a flight plan, and learn about flight restrictions and hazards along their route and at their destination airport.  During a flight, pilots could also radio the nearest flight service station to receive updated weather and hazard information, and receive emergency services, as conditions changed.  The FAA’s FSS system relied on outdated 1970s-era computer technology; maintaining and operating this obsolete system became increasingly difficult and expensive.  The General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General both issued reports that were critical of the existing FSS system, and recommended consolidation of FSS locations, citing significant cost savings.  These reports helped drive the A-76 process which resulted in the contract award to Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin was chosen to provide services based on a public private competition in which five bidders, including the FAA’s Most Efficient Organization (MEO), competed.  The total cost of the award was $1.8 billion covering an initial performance period of five years, with consecutive three-year and two-year award term options.  Expected savings and cost avoidances resulting from this contract are in the range of $2.2 billion in capital and labor over a 13-year period. 

As part of the bid, Lockheed Martin is expected to make improvements through the introduction of new processes and systems.  A new suite of equipment, Flight Services 21 (FS21), has been installed, providing information to specialists and pilots using this service.  There are plans for significantly more effective use of the Internet.  For the first time, internet users and pilot weather briefers will be able to see the same information while talking to each other.  Also, Lockheed Martin is consolidating the services provided by the 58 former FAA sites into 3 new Hubs (located in Leesburg, VA, Ft. Worth, TX, and Prescott, AZ.) and 15 refurbished existing facilities. 

On October 4, 2005, Lockheed Martin initiated the delivery of flight services to the flying public.  Lockheed Martin staffed all the AFSSs with incumbent employees and continued to provide flight services following the same policies and procedures used by the FAA on October 3, 2005.  From an existing FAA AFSS workforce of approximately 2,300 specialists, approximately 1,650 incumbent personnel accepted job offers from Lockheed Martin for day one of operations.  In February 2007, Lockheed Martin began implementation of its modernized FS21 system.  Currently, Lockheed Martin has almost completed its consolidation to 3 new hubs and 15 refurbished facilities.   The refurbished facilities have FS21 console equipment and other improvements.

This performance-based services contract is managed by the FAA through a combination of service requirements defined in a Performance Work Statement (PWS), service standards defined in a Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), and a quality management structure ensuring effective performance standards measurement as documented in a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). 

The Flight Services program requirements were conveyed to the contractor via a Performance Work Statement (PWS) which contained approximately 300 explicit service requirements in four high level categories Preflight Services, Inflight Services, Operational Services and Special Services.  The contract also incorporated by reference all relevant policies, orders, methodologies, procedures and regulations that govern how Flight Services are to be rendered by the FAA to the flying public. The PWS explicitly gave the contractor the flexibility to meet these service requirements using any reasonable and realistic system architecture and staffing approach.  The performance basis for the contract was set in a Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) which contains 21 service level metrics that define acceptable performance levels (APLs), enabling the government to measure contract performance and ensure the quality of service. These metrics were designed to reflect the overall service delivered by the FAA before the transition to a performance-based contract. 

On February 22, 2007, Lockheed Martin began the process of consolidating the 58 AFSSs in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, into 18 facilities and implementing their new system, FS21.  FS21 includes all the system tools required for Lockheed Martin flight service specialists to provide services required by the FAA including weather briefings, flight planning, and air-to-ground services to the flying community.  Air-to-ground services include providing weather updates and aeronautical data, enroute flight advisory service, airport advisory service at select locations, activating and canceling flight plans, lost aircraft and emergency assistance.  As with the deployment of any new system or any consolidation, some issues have developed.  Many of these problems were anticipated and mitigations put in place prior to the start of transition; however some exceeded the anticipated level of service degradation.  In April of 2007, pilots began reporting excessive call wait times, dropped calls, lost flights plans, and specialists unfamiliar with expanded area knowledge.  During the same time period, reports of problems with issuing, disseminating and coordinating Notices to Airmen (Notams) were also initially identified.  The Federal Aviation Administration has taken timely action in response to these problems.  We are holding Lockheed Martin accountable for meeting the requirements of the contract.  Lockheed Martin has and continues to execute a corrective action plan that outlines the steps to be taken in each of these areas and is attacking these problems aggressively. 

Let me briefly describe for you some of the oversight activities that the FAA has implemented to monitor Lockheed Martin in its implementation of the AFSS contract.

The FAA reviews recordings of air to ground radio and telephone communications between pilots and flight service personnel to validate performance data submitted by Lockheed Martin. FAA quality assurance evaluators perform site inspections at Lockheed Martin flight service stations.  Full facility evaluations are conducted by evaluators from the FAA Air Traffic Organization’s Safety and Evaluations Group. The National Weather Service examines pilot weather briefers and provides the results of the examinations to the FAA.  Within the QA program, the FAA has in place a group of 14 Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAEs) responsible for monitoring Lockheed Martin performance.  This is done through facility visits and phone audits.  Between 2006 and 2007, the QAEs have conducted 2,142 quality assurance calls to Lockheed Martin facilities, completing 1201 in 2006 and 940 year-to-date in 2007.  By the end of 2007, the QAEs will have also completed 66 facility visits over the past two years, with 38 in 2006 and 28 (22 completed and 6 left to do) in 2007.

The FAA has received and filed a number of complaints regarding the service of Lockheed Martin under the AFSS contract. During the time period of July 23, 2007 to September 30, 2007, a total of 1150 complaints were filed over the phone and through the web covering Lockheed Martin’s services in the following areas: Pilot Briefings, Flight Plans, Clearances, Weather Reporting Data, NOTAMs and In-Flight/Flight Watch.

The two most common complaints heard from GA pilots have been long call wait times and dropped flight plans.  FAA is working with Lockheed Martin to fix these problems, and Lockheed Martin has taken a number of steps to reduce or eliminate the problems.

Dropped calls and long call wait times, impact the ability to obtain weather briefings and clearance delivery requests prior to flying and close out or cancel flight plans once completed.  Dropped calls and long wait times for pilot weather briefings is frustrating and inconvenient; however, the aircraft has not yet departed and is still assimilating information and planning the flight, and therefore is not in jeopardy.  Dropped calls and long call wait times for flight plan cancellation/closures can result in airspace being tied up and/or the unnecessary initiation of search and rescue operations. 

Dropped calls and long call wait times for clearance requests could affect safety if a pilot chooses to depart in undesirable conditions without a flight plan or briefing.  The primary impact is inconvenience to the pilots and their customers, economic impact of unnecessarily burning fuel and possibly having to refuel, and a possible increase in workload for the terminal or enroute controller. 

Software changes were implemented on May 18, and July 19, 2007 that have significantly decreased the number of abandoned calls.  The abandoned call rate reached a peak during the week of May 6^th, 2007 at 29.5% and for the week ending September 30 it was 3.4%.  The contractually required APL is 7% or less for abandoned calls.  Ongoing analysis to determine if additional updates/corrective actions are required continues.

Call hold times have also decreased over the past several weeks.  While pilots may still experience longer waits during peak periods, the average call wait time is now consistently below forty-five seconds, down from the peak times experienced in mid-May of approximately eight minutes.  Lockheed Martin has rehired employees to supplement staffing during transition and adjusts staffing to meet the call volume by day and hour of the day. Fifteen facilities have reopened, providing additional resources to help meet the workload.  All but two facilities have consolidated allowing specialists to become more familiar with FS21 resulting in decreased call handle times.

Dropped flight plans present more of a technology problem than a staffing problem.  Lockheed Martin made several software changes to FS21 including one that forces a specialist to select the type of flight.  This has reduced the number of errors specialists are making.  Also, as of July 5, 2007, the ARTCC Host computer have been adapted to respond to and process flight plans from FS21 addresses, further reducing the number of dropped or lost flight plans.  Another issue identified was FS21 addressing of flight plans with departure airports located near ARTCC boundaries.  In many cases, flight plans for those airports should be transmitted to ARTCCs other than the one the airport is geographically located in.  Lockheed Martin made an adaptation change on September 10, 2007 for those airports.  This should resolve the majority of remaining lost flight plans. 

The FAA has been monitoring Lockheed Martin’s staffing levels throughout the facility consolidation.  As of September 10, 2007 operational staffing was 842 full performance level specialists.  This decrease in staffing from the October 4, 2005 level of 1650 is due to normal attrition as well as Lockheed Martin’s facility consolidation plan.  While Lockheed Martin has taken some steps to manage staffing fluctuations, including increased hiring of developmental specialists, use of temporary employees, and extensive use of overtime, the FAA is concerned with ensuring Lockheed Martin maintain operational staffing levels capable of meeting current and forecasted demand for services.  To this end, the FAA and Lockheed Martin have engaged in a management effort to establish metrics and take appropriate actions.  This approach will support more refined and appropriate staffing levels for future operations.

Dependent upon Lockheed Martin’s meeting of an Accepted Level of Performance (APL), they receive a financial award or a credit from the FAA, unless a Lockheed Martin Corrective Action Plan is accepted in lieu of a credit.  A quarterly, executive-level Board of Performance and Cost Review (BCPR) meeting provides a venue for the performance evaluation discussion with representation from both Lockheed Martin and FAA.  Thus far, the FAA has levied $9.7 million in financial penalties for performance in FY 2006 and the first two quarters of FY 2007 in cases where Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs) were not met.  In FY 2006 and the first two quarters of FY 2007, awards totaling $6.0 million were offered by the FAA in cases where Lockheed Martin met or exceeded the APLs.

Actions taken by the FAA and Lockheed Martin are showing results.  Complaints received by Lockheed Martin have dropped off sharply, from a high of 326 the week ending May 13 down to 99 the week ending September 30 – a decline of more than 69 percent.  FAA believes that continuing to monitor Lockheed Martin operational performance through FAA-internal evaluations, external evaluations by the Office of Inspector General, validation of Lockheed Martin evaluations, feedback from AOPA and the FAA complaint process, and holding Lockheed Martin accountable to performance with monetary credits and awards tied to 21 metrics defining quality service, will yield the results we sought to achieve when awarding the AFSS contract.

