[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S
R&D BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-613 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
DAVID WU, Oregon KEN CALVERT, California
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MIKE ROSS, Arizona JO BONNER, Alabama
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky TOM FEENEY, Florida
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 22, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Ken Calvert, Minority Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Ms. Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations Planning
Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. R. John Hansman, Jr., Co-Chair, FAA Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee; T. Wilson Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems; Director,
MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Dr. Donald J. Wuebbles, Chair, Workshop on the Impacts of
Aviation on Climate Change; Department Head and Professor,
Department of Atmospheric Sciences; Executive Coordinator,
School of Earth, Society, and Environment, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 31
Mr. Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association;
Chairman, Environment Subcommittee, FAA Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 38
Financial Disclosure......................................... 39
Discussion
Suggested Additional R&D Funding Priorities.................... 40
Impact of Administration's Financing Reform Package on FAA
Budget....................................