The AFSS Program is on track to achieve its estimated $2.2 billion savings and cost avoidance in capital and labor over a 13-year period.  Although transition costs at the beginning of the contract have varied or shifted, the FAA continues to be on track toward achieving its originally estimated savings and cost avoidance.

The Congress provided the FAA with the authority – through the ATO – to operate more like a business.  FAA is doing so through this performance-based contract with Lockheed Martin to operate the FSS system.  We are conducting appropriate oversight; we know about the problems through our own monitoring and audits, and through complaints from AOPA and directly to the FAA complaint line; and we are taking appropriate actions under the contract.  FAA is also working with Lockheed Martin to fix the problems, so that together we can provide the proper service to the customer.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the FAA believes that through its oversight of the contract, and through working with Lockheed Martin and AOPA to address and remedy the identified service problems and delays, we will be able to achieve the safe and efficient AFSS system envisioned when the contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, while realizing the cost savings to the taxpayer that validate the decision to contract for these services through a performance based contract vehicle. 

I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this important issue.  This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF

ROBERT A. STURGELL,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
THE HONORABLE D.J. GRIBBIN,
GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

BEFORE THE

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

ON

CONGESTION AND DELAYS:  THE IMPACT ON TRAVELERS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS,

ON

SEPTEMBER 27, 2007.

Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Lott, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for holding today’s hearing on airline delays and consumer issues.  We are now coming to the end of the peak summer travel season.  We appreciate having the opportunity to assess how our aviation system performed and to describe the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts to reduce congestion and delays in our nation’s aviation system.  Growing congestion and delays in the system are a serious threat to the U.S. economy and our quality of life.  Successfully addressing this threat will require us to embrace new solutions and acknowledge that pursuit of status quo policies will do little, if anything, to reverse the substantial decline in system performance that we have experienced in recent years. 

This is precisely why the Administration has proposed to overhaul the way we pay for and manage our air traffic control system and to allow airports new flexibilities to embrace market-based pricing mechanisms at heavily congested airports.  The prices that system users pay to fly in the United States do not currently reflect the true costs of flying.  As a result, the current FAA and airport financing structure actually provides an incentive for more congestion.  This is clearly not a sustainable approach.  

As we frame the problem, we should note that we are living in the safest period in aviation history and we are constantly striving to make it safer still.  In the past 10 years, the commercial fatal accident rate has dropped 57%.  In the past three years, the United States averaged approximately two fatal accidents per year and 28 deaths per year; while any loss of life is tragic, this statistic is remarkable, given that there are well over 100,000 aircraft operations per day.  General aviation accidents are down.  Air traffic control errors are occurring at a rate lower than in the previous two years.  Safety is and will always be the primary goal of the FAA.  Nothing we do to address congestion and delays will ever compromise our safety mandate.

Still, it is no secret that while we are enjoying a record level of safety, we are at a critical point with congestion and delays.  This past summer, we saw record delays in flights across the country.  From October 2006 to August 2007, delays are up almost 20%, compared with the same time period from 2005-06.  Eighteen of our nation’s largest airports have returned to their highest pre-9/11 commercial passenger levels.  This past summer, we saw 7,936,885 minutes in delays throughout the system.  Of that, 44% occurred in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia region.  Our aviation system is stretched to the limit.  As we currently address the problem with new technologies and procedures, the FAA has, as you know, a long-term plan to address congestion and delays – the Next Generation Air Transportation System (or NextGen) will transform the aviation system and how we control air traffic.  We must be able to handle the demands of the future for aviation travel – projected to be one billion passengers by 2015. 

NextGen is a steady, deliberate, and highly collaborative undertaking, which focuses on leveraging our latest technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems.  It is designed to be flexible to take advantage of even newer and better technologies as they become available.  Ten years ago, no one could have conceived of carrying thousands of songs in your pocket or being able to send emails using a PDA thumbboard.  Nevertheless, those technologies are available and they have revolutionized the way many Americans live their lives.  We want to make sure that our air transportation system can accommodate innovations without becoming entrenched in technology that is new today but obsolete tomorrow.  But NextGen is not a “plug and play” system that can be dropped in place in 2025; we have already begun putting pieces of it in place – pieces that begin to lay the foundation of the solution to our record delays.  In our testimony today, we would like to outline some of the near-term and long-term solutions that the FAA and its partners have in store to relieve the pressure of congestion and delays. 

Aviation is one of the most complex industries in that world, consisting of an extremely intricate web of infrastructure, technology, and people.  No one piece of today’s aviation system can stand alone.  We are all in this together, and we look forward to continuing our partnerships with the airport, airline, and business/general aviation communities to ensure that their pieces of their parts of the solution come together to help solve the problem as well.

NextGen Solutions

While the completion of NextGen is the long-term solution to transforming the air transportation system, the FAA is tackling congestion with many near-term initiatives.  With the recent award to ITT of the ADS-B contract, our even more recently announced Airspace Redesign for New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia, several other new ATC procedures, and airport infrastructure projects, the FAA is well on its way to implementing the earliest pieces of NextGen to increase efficiency and reduce delays.

We would like to describe some of the key steps that we have recently taken or will be taking in the next few years to reduce delays:

NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign:

The old, inefficient airspace routes and procedures pieced together over the past several decades were overdue to be reconfigured to make them more efficient and less complicated.  In addition to more jet routes with increased and better access, the Airspace Redesign includes improved use of available runways, fanned headings for departures and parallel arrivals, and more flexibility to manage delays in severe weather.  We project that under the Airspace Redesign, delays will be cut by 200,000 hours annually.  This is the single greatest improvement to address congestion we see in the near future for the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. 

We also project that this will save $248 million annually in operating costs for airlines.  Additionally, the increased flexibility during severe weather is projected to save another $37 million annually.  Finally, the environmental advantages include reduced carbon dioxide emissions of a projected 430 million pounds per year, and the residents affected by aviation noise will be reduced by more than 600,000.  These are impressive gains.

Florida Airspace Redesign: 

To emphasize how our redesign efforts save us time and money, our recent Florida Airspace Redesign has proven very successful in addressing delays.  In October 2005, the FAA implemented the Florida Airspace Optimization (FAO), a series of airspace modifications that included:

• New sectors in Washington Center (ZDC) and Miami Center (ZMA) to reduce and redistribute controller workload;
• New overwater routes to increase north-south capacity; and
• New RNAV and conventional Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARS) to eliminate complex crosses and merges into Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL), Miami International Airport (MIA), Palm Beach International Airport (PBI), and other airports in South Florida.

FAA calculates that in its first year, the redesign has reduced delays, reduced reroutes, and reduced foreign fees attributable to reroutes in the amount of $22.5 million for traffic inbound to South Florida and $11.7 million for traffic outbound from South Florida.  In the Caribbean, a savings of $400,000 has been realized due to reduced reroutes and international user fees.  The benefits of the FAO total almost $35 million annually. 

RNAV/RNP: 

The FAA is currently expanding the use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP), which collectively result in improved safety, access, capacity, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts.  RNAV operations remove the requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based navigational aid (i.e. flying only from radar beacon to radar beacon), thereby allowing aircraft greater access to better routes and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations.  By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in capacity. 

RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function.  This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain.  RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport.  It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate airports.  RNP has the effect of reducing the overall noise footprint and aggregate emissions.

In April 2005, we added 7 new RNAV departure fixes at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and 16 new RNAV procedures were added this past summer at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.  These procedures can be implemented quickly and with less coordination between pilot and air traffic control when a normal departure route is temporarily unavailable because of weather or other cause.  This saves time for the controllers and pilots, as well as fuel for the airlines that are equipped to use these procedures.  We now have well over 100 RNAV procedures in place throughout the NAS, and are planning to roll out more where we can.

Ground Delay (GDP) and Airspace Flow Programs (AFP): 

These are programs that help FAA traffic managers distribute delays equally among the relevant flights and enables us to safely meter the rate that traffic arrives at an affected airport or flies through the affected area.  A GDP, implemented for a particular destination airport, controls flights destined for that airport by adjusting their departure times.  AFPs can be thought of as GDPs in the air.  Rather than delaying flights headed to a particular airport, an AFP controls flights routed through a specific section of airspace.  An AFP will only impact flights through the airspace that is constrained.  AFPs also provide a much more evenly distributed solution for customers.  Instead of the large airlines absorbing all of the delays caused by severe weather, general aviation aircraft will be constrained by AFPs if their routes happen to take them through affected areas.

Flight Schedule Monitor, Flight Schedule Analyzer, and Route Management Tool: 

Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM) creates a common situational awareness among all users and service providers in the National Airspace System (NAS).  All parties need to be aware of NAS constraints in order to make collaborative air traffic decisions.  FSM presents a graphical and timeline presentation of airport/airspace demand and capacity information and helps analyze and manage ground delay program/airspace flow programs so users can react quickly to NAS constraints.

Flight Schedule Analyzer (FSA) is a tool developed to explore the effectiveness of GDPs and to identify problems in the used in the Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) process.  It is primarily an analysis tool.

Route Management Tool (RMT) facilitates increased information exchange between air traffic control and the airline user community.  RMT is a query tool that allows users to search for, modify, and view centralized route databases and reference tables.

Traffic Management Advisor: 

The Traffic Management Advisor helps controllers sequence aircraft through en route airspace into major terminals.  TMA calculates a specific time for each aircraft to cross a fixed point in the airport landing route that also considers minimum safe distances between aircraft.  Appropriate direction to pilots is then provided using that data, allowing arrival streams that take better advantage of available landing slots.  The FAA estimates that when this Time-Based Metering is used, there are increases in arrival rates of 3 percent or more.  TMA is operational at all air route traffic control centers. 

Adaptive Compression: 

This is a computer program that automatically identifies slots that might go unused and moves other flights into those slots.  We can minimize unnecessary delays, and with fewer slots going unused, maximize capacity.

Controller staffing: 

The FAA understands how critical it is to have an adequately staffed and expertly trained air traffic controller workforce.  That is why we developed a comprehensive Controller Workforce Plan to address the wave of retirement-eligible controllers over the next ten years.  We have taken proactive steps to ensure we have the right people, at the right place and time.  To that end, we are expanding our Collegiate Training Initiative, and we have held numerous job fairs, and streamlined security and medical clearance processes.  We hired over 1,100 controllers last year, are hiring 1,700 this year, and plan to hire numbers consistent with the Controller Workforce Plan over next 10 years.

With regard to performance, as noted at the outset, safety is always our top priority.  We are meeting our targets for both reducing operational errors and runway incursions, which are down year-over-year.  Controller “time on position” (the time a controller actually spends controlling air traffic) system-wide is running about 4 hours and 30 minutes for an 8-hour workday.  System overtime is at 1.1 percent, which is below previous years, and total operations per controller are roughly the same as 1999 and 2000.

Airports: 

Since 2000, 13 new runways have opened at the 35 Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airports.  These 13 new runways encompass more than 20 miles of new runway pavement, and provide the airports with the potential to accommodate 1.6 million more annual operations.  This added capacity and decreased average delay per operation at these airports by 5 minutes.  In addition, about 6 months ago, an end-around taxiway was commissioned at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the busiest airport in the United States.  This provides an alternative to having aircraft cross an active runway and will eliminate 612 runway crossings per day.

Currently, eight OEP Airports have airfield projects (3 new runways, 2 airfield reconfigurations, 1 runway extension, 1 end around taxiway, and 1 centerfield taxiway) under construction.  These projects will be commissioned by 2010 providing these airports with the potential to accommodate about 400,000 more annual operations, decrease average delay per operation by almost 2 minutes, and significantly reducing runway crossings. 

Ten other projects (3 airfield reconfigurations, 3 runway extensions, and 4 new runways) are in the planning or environmental stage at OEP airports through 2017.  In addition, seven communities have planning or environmental studies underway to examine how their metropolitan area will accommodate future demand for aviation.  Two communities have environmental processes underway for new airports.

Additionally, we have an initiative to direct Airport Improvement Program funds for enhancements at other high activity airports located within congested metropolitan areas that will improve each metropolitan area’s ability to accommodate future aviation demand efficiently.  We are also continually seeking ways to strengthen our environmental stewardship as we increase capacity at airports, by developing better systems, technologies, and analytical tools to evaluate aircraft noise and emissions.

The Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT) 2, an FAA study which was recently released, considered the impact of growth in air travel through 2025.  Demand and operational capacity at 291 airports spanning 223 metropolitan areas across the country was evaluated.  Results indicate that by 2025, 14 airports and eight metropolitan areas will require additional capacity, even if planned improvements are built at airports throughout the system.  FACT 2 recommends various capacity improvements including:  new runways and new commercial service airports; additional studies to focus and determine appropriate regional solutions like the increased use of secondary airports; congestion management; and the continued development and implementation of NextGen.  FAA is starting to work with local communities and airports forecast to be capacity-constrained, including metropolitan regions on the east and west coast to develop plans to address the anticipated capacity issues in each of the targeted areas.

These are a few of the steps that we are taking to address congestion and delays.  Of course, as we develop and implement these programs and take these measures now to relieve delay in the short-term, we continue to look forward.  We cannot just put a Band-Aid® on the system; we have to build on this foundation now.

Consumer Concerns

At the Department of Transportation (DOT), we are not only dedicated to reducing congestion and resultant flight delays, but we are also, of course, committed to improving the treatment afforded air travelers by airlines during flight delays and, in particular lengthy on-ground delays.  Clearly, stranding passengers aboard aircraft for several hours simply is not acceptable and something must be done to minimize such incidents.  In this regard, we would like publicly to thank Inspector General Scovel and his staff for the excellent report issued this week.  Secretary Peters has directed the staff to carefully and thoroughly review the Inspector General’s recommendations as quickly as possible. 

While the Inspector General’s report is very important to us, we would like to add that we have not been idle while awaiting the results of his investigation of specific lengthy, on-ground delay incidents and the manner in which the industry handles flight irregularities in general.  Secretary Peters established a senior staff working group to examine the alternatives available to the DOT to address the consumer protection issue (as well as congestion) and it is well along in its consideration of various alternatives.  Thus, we expect to be able to include the Inspector General’s recommendations in our on-going deliberations.  The Department does have the authority necessary to act on matters involving the treatment of consumers through statutory provisions that prohibit carriers from engaging in unfair and deceptive practices (49 U.S.C. §41712) and require carriers to provide “safe and adequate” service (49 U.S.C. §41702).  With respect to deceptive practices, the Office of the Secretary’s Aviation Enforcement Office has for a number of months been investigating chronically delayed flights and compliance by airlines with the existing Department requirement that airline reservation agents provide consumers flight delay information upon request.  We intend to take whatever action is in the public interest to improve the current situation faced by consumers.

Partnerships in Problem-Solving

While the FAA and DOT are taking aggressive steps to reduce congestion and delays, we are not in this alone.  The airlines and other aircraft operators hold important pieces to the puzzle as well.  Specifically, the airlines sometimes schedule their flights in a way that pushes the system to capacity under even the best of conditions.  Understandably, these schedules are largely a response to market demand.  We encourage our friends in the airline industry to reassess their scheduling with an eye towards relieving some of the strain on the system.  The long-term savings in reduced delays and happier consumers are well worth it.  Airlines have voluntarily made these changes in the past, such as “de-peaking” schedules at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson and Dallas-Ft. Worth, and those changes produced smoother operations.

Also worth noting is that general aviation and business aviation use is up.  While new users and business models are critical to the growth of the system, the air traffic control system cannot accommodate every new proposed use without a system that matches our costs with the revenues being produced to pay for the system.  On a system-wide basis, our cost allocation found that general aviation drives about 16% of the costs of the air traffic control system, while only paying about 3% of the taxes, a situation that is unsustainable given the growth in GA flight time that we expect.  We believe that a fairer allocation of costs is necessary to sustain the system and allow it to grow. 

Reauthorization

This brings us to our final point, that Congress plays an enormous role in shaping a solution.  The Subcommittee has heard this before, but it bears repeating as we move to the final stages of this year’s reauthorization debate:  a cost-based funding structure is essential to transforming the aviation system.  Numerous bipartisan commissions have recommended cost-based funding for the FAA over the last two decades, and air traffic control providers in every other developed country have cost-based funding.  Failure to adopt a cost-based system here is unfair to our air travelers and will hinder the implementation of NextGen, and, for the first time in history, put the United States behind other countries that are moving towards the future of aviation. 

We need fresh thinking and fresh approaches, and we need them now.  There is little connection between what users pay for services and the costs they generate, and this detachment leads to distorted consumption of air traffic services, and ultimately congestion.  This is why the Administration developed a proposal that included provisions for cost based financing, the flexibility to charge congestions fees, and market-based congestion pilots at congested airports like LaGuardia.  We know the system is not cost-based from the results of the FAA’s most recent study.  Using comprehensive cost accounting and activity data, we put together the most detailed and transparent cost allocation ever done by FAA or, we believe, by any other air traffic control provider.

The Administration’s proposal is crafted to reform FAA’s financing system to better enable modernization and reduce congestion.  In its proposal, FAA would charge cost-based fees for terminal and en route airspace.  At large congested airports, FAA could vary this terminal fee based on the time of day and day of the week, to reduce delays and congestion.  The Administration’s proposal also includes market-based mechanisms (such as auctions or congestion pricing) to allocate takeoffs and landings.  This would be used at airports in which varying the cost-based terminal fee would not be sufficient to reduce congestion. 

The Members of this Subcommittee are well aware of the long-term challenges facing the FAA.  We appreciate your support of our programs, and the hard work and long hours you have put in towards reauthorizing the FAA’s programs.  We are at a crossroads in aviation history and the path we choose now will have ramifications for generations of air travelers to come.  We are eager to continue working with the Congress on the reauthorization process.

We have taken steps to reduce congestion and delays.  However, the system is still stretched to capacity and congestion and delays are still problems, and unless we change our approach now, things will only get worse.  We expect that by 2015, the system will be carrying one billion passengers per year.  International passenger traffic is expected to grow by 70% in that same timeframe.  If we don’t make changes to our system, our projections indicate that by 2014, we will see an increase in delays of over 60% than what we have today. 

We need NextGen.  We believe that we have a fairly strong consensus on that point.  We also need the cost-based financing reforms or market-based congestion programs, or we will not have the tools to get there in time to meet the demand.  We must seize the opportunity this year to deliver it with a cost-based and fair financing structure.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our prepared statement.  We would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other Members of the Committee may have.

STATEMENT OF

ROBERT A. STURGELL,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
THE HONORABLE D.J. GRIBBIN,
GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

AIRLINE DELAYS AND CONSUMER ISSUES,

ON

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for holding today’s hearing on airline delays and consumer issues.  We are now coming to the end of the peak summer travel season.  We appreciate having the opportunity to assess how our aviation system performed and to describe the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts to reduce congestion and delays in our nation’s aviation system.  Growing congestion and delays in our aviation system are a serious threat to the U.S. economy and our quality of life.  Successfully addressing this threat will require us to embrace new solutions and acknowledge that pursuit of status quo policies will do little, if anything, to reverse the substantial decline in system performance that we have experienced in recent years. 

This is precisely why the Administration has proposed to overhaul the way we pay for and manage our air traffic control system and to allow airports new flexibilities to embrace market-based pricing mechanisms at heavily congested airports.  The prices that system users pay to fly in the United States do not currently reflect the true costs of flying.  As a result, the current FAA and airport financing structure actually provides an incentive for more congestion.  This is clearly not a sustainable approach.  

As we frame the problem, we should note that we are living in the safest period in aviation history and we are constantly striving to make it safer still.  In the past 10 years, the commercial fatal accident rate has dropped 57%.  In the past three years, the United States averaged approximately two fatal accidents per year and 28 deaths per year; while any loss of life is tragic, this statistic is remarkable, given that there are well over 100,000 aircraft operations per day.  General aviation accidents are down.  Air traffic control errors are occurring at a rate lower than in the previous two years.  Safety is and will always be the primary goal of the FAA.  Nothing we do to address congestion and delays will ever compromise our safety mandate.

Still, it is no secret that while we are enjoying a record level of safety, we are at a critical point with congestion and delays.  This past summer, we saw record delays in flights across the country.  From October 2006 to August 2007, delays are up almost 20%, compared with the same time period from 2005-06.  Eighteen of our nation’s largest airports have returned to their highest pre-9/11 commercial passenger levels.  This past summer, we saw 7,936,885 minutes in delays throughout the system.  Of that, 44% occurred in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia region.  Our aviation system is stretched to the limit.  While we are addressing the delays issue with new technologies and procedures immediately, the FAA has, as you know, a long-term plan to address congestion and delays – the Next Generation Air Transportation System (or NextGen) will transform the aviation system and how we control air traffic.  We must be able to handle the demands of the future for aviation travel – projected to be one billion passengers by 2015. 

NextGen is a steady, deliberate, and highly collaborative undertaking, which focuses on leveraging our latest technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems.  It is designed to be flexible to take advantage of even newer and better technologies as they become available.  Ten years ago, no one could have conceived of carrying thousands of songs in your pocket or being able to send emails using a PDA thumbboard.  Nevertheless, those technologies are available and they have revolutionized the way many Americans live their lives.  We want to make sure that our air transportation system can accommodate innovations without becoming entrenched in technology that is new today but obsolete tomorrow.  But NextGen is not a “plug and play” system that can be dropped in place in 2025; we have already begun putting pieces of it in place – pieces that begin to lay the corners of the puzzle that is the solution to our record delays.  In our testimony today, we would like to outline some of the near-term and long-term solutions that the FAA and its partners have in store to relieve the pressure of congestion and delays. 

Aviation is one of the most complex industries in that world, consisting of an extremely intricate web of infrastructure, technology, and people.  No one piece of today’s aviation system can stand alone.  We are all in this together, and we look forward to continuing our partnerships with the airport, airline, and business/general aviation communities to ensure that their pieces of their parts of the solution come together to help solve the problem as well.

NextGen Solutions

While the completion of NextGen is the long-term solution to transforming the air transportation system, the FAA is tackling congestion with many near-term initiatives.  With the recent award to ITT of the ADS-B contract, our even more recently announced Airspace Redesign for New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia, several other new ATC procedures, and airport infrastructure projects, the FAA is well on its way to implementing the earliest pieces of NextGen to increase efficiency and reduce delays.

We would like to describe some of the key steps that we have recently taken or will be taking in the next few years to reduce delays:

NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign:

The old, inefficient airspace routes and procedures pieced together over the past several decades were overdue to be reconfigured to make them more efficient and less complicated.  In addition to more jet routes with increased and better access, the Airspace Redesign includes improved use of available runways, fanned headings for departures and parallel arrivals, and more flexibility to manage delays in severe weather.  We project that under the Airspace Redesign, delays will be cut by 200,000 hours annually.  This is the single greatest improvement to address congestion we see in the near future for the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. 

We also project that this will save $248 million annually in operating costs for airlines.  Additionally, the increased flexibility during severe weather is projected to save another $37 million annually.  Finally, the environmental advantages include reduced carbon dioxide emissions of a projected 430 million pounds per year, and the residents affected by aviation noise will be reduced by more than 600,000.  These are impressive gains.

Florida Airspace Redesign: 

To emphasize how our redesign efforts save us time and money, our recent Florida Airspace Redesign has proven very successful in addressing delays.  In October 2005, the FAA implemented the Florida Airspace Optimization (FAO), a series of airspace modifications that included:

• New sectors in Washington Center (ZDC) and Miami Center (ZMA) to reduce and redistribute controller workload;
• New overwater routes to increase north-south capacity; and
• New RNAV and conventional Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARS) to eliminate complex crosses and merges into Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport (FLL), Miami International Airport (MIA), Palm Beach International Airport (PBI), and other airports in South Florida.

FAA calculates that in its first year, the redesign has reduced delays, reduced reroutes, and reduced foreign fees attributable to reroutes in the amount of $22.5 million for traffic inbound to South Florida and $11.7 million for traffic outbound from South Florida.  In the Caribbean, a savings of $400,000 has been realized due to reduced reroutes and international user fees.  The benefits of the FAO total almost $35 million annually. 

RNAV/RNP: 

The FAA is currently expanding the use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP), which collectively result in improved safety, access, capacity, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts.  RNAV operations remove the requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based navigational aid (i.e. flying only from radar beacon to radar beacon), thereby allowing aircraft greater access to better routes and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations.  By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in capacity. 

RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function.  This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain.  RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport.  It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate airports.  RNP has the effect of reducing the overall noise footprint and aggregate emissions.

In April 2005, we added 7 new RNAV departure fixes at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and 16 new RNAV procedures were added this past summer at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.  These procedures can be implemented quickly and with less coordination between pilot and air traffic control when a normal departure route is temporarily unavailable because of weather or other cause.  This saves time for the controllers and pilots, as well as fuel for the airlines that are equipped to use these procedures.  We now have well over 100 RNAV procedures in place throughout the NAS, and are planning to roll out more where we can.

Ground Delay (GDP) and Airspace Flow Programs (AFP): 

These are programs that help FAA traffic managers distribute delays equally among the relevant flights and enables us to safely meter the rate that traffic arrives at an affected airport or flies through the affected area.  A GDP, implemented for a particular destination airport, controls flights destined for that airport by adjusting their departure times.  AFPs can be thought of as GDPs in the air.  Rather than delaying flights headed to a particular airport, an AFP controls flights routed through a specific section of airspace.  An AFP will only impact flights through the airspace that is constrained.  AFPs also provide a much more evenly distributed solution for customers.  Instead of the large airlines absorbing all of the delays caused by severe weather, general aviation aircraft will be constrained by AFPs if their routes happen to take them through affected areas.

Flight Schedule Monitor, Flight Schedule Analyzer, and Route Management Tool: 

Flight Schedule Monitor (FSM) creates a common situational awareness among all users and service providers in the National Airspace System (NAS).  All parties need to be aware of NAS constraints in order to make collaborative air traffic decisions.  FSM presents a graphical and timeline presentation of airport/airspace demand and capacity information and helps analyze and manage ground delay program/airspace flow programs so users can react quickly to NAS constraints.

Flight Schedule Analyzer (FSA) is a tool developed to explore the effectiveness of GDPs and to identify problems in the used in the Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) process.  It is primarily an analysis tool.

Route Management Tool (RMT) facilitates increased information exchange between air traffic control and the airline user community.  RMT is a query tool that allows users to search for, modify, and view centralized route databases and reference tables.

Traffic Management Advisor: 

The Traffic Management Advisor helps controllers sequence aircraft through en route airspace into major terminals.  TMA calculates a specific time for each aircraft to cross a fixed point in the airport landing route that also considers minimum safe distances between aircraft.  Appropriate direction to pilots is then provided using that data, allowing arrival streams that take better advantage of available landing slots.  The FAA estimates that when Time-Based Metering is used, there are increases in arrival rates of 3 percent or more.  TMA is operational at all air route traffic control centers. 

Adaptive Compression: 

This is a computer program that automatically identifies slots that might go unused and moves other flights into those slots.  We can minimize unnecessary delays, and with fewer slots going unused, maximize capacity.

Controller staffing: 

The FAA understands how critical it is to have an adequately staffed and expertly trained air traffic controller workforce.  That is why we developed a comprehensive Controller Workforce Plan to address the wave of retirement-eligible controllers over the next ten years.  We have taken proactive steps to ensure we have the right people, at the right place and time.  To that end, we are expanding our Collegiate Training Initiative, and we have held numerous job fairs, and streamlined security and medical clearance processes.  We hired over 1,100 controllers last year, are hiring 1,700 this year, and plan to hire numbers consistent with the Controller Workforce Plan over next 10 years.

With regard to performance, as noted at the outset, safety is always our top priority.  We are meeting our targets for both reducing operational errors and runway incursions, which are down year-over-year.  Controller “time on position” (the time a controller actually spends controlling air traffic) system-wide is running about 4 hours and 30 minutes for an 8-hour workday.  System overtime is at 1.1 percent, which is below previous years, and total operations per controller are roughly the same as 1999 and 2000.

Airports: 

Since 2000, 13 new runways have opened at the 35 Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airports.  These 13 new runways encompass more than 20 miles of new runway pavement, and provide the airports with the potential to accommodate 1.6 million more annual operations.  This added capacity and decreased average delay per operation at these airports by 5 minutes.  In addition, about 6 months ago, an end-around taxiway was commissioned at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the busiest airport in the United States.  This provides an alternative to having aircraft cross an active runway and will eliminate 612 runway crossings per day.

Currently, eight OEP Airports have airfield projects (3 new runways, 2 airfield reconfigurations, 1 runway extension, 1 end around taxiway, and 1 centerfield taxiway) under construction.  These projects will be commissioned by 2010 providing these airports with the potential to accommodate about 400,000 more annual operations, decrease average delay per operation by almost 2 minutes, and significantly reducing runway crossings. 

Ten other projects (3 airfield reconfigurations, 3 runway extensions, and 4 new runways) are in the planning or environmental stage at OEP airports through 2017.  In addition, seven communities have planning or environmental studies underway to examine how their metropolitan area will accommodate future demand for aviation.  Two communities have environmental processes underway for new airports.

Additionally, we have an initiative to direct Airport Improvement Program funds for enhancements at other high activity airports located within congested metropolitan areas that will improve each metropolitan area’s ability to accommodate future aviation demand efficiently.  We are also continually seeking ways to strengthen our environmental stewardship as we increase capacity at airports, by developing better systems, technologies, and analytical tools to evaluate aircraft noise and emissions.

The Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT) 2, an FAA study which was recently released, considered the impact of growth in air travel through 2025.  Demand and operational capacity at 291 airports spanning 223 metropolitan areas across the country was evaluated.  Results indicate that by 2025, 14 airports and eight metropolitan areas will require additional capacity, even if planned improvements are built at airports throughout the system.  FACT 2 recommends various capacity improvements including:  new runways and new commercial service airports; additional studies to focus and determine appropriate regional solutions like the increased use of secondary airports; congestion management; and the continued development and implementation of NextGen.  FAA is starting to work with local communities and airports forecast to be capacity-constrained, including metropolitan regions on the east and west coast to develop plans to address the anticipated capacity issues in each of the targeted areas.

These are a few of the steps that we are taking to address congestion and delays.  Of course, as we develop and implement these programs and take these measures now to relieve delay in the short-term, we continue to look forward.  We cannot just put a Band-Aid® on the system; we have to build on this foundation now.

Consumer Concerns

We at the Department of Transportation (DOT) are not only dedicated to reducing congestion and resultant flight delays, but we are also, of course, committed to improving the treatment afforded air travelers by airlines during flight delays and, in particular lengthy on-ground delays.  Clearly, stranding passengers aboard aircraft for several hours simply is not acceptable and something must be done to minimize such incidents.  In this regard, we would like publicly to thank Inspector General Scovel and his staff for the excellent report issued this week.  Secretary Peters has directed the staff to carefully and thoroughly review the Inspector General’s recommendations as quickly as possible. 

While the Inspector General's report is very important to us, we would like to add that we have not been idle while awaiting the results of his investigation of specific lengthy, on-ground delay incidents and the manner in which the industry handles flight irregularities in general.  Secretary Peters established a senior staff working group to examine the alternatives available to the DOT to address the consumer protection issue (as well as congestion) and it is well along in its consideration of various alternatives.  Thus, we expect to be able to include the Inspector General’s recommendations in our on-going deliberations.  The Department does have the authority necessary to act on matters involving the treatment of consumers through statutory provisions that prohibit carriers from engaging in unfair and deceptive practices (49 U.S.C. 41712) and require carriers to provide “safe and adequate” service (49 U.S.C. 41702).  With respect to deceptive practices, the Office of the Secretary’s Aviation Enforcement Office has for a number of months been investigating chronically delayed flights and compliance by airlines with the existing Department requirement that airline reservation agents provide consumers flight delay information upon request.  We intend to take whatever action is in the public interest to improve the current situation faced by consumers.

Partnerships in Problem-Solving

While the FAA and DOT are taking aggressive steps to reduce congestion and delays, we are not in this alone.  The airlines and other aircraft operators hold important pieces to the puzzle as well.  Specifically, the airlines sometimes schedule their flights in a way that pushes the system to capacity under even the best of conditions.  Understandably, these schedules are largely a response to market demand.  We encourage our friends in the airline industry to reassess their scheduling with an eye towards relieving some of the strain on the system.  The long-term savings in reduced delays and happier consumers are well worth it.  Airlines have voluntarily made these changes in the past, such as “de-peaking” schedules at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson and Dallas-Ft. Worth, and those changes produced smoother operations.

Also worth noting is that general aviation and business aviation use is up.  While new users and business models are critical to the growth of the system, the air traffic control system cannot accommodate every new proposed use without a system that matches our costs with the revenues being produced to pay for the system.  On a system-wide basis, our cost allocation found that general aviation drives about 16% of the costs of the air traffic control system, while only paying about 3% of the taxes, a situation that is unsustainable given the growth in GA flight time that we expect.  We believe that a fairer allocation of costs is necessary to sustain the system and allow it to grow. 

Reauthorization

This brings us to our final point, that Congress plays an enormous role in shaping a solution.  The Subcommittee has heard this before, but it bears repeating as we move to the final stages of this year’s reauthorization debate:  a cost-based funding structure is essential to transforming the aviation system.  Numerous bipartisan commissions have recommended cost-based funding for the FAA over the last two decades, and air traffic control providers in every other developed country have cost-based funding.  Failure to adopt a cost-based system here is unfair to our air travelers and will hinder the implementation of NextGen, and, for the first time in history, put the United States behind other countries that are moving towards the future of aviation. 

We need fresh thinking and fresh approaches, and we need them now.  There is little connection between what users pay for services and the costs they generate, and this detachment leads to distorted consumption of air traffic services, and ultimately congestion.  This is why the Administration developed a proposal that included provisions for cost based financing, the flexibility to charge congestions fees, and market-based congestion pilots at congested airports like LaGuardia.  We know the system is not cost-based from the results of the FAA’s most recent study.  Using comprehensive cost accounting and activity data, we put together the most detailed and transparent cost allocation ever done by FAA or, we believe, by any other air traffic control provider.

The Administration’s proposal was crafted to reform FAA’s financing system to better enable modernization and reduce congestion.  In its proposal, FAA would charge cost-based fees for terminal and en route airspace.  At large congested airports, FAA could vary this terminal fee based on the time of day and day of the week, to reduce delays and congestion.  The Administration’s proposal also included market-based mechanisms (such as auctions or congestion pricing) to allocate takeoffs and landings.  This would be used at airports in which varying the cost-based terminal fee would not be sufficient to reduce congestion. 

The Members of this Subcommittee are well aware of the long-term challenges facing the FAA.  We appreciate your support of our programs, and the hard work and long hours you have put in towards reauthorizing the FAA’s programs.  We are at a crossroads in aviation history and the path we choose now will have ramifications for generations of air travelers to come.  We are eager to continue working with the Congress on the reauthorization process.

We have taken steps to reduce congestion and delays.  However, the system is still stretched to capacity and congestion and delays are still problems, and unless we change our approach now, things will only get worse.  We expect that by 2015, the system will be carrying one billion passengers per year.  International passenger traffic is expected to grow by 70% in that same timeframe.  If we don’t make changes to our system, our projections indicate that by 2014, we will see an increase in delays of over 60% than what we have today. 

We need NextGen.  We believe that we have a fairly strong consensus on that point.  We also need the cost-based financing reforms or market-based congestion programs, or we will not have the tools to get there in time to meet the demand.  We must seize the opportunity this year to deliver it with a cost-based and fair financing structure.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our prepared statement.  We would be happy to answer any questions that you or the other Members of the Committee may have.

JOINT STATEMENT OF
ROBERT STURGELL,
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
CHARLES LEADER,
DIRECTOR,
JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

THE FUTURE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION

May 9, 2007

Good morning Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee.  I am Robert Sturgell, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and interim Chief Operating Officer for the Air Traffic Organization.  With me is Charles Leader, Director of the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).   We thank you for the opportunity to testify today about modernization of FAA’s Air Traffic Control System (ATC), and the work we are doing to develop and deploy the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) while providing operational and safety enhancements that deliver benefits to our customers today.

Reforming FAA’s financing system will better enable the modernization of the FAA’s Air Traffic Control System and transformation to NextGen.  Congress mandated in Vision 100 the establishment of the Air Traffic Organization (ATO).  Since the establishment of the ATO in 2003, we have required air traffic leadership to establish metrics for performance.  These metrics are also reflected in our budget preparation and execution, and are based on the cost of doing business.  We need to continue these practices as we establish the financing of our current and future operations- based on actual costs and investment requirements that will translate to tangible benefits and increasing efficiency for our nation’s air transportation system.  The NextGen Financing Act of 2007, as proposed by the Administration, provides the necessary reforms to our financing to allow for a reliable funding stream as we continue on the path towards the implementation of the NextGen system.

And implementing that system is imperative.  Our nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its own success.  Administrator Blakey and the FAA have taken many steps to delay this gridlock.  Since FY 2000, 13 new runways have opened, and we’ve worked with operators—through forums like Growth Without Gridlock—to find ways to squeeze extra capacity from our system.  In addition, we’ve kept our modernization projects on schedule—2006 is the third straight year that we produced good results.  As we reported in our Flight Plan, in FY 2006, 100 percent of our critical acquisitions were within 10 percent of budget and 97.4 percent were on schedule.

To get to the future, we need to prepare now.  The actions of today are necessary for us to continue on a progressive path of solutions to address the current and future demands of the aviation industry and the flying public.

We have created the most effective, efficient and safest system in the world.   But we now face a serious and impending problem:  today’s system is at capacity.   While the industry downturn following the attacks of September 11 temporarily slowed the growth in the aviation industry that began in the late 1990's, demand is growing rapidly.   And we have to change if we a going to be ready to meet it.

Flight delays have increased each of the last three fiscal years, and cancellations remain at an unacceptable level.  Other issues, ranging from environmental concerns to the complexities of homeland security are placing additional stresses on the system.  A MITRE study done for FAA concludes that the current system cannot handle the projected traffic demands expected by 2015 – absent modernization.

NextGen is a steady, deliberate, and highly collaborative undertaking, aimed at the long-term transformation of our air transportation system.  It focuses on leveraging new technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems.  The FAA is not waiting for 2025 to implement technologies to promote safer, more efficient operations, and increase capacity.  We are moving forward now with technologies and procedures which have two purposes;  one, to improve efficiency, increase capacity and reduce congestion in the present system; and, two, to provide the foundation to build upon for further improvements in NextGen.  The FAA is currently expanding the use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP), which collectively result in improved safety, access, capacity, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts. 

RNAV operations remove the requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based navigational aid, thereby allowing aircraft better access and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations.  By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in capacity.  FAA is expanding the implementation of RNAV procedures to additional airports.  The FAA has authorized 128 RNAV procedures at 38 airports for FY2005 and FY2006.  We will publish at least 50 additional procedures in FY2007. 

An example of how we better use the airspace is our introduction of Domestic Reduce Vertical Separation Minimums (DRVSM) in 2005.  We reduced separation minimums from 2000 feet to 1000 feet, effectively doubling the high altitude airspace, and saving airlines close to $400 million per year in fuel.

Another FAA initiative is implementing Required Navigation Performance (RNP) on a greater scale.  RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function.  This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain.  RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport.  It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate airports.  RNP reduces the overall noise footprint and aggregate emissions.  The FAA has authorized a total of 40 RNP procedures at 18 airports.  We plan to publish at least 25 RNP approach procedures in FY2007.

Enabling any far-reaching, systematic and long-term transformation requires a vision of what you want and need to achieve, and plans for how to get there from here.  For NextGen, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan provide us with that picture and the plans for how to achieve it.  We will be discussing the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan later in this statement.  We are setting the stage for the long-term development of an air transportation system that will be scalable to a growing demand and the need for safer and more flexible aviation business models.  It is a new approach to the way we view the future of the system, and it demands a new level of collaboration, planning and vision.

The unique structure of the NextGen initiative, setting up an inter-agency office to coordinate the efforts of the federal partners, while also bringing in the private sector as a full partner from the very beginning, will be instrumental in the success of NextGen.  Indeed, it is our expectation that this new structure will help us avoid some of the problems that FAA has experienced in previous modernization efforts. 

NextGen, while representing a continuum of research, investment and implementation activities, can be broken out into three major phases.  Each one represents a key period in NextGen’s development.  The first phase focuses on the development and implementation of certain key NextGen foundational technologies and capabilities.  These initiatives represent our current programs.  This phase also includes the essential research and development needed to support the next two phases.  The second phase builds upon this foundation to begin critical implementation of NextGen capabilities.  This is when many aircraft in the fleet will begin to operate using on-board NextGen tools.  This will allow greater expansion of RNP/RNAV procedures, net-enabled weather, advanced data communications, and the development of critical infrastructure for Trajectory-Based Operations.  The third phase will be maturation of our core NextGen capabilities into an operational nationwide system.  This will allow aviation services to be managed and operated in a way that achieves the NextGen transformation across the entire air transportation system.

FAA and JPDO are beginning to move from planning to implementation.  In fact, the FAA’s FY 2008 – 2012 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $4.6 billion in projects and activities that directly support NextGen.  The CIP is a 5-year plan that describes the National Airspace System modernization costs aligned with the projects and activities that the Agency intends to accomplish during that time.  Several key NextGen technologies and programs have already been identified and are funded in the FAA’s FY08 budget request.  These technologies and programs are:  Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B); System Wide Information Management (SWIM); NextGen Data Communications; NextGen Network Enabled Weather; NAS Voice Switch; and, NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development.

These technologies are essential to begin the transition from today’s air traffic control system to the NextGen system of 2025.  One important transformational technology is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B.  ADS-B is, quite simply, the future of air traffic control.  A key element of the NextGen system, it uses GPS satellite signals to provide air traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information on aircraft position that will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.  Aircraft transponders receive GPS signals and use them to determine the aircraft’s precise position in the sky, which is combined with other data and broadcast out to other aircraft and controllers.  When properly equipped with ADS-B, both pilots and controllers will, for the very first time, see the same real-time displays of air traffic, thereby substantially improving safety. 

ADS-B has been successfully demonstrated through the FAA’s Capstone program in Alaska, where GA accidents have been reduced by more than 40 percent for ADS-B equipped aircraft.  And UPS has been working with us on a demonstration program in Louisville using ADS-B to conduct continuous descent arrivals, where they have been able to reduce noise by 30 percent and emissions by 34 percent as a result.  One of the first uses of ADS-B technology outside of Alaska and Louisville will be in the Gulf of Mexico.  The FAA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Helicopter Association International (HAI), helicopter operators, and oil and gas platform owners in the Gulf of Mexico to improve service in the Gulf.  Using ADS-B technology, helicopter operators will transmit critical position information to the Houston Center, enabling enhanced Air Traffic Control services in the Gulf.

The FAA is considering a rulemaking that would mandate the avionics necessary for implementing ADS-B in the national airspace system, and is working closely with stakeholders to determine a timeline.

In today’s NAS, there are a myriad of systems with custom-designed, developed, and managed connections.  The future, however, demands an infrastructure that is capable of flexible growth, and the cost of expanding today’s point-to-point system is simply prohibitive.  System Wide Information Management (SWIM) responds to that need.  As many major national and international corporations have done with their own technological systems, SWIM will provide for NextGen the infrastructure and services to deliver network-enabled information access across air transportation operations, and high quality, timely data to many users and applications.  By reducing the number and types of interfaces and systems, SWIM will better facilitate multi-agency information-sharing, eliminating redundant information and providing information where it is needed.  When implemented, the efficiencies provided by SWIM will contribute to expanded system capacity, improved predictability and operational decision-making, and reduced cost of service.  In addition, SWIM will improve coordination to allow transition from tactical conflict management to strategic trajectory-based operations.  It will also allow for better use of existing capacity en-route.   While transparent to the flying public, these are efficiencies that will benefit the consumer and the aviation industry.

The heart of the NextGen advanced airspace management concepts lies within the digital data communications infrastructure of the future.  In the current system, all air traffic communications with airborne aircraft is by voice communications.  NextGen transformation cannot be realized through today’s voice-only communications, especially in the areas of aircraft trajectory-based operations, net-centric and net-enabled information access.  Data communications enabled services, such as 4-D trajectories and conformance management, will shift air traffic operations from short-term, minute-by-minute tactical control to more predictable and planned strategic traffic management.  Eventually, the majority of communications will be handled by data communications for appropriately equipped users.  It is estimated that with 70 percent of aircraft data-link equipped, exchanging routine controller-pilot messages and clearances via data can enable controllers to safely handle approximately 30 percent more traffic. 

Approximately 70 percent of annual national airspace system delays are attributed to weather.  The NextGen Network Enabled Weather will serve as the backbone of the NextGen weather support services, and provide a common weather picture across NextGen.  The goal of this investment is to cut weather-related delays at least in half by improving the integration and dissemination of aviation weather information.  The benefits will be uniform real-time access to key common weather parameters, common situational awareness, improved utilization of air space across all flight domains, and reduced flight delays.

The NAS Voice Switch will provide the foundation for all air/ground and ground/ground voice communications in the air traffic control environment.  The switches today are static, and our ability to adjust the airspace for contingencies is limited.  Under the current system it is very difficult and time consuming to coordinate and redesign the airspace.  In the future, the impacts of bad weather could be responded to in real-time, thereby minimizing its disruptions to air traffic.  The new voice switch allows us to replace today’s rigid, sector-based airspace design and support a dynamic flow of traffic.  Voice communications capabilities and network flexibility provided by the NAS Voice Switch are essential to the FAA’s ability to implement new NextGen services that are necessary to increase efficiency and improve performance.

At this early stage of NextGen, it is critical to better define operational concepts and the technologies that will support them.  For the first time, FAA is requesting funding for these defining activities in the FY08 budget.  This funding will support two demonstrations and a series of infrastructure development activities.  The primary purposes of these demonstrations are to refine aspects of the trajectory-based operations concept, while lowering risk by phasing in new technologies.  One demonstration will test trajectory-based concepts in the oceanic environment.  The ultimate goal is to increase predictability on long-duration international flights and improve fuel efficiency.  The other demonstration will accelerate the first integrated test of super density operations.  Procedures for increasing capacity at busy airports will be explored.  The demonstration should achieve near-term benefits at the test airport, and give us the tools to implement the same procedures at other locations.

It is important to understand that NextGen is a portfolio program.  The technologies described above, and those that will be defined over the next several years, are interdependent, creating a series of transformations that will truly modernize today’s system.  Let me provide a few examples of this.

In the future, trajectory-based operations will enable many pilots and dispatchers to select their own flight paths, rather than follow the existing system of flight paths, that are like a grid of interstate highways in the sky.  In the high performance airspace of the future, each airplane will transmit and receive precise information about the time at which it and others will cross key points along their paths.  Pilots and air traffic managers on the ground will have the same precise information, transmitted via data communications.  Investments in ADS-B, SWIM and Data Communications are critical to trajectory-based operations.

The NextGen system will enable collaborative air traffic management.  The increased scope, volume, and widespread distribution of information that SWIM provides will improve the quality of the decisions by air traffic managers and flight operators to address major demand and capacity imbalances.  SWIM and NAS Voice Switch are instrumental in achieving this collaborative air traffic management.

With NextGen the impact of weather is reduced through the use of improved information sharing, new technology to sense and mitigate the impacts of weather, improved weather forecasts, and the integration of weather into automation to improve decision-making.  New capabilities in the aircraft and on the ground, coupled with better forecasts and new automation, will minimize airspace limitations and traffic restrictions.  Network Enabled Weather and SWIM are vital investments for these improvements.

We recognize that there are many challenges in converting the JPDO’s vision of the NextGen system into reality.  Because the JPDO is not an implementing or executing agency, the FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies must work closely with the JPDO to develop an implementation schedule for the operational changes required as new technologies are deployed to realize the NextGen vision.  The FAA is using the Operational Evolution Partnership, the new OEP, to guide their transformation to NextGen.  In the past the Operational Evolution Plan successfully provided a mid-term strategic roadmap for the FAA that extended ten years into the future.  The new OEP will include strategic milestones through 2025.  JPDO representatives will participate along with the FAA in OEP development and execution.

FAA will use the OEP to plan, execute and implement NextGen in partnership with private industry.  Required operational implementation schedules will be tracked, as well as dates by which initiatives must be funded in order to meet those schedules.

OEP will provide a single entry point for new NextGen initiatives, jointly developed by the JPDO and the FAA, to enter the FAA capital budget portfolio.  It ties these initiatives directly to the FAA budget process.  Beginning in fiscal year 2008 and continuing in 2009, the FAA worked closely with the JPDO in budget formulation utilizing JPDO budget guidance.  For the fiscal year 2009 budget formulation, the FAA is using a Review Board under the auspices of the OEP Associates Group, which includes the Director of JPDO, to review and prioritize NextGen initiatives based on the JPDO Concept of Operations, JPDO roadmaps, and the NAS Enterprise Architecture.

The NAS and NextGen Enterprise Architectures will provide the backbone of this new OEP by specifying roadmaps for system and certification requirements, operational procedures, program phasing, and prototype demonstrations.  This Operational Evolution Partnership will be the mechanism by which we hold ourselves accountable to our owners, customers, and the aviation community for the FAA’s progress towards the JPDO vision, while assuring that the JPDO and the FAA are jointly on-track to deliver the NextGen system.

Cost will be a vital factor:  we cannot create a NextGen system that is not affordable.  Requirements for the first ten years range from $8 billion to $10 billion.  Preliminary estimates by FAA, JPDO and the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) suggest that the investments necessary to achieve the end state NextGen system range from $15 billion to $22 billion in FAA funding.  We are working with our users to continuously refine these estimates.

MITRE, working with FAA, has developed a preliminary estimate of the NextGen avionics costs.  It concludes that a wide range of costs are possible, depending on the bundling of avionics and the alignment of equipage schedules.  MITRE concluded that the most probable range of total avionics costs to system users is $14 billion to $20 billion.  This range reflects uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft, the number of very light jets that will operate in high-performance airspace, and the amount of time out of service required for equipage installation.

The importance of developing this system of the future is also quite clear to policymakers in Europe, where a comparable effort known as Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) is well underway.  This presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the United States.  Creating a modernized, global system that provides interoperability could serve as a tremendous boost to the aerospace industry, fueling new efficiencies while creating jobs and delivering substantial consumer benefits.  Alternatively, we could also see a patchwork of duplicative systems and technologies develop, which would place additional cost burdens on an industry already struggling to make ends meet. 

Last year, Administrator Blakey signed a Memorandum of Understanding with her European counterpart that formalizes cooperation between the NextGen initiative and the SESAR program.  The FAA and the EC are identifying opportunities and establishing timelines to implement, where appropriate, common, interoperable, performance-based air traffic management systems and technologies.  This coordination will address policy issues and facilitate global agreement within international standards organizations such as ICAO, RTCA and Eurocontrol, and contribute greatly to the success of this critical initiative. 

Our European counterparts have released a preliminary cost estimate for SESAR.  SESAR is conceived as a system that, while smaller in scope and size, has similar air traffic management goals as NextGen.  They consider different system scenarios and a range of total costs of $25 billion to $37 billion in US dollars through the year 2020.  SESAR, like NextGen, has a lot of work remaining to refine assumptions and better define the system.  However, there is an important difference in scope between SESAR and NextGen.  While SESAR focuses almost exclusively on air traffic management, NextGen takes what’s called a “curb-to-curb” approach, and includes not only air traffic control, but also airports, airport operations, security and passenger management, and DoD and DHS NAS requirements.

One of the major products for the JPDO, and indeed, one of the critical elements in defining the NextGen initiative itself, is the development of the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan.  These documents define each NextGen transformed state and how to evolve to it.  They are absolutely essential to the future development of the NextGen system.

The Concept of Operations is a text description of the transformed state of NextGen.  This kind of explanation, offered in one document, is critical to developing the specific requirements and capabilities that will be necessary for our national air transportation system in 2025.  In a sense, the Concept of Operations is like an architect’s blueprints. 

However, to adequately lay the groundwork and basic plans for the NextGen system requires another step in the process, developed concurrently with the Concept of Operations, and that’s the Enterprise Architecture.  The Enterprise Architecture provides the technical details of the transformed NextGen system, much like a builder’s plumbing and wiring diagrams, specifying how the house will get its power, water, sewage, cable and internet connections to the rest of the community.  The Integrated Work Plan is the equivalent of the general contractor’s work plan.  It specifies the timing and interdependencies of multi-agency activities required to achieve the NexGen system vision.

These documents, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan are essential to defining the NextGen system and will guide the future investment and capabilities, both in terms of research and systems development.  The JPDO released the NextGen Concept of Operations for public comment on February 28^th.  It is now available on the JPDO website for review and comment by our stakeholders, and we are anxious to receive their feedback.  The NextGen Enterprise Architecture and the Integrated Work Plan should be released within the next few months. 

Our overarching goal in the NextGen initiative is to develop a more automated system that will be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of users -- very light jets and large commercial aircraft, manned and unmanned aircraft, small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike, while handling a significantly increased number of operations with a commensurate improvement in safety, security and efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony.  We would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

JOINT STATEMENT OF

ROBERT STURGELL,
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
CHARLES LEADER,
DIRECTOR,
JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION ON FAA MODERNIZATION

March 22, 2007

Good morning Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Lott, and Members of the Subcommittee.  I am Robert Sturgell, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and interim Chief Operating Officer for the Air Traffic Organization.  With me is Charles Leader, Director of the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).   We thank you for the opportunity to testify today about FAA modernization, and the work we are doing to develop and deploy the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) while providing operational and safety enhancements that deliver benefits to our customers today.

Modernization and moving to NextGen is inextricably linked to changes in the FAA’s financing system.  We need to establish the financing of our current and future operations based on actual costs and investment requirements that will realize tangible benefits and increasing efficiency.  The NextGen Financing Act of 2007, as proposed by the Administration, provides the necessary reforms to our financing, and puts us on the path towards fully implementing the NextGen system.

And implementing that system is imperative.  Our nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its own success.  Administrator Blakey and the FAA have taken many steps to delay this gridlock.  Since FY 2000, 13 new runways have opened, and we’ve worked with operators—through forums like Growth Without Gridlock—to find ways to squeeze extra capacity from our system.  In addition, we’ve kept our modernization projects on schedule—2006 is the third straight year that we produced good results—delivering 90 percent of our programs on time and within budget.  In fact, in FY06, 97 percent of our projects met our schedule, and 100 percent were within 10 percent of budget.

An example of how we better use the airspace is our introduction of Domestic Reduce Vertical Separation Minimums (DRVSM) in 2005.  We reduced separation minimums from 2000 feet to 1000 feet, effectively doubling the high altitude airspace, and saving airlines close to $400 million per year in fuel.

We have created the most effective, efficient and safest system in the world.   But we now face a serious and impending problem:  today’s system is at capacity.   While the industry downturn following the attacks of September 11 temporarily slowed the growth in the aviation industry that began in the late 1990's, demand is growing rapidly.   And we have to change if we a going to be ready to meet it.

The warning signs are everywhere.   Flight delays and cancellations have reached unacceptable levels.  Other issues, ranging from environmental concerns to the complexities of homeland security are placing additional stresses on the system.   If we fail to address these issues, we will suffocate the great engine of economic growth that is civil aviation.  A MITRE study done for FAA concludes that the current system cannot handle the projected traffic demands expected by 2015 – absent modernization, the consequences will be a total system collapse.

NextGen is about a long-term transformation of our air transportation system.  It focuses on leveraging new technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems.  However, the FAA is not waiting for 2025 to implement technologies to promote safer, more efficient operations, and increase capacity.  The FAA is currently expanding the use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) which collectively result in improved safety, access, capacity, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts. 

RNAV operations remove the requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a navigational aid NAVAID, thereby allowing aircraft better access and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations.  By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in capacity.  FAA is expanding the implementation of RNAV procedures to additional airports.  The FAA has authorized 128 RNAV procedures at 38 airports for FY2005 and FY2006.  We will publish at least 50 additional procedures in FY2007. 

Another FAA initiative is implementing Required Navigation Performance (RNP) on a greater scale.  RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function.  This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain.  RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport.  It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate airports.  RNP reduces the overall noise footprint and aggregate emissions.  The FAA has authorized a total of 40 RNP procedures at 18 airports.  We plan to publish at least 25 RNP approach procedures in FY2007.

Enabling any far-reaching, systematic and long-term transformation requires a vision of what you want and need to achieve, and plans for how to get there from here.  For NextGen, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan provide us with that picture and the plans for how to achieve it.  I will be discussing the Concept of Operations and the Enterprise Architecture later in this statement.  We are setting the stage for the long-term development of an air transportation system that will be scalable to a growing demand and the need for safer and more flexible aviation business models.  It is a new approach to the way we view the future of the system, and it demands a new level of collaboration, planning and vision.

FAA and JPDO are beginning to move from planning to implementation.  In fact, the FAA’s FY 2008 – 2012 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $4.6 billion in projects and activities that directly support NextGen.  The CIP is a 5-year plan that describes the National Airspace System modernization costs aligned with the projects and activities that the Agency intends to accomplish during that time.  Several key NextGen technologies and programs have already been identified and are funded in the FAA’s FY08 budget request.  These technologies and programs are:  Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B); System Wide Information Management (SWIM); NextGen Data Communications; NextGen Network Enabled Weather; NAS Voice Switch; and, NextGen Demonstrations and Infrastructure Development.  FAA proposes to spend $173 million on these programs in FY08.

These technologies are essential to begin the transition from today’s air traffic management system to the NextGen system of 2025.  Perhaps the most significant of these transformational technologies is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B.  ADS-B is, quite simply, the future of air traffic control.  A key element of the NextGen system, it uses GPS satellite signals to provide air traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate information on aircraft position that will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways.  Aircraft transponders receive GPS signals and use them to determine the aircraft’s precise position in the sky, which is combined with other data and broadcast out to other aircraft and controllers.  When properly equipped with ADS-B, both pilots and controllers will, for the very first time, see the same real-time displays of air traffic; thereby substantially improving safety. 

ADS-B has been successfully demonstrated through the FAA’s Capstone program in Alaska, where GA accidents have been reduced by more than 40 percent for ADS-B equipped aircraft.  And UPS has been working with us on a demonstration program in Louisville using ADS-B to conduct continuous descent arrivals, where they have been able to reduce noise by 30 percent and emissions by 34 percent as a result.  One of the first uses of ADS-B technology outside of Alaska and Louisville will be in the Gulf of Mexico.  The FAA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Helicopter Association International (HAI), helicopter operators and oil and gas platform owners in the Gulf of Mexico to improve service in the Gulf.  Using ADS-B technology, helicopter operators will transmit critical position information to the Houston Center, enabling enhanced Air Traffic Control services in the Gulf.

The FAA is looking at a rulemaking that would mandate the avionics necessary for implementing ADS-B in the national airspace system, and is working closely with stakeholders to determine that timeline.

In today’s NAS there are a myriad of systems with custom-designed, developed, and managed connections.  The future, however, demands an infrastructure that is capable of flexible growth, and the cost of expanding today’s point-to-point system is simply prohibitive.  System Wide Information Management (SWIM) responds to that need.  SWIM provides the infrastructure and services to deliver network-enabled information access across the NextGen air transportation operations.  SWIM will provide high quality, timely data to many users and applications.  By reducing the number and types of interfaces and systems, SWIM will reduce redundancy of information and better facilitate multi-agency information-sharing.  When implemented, SWIM will contribute to expanded system capacity, improved predictability and operational decision-making, and reduced cost of service.  In addition, SWIM will improve coordination to allow transition from tactical conflict management to strategic trajectory-based operations.  It will also allow for better use of existing capacity en-route.

The heart of the NextGen advanced airspace management concepts lies within the digital data communications infrastructure of the future.  In the current system, all air traffic communications with airborne aircraft is by voice communications.  NextGen transformation cannot be realized through today’s voice-only communications, especially in the areas of aircraft trajectory-based operations, net-centric and net-enabled information access.  Data communications enabled services, such as 4-D trajectories and conformance management, will shift air traffic operations from short-term, minute-by-minute tactical control to more predictable and planned strategic traffic management.  Eventually, the majority of communications will be handled by data communications for appropriately equipped users.  It is estimated that with 70 percent of aircraft data-link equipped, exchanging routine controller-pilot messages and clearances via data can enable controllers to safely handle approximately 30 percent more traffic. 

The NextGen Network Enabled Weather will serve as the backbone of the NextGen weather support services, and provide a common weather picture across NextGen.  Approximately 70 percent of annual national airspace system delays are attributed to weather.  The goal of this investment is to cut weather-related delays at least in half.  The weather problem is about total weather information management, and not just the state of the scientific art in weather forecasting.  The weather dissemination system today is inefficient to operate and maintain, and information gathered by one system is not easily shared with other systems.    The benefits will be uniform real-time access to key common weather parameters, common situational awareness, improved utilization of air space across all flight domains, and reduced flight delays.

The NAS Voice Switch will provide the foundation for all air/ground and ground/ground voice communications in the air traffic control environment.  The switches today are very static, and our ability to adjust the airspace for contingencies is limited.  Under the current system it is very difficult and time consuming to coordinate and redesign the airspace.  In the future, the impacts of bad weather could be responded to in real-time, thereby minimizing its disruptions to air traffic.  The new voice switch allows us to replace today’s rigid, sector-based airspace design and support a dynamic flow of traffic.  Voice communications capabilities and network flexibility provided by the NAS Voice Switch are essential to the FAA’s ability to implement new NextGen services that are necessary to increase efficiency and improve performance.

At this early stage of NextGen, it is critical to better define operational concepts and the technologies that will support them.  For the first time, FAA is requesting funding for these defining activities in the FY08 budget.  This funding will support two demonstrations and a series of infrastructure development activities.  The primary purposes of these demonstrations are to refine aspects of the trajectory-based operations concept, while lowering risk by phasing in new technologies.  One demonstration will test trajectory-based concepts in the oceanic environment.  The ultimate goal is to increase predictability on long-duration international flights and improve fuel efficiency.  The other demonstration will accelerate the first integrated test of super density operations.  Procedures for increasing capacity at busy airports will be explored.  The demonstration should achieve near-term benefits at the test airport, and give us the tools to implement the same procedures at other locations.

It is important to understand that NextGen is a portfolio program.  The technologies described above, and those that will be defined over the next several years, are interdependent, creating a series of transformations that will truly modernize today’s system.  Let me provide a few examples of this.

In the future, trajectory-based operations will enable many pilots and dispatchers to select their own flight paths, rather than follow the existing system of flight paths, that are like a grid of interstate highways in the sky.  In the high performance airspace of the future, each airplane will transmit and receive precise information about the time at which it and others will cross key points along their paths.  Pilots and air traffic managers on the ground will have the same precise information, transmitted via data communications.  Investments in ADS-B, SWIM and Data Communications are critical to trajectory-based operations.

The NextGen system will enable collaborative air traffic management.  The increased scope, volume, and widespread distribution of information that SWIM provides will improve the quality of the decisions by air traffic managers and flight operators to address major demand and capacity imbalances.  SWIM and NAS Voice Switch are instrumental in achieving this collaborative air traffic management.

With NextGen the impact of weather is reduced through the use of improved information sharing, new technology to sense and mitigate the impacts of weather, improved weather forecasts, and the integration of weather into automation to improve decision-making.  New capabilities in the aircraft and on the ground, coupled with better forecasts and new automation, will minimize airspace limitations and traffic restrictions.  Network Enabled Weather and SWIM are vital investments for these improvements.

We recognize that there are many challenges in converting the JPDO’s vision of the NextGen system into reality.  Because the JPDO is not an implementing or executing agency, the FAA and the other JPDO partner agencies must work closely with the JPDO to develop an implementation schedule for the operational changes required as new technologies are deployed to realize the NextGen vision.  The FAA is using the Operational Evolution Partnership, the new OEP, to guide their transformation to NextGen.  In the past the Operational Evolution Plan successfully provided a mid-term strategic roadmap for the FAA that extended ten years into the future.  The new OEP will include strategic milestones through 2025.  JPDO representatives will participate along with the FAA in OEP development and execution.

FAA will use the OEP to plan, execute and implement NextGen in partnership with private industry.  Required operational implementation schedules will be tracked, as well as dates by which initiatives must be funded in order to meet those schedules.

OEP will provide a single entry point for new NextGen initiatives, jointly developed by the JPDO and the FAA, to enter the FAA capital budget portfolio.  It ties these initiatives directly to the FAA budget process. 

The NAS and NextGen Enterprise Architectures will provide the backbone of this new OEP by specifying roadmaps for system and certification requirements, operational procedures, program phasing, and prototype demonstrations.  This Operational Evolution Partnership will be the mechanism by which we hold ourselves accountable to our owners, customers, and the aviation community for the FAA’s progress towards the JPDO vision, while assuring that the JPDO and the FAA are jointly on-track to deliver the NextGen system.

Cost will be a vital factor:  we cannot create a NextGen system that is not affordable.  Requirements for the first ten years range from $8 billion to $10 billion.  Preliminary estimates suggest that the investments necessary to achieve the end state NextGen system range from $15 billion to $22 billion in FAA funding.  We are working to continuously refine these estimates, particularly with our users as we implement new cost-based financing mechanisms, as proposed in the NextGen Financing Act, the FAA’s  reauthorization proposal.

MITRE, working with FAA, has developed a preliminary estimate of the NextGen avionics costs.  It concludes that a wide range of costs are possible, depending on the bundling of avionics and the alignment of equipage schedules.  The most probable range of total avionics costs to system users is $14 billion to $20 billion.  This range reflects uncertainty about equipage costs for individual aircraft, the number of very light jets that will operate in high-performance airspace, and the amount of time out of service required for equipage installation.

The importance of developing this system of the future is also quite clear to policymakers in Europe, where a comparable effort known as Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) is well underway.  This presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the United States.  Creating a modernized, global system that provides interoperability could serve as a tremendous boost to the aerospace industry, fueling new efficiencies while creating jobs and delivering substantial consumer benefits.  Alternatively, we could also see a patchwork of duplicative systems and technologies develop, which would place additional cost burdens on an industry already struggling to make ends meet. 

Last year, Administrator Blakey signed a Memorandum of Understanding with her European counterpart that formalizes cooperation between the NextGen initiative and the SESAR program.  The FAA and the EC are identifying opportunities and establishing timelines to implement, where appropriate, common, interoperable, performance-based air traffic management systems and technologies.  This coordination will address policy issues and facilitate global agreement within international standards organizations such as ICAO, RTCA and Eurocontrol, and contribute greatly to the success of this critical initiative. 

Our European counterparts have released a preliminary cost estimate for SESAR.  SESAR is conceived as a system that, while smaller in scope and size, has similar air traffic management goals as NextGen.  They consider different system scenarios and a range of total costs of $25 billion to $37 billion in US dollars through the year 2020.  SESAR, like NextGen, has a lot of work remaining to refine assumptions and better define the system.  However, there is an important difference in scope between SESAR and NextGen.  While SESAR focuses almost exclusively on air traffic management, NextGen takes what’s called a “curb-to-curb” approach, and includes not only air traffic control, but also airports, airport operations, security and passenger management, and DoD and DHS NAS requirements.

One of the major products for the JPDO, and indeed, one of the critical elements in defining the NextGen initiative itself, is the development of the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan.  These documents define each NextGen transformed state and how to evolve to it.  They are absolutely essential to the future development of the NextGen system.

The Concept of Operations is a text description of the transformed state of NextGen.  This kind of explanation, offered in one document, is critical to developing the specific requirements and capabilities that will be necessary for our national air transportation system in 2025.  In a sense, the Concept of Operations is like an architect’s blueprints. 

However, to adequately lay the groundwork and basic plans for the NextGen system requires another step in the process, developed concurrently with the Concept of Operations, and that’s the Enterprise Architecture.  The Enterprise Architecture provides the technical details of the transformed NextGen system, much like a builder’s plumbing and wiring diagrams, specifying how the house will get its power, water, sewage, cable and internet connections to the rest of the community.  The Integrated Work Plan is the equivalent of the general contractor’s work plan.  It specifies the timing and interdependencies of the research, demonstrations, and development required to achieve the NexGen system vision.

These documents, the Concept of Operations, the Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan are essential to defining the NextGen system and will guide the future investment and capabilities, both in terms of research and systems development.  The JPDO released the NextGen Concept of Operations for public comment on February 28^th.  It is now available on the JPDO website for review and comment by our stakeholders, and we are anxious to receive their feedback.  The NextGen Enterprise Architecture and the Integrated Work Plan should be released within the next few months. 

Our overarching goal in the NextGen initiative is to develop a system that will be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of users -- very light jets and large commercial aircraft, manned and unmanned aircraft, small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike, while handling a significantly increased number of operations with a commensurate improvement in safety, security and efficiency.  Research will continue to help us find the right balance between a centralized satellite and ground system and a totally distributed system, where aircraft “self-manage” their flight with full knowledge of their environment.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony.  We would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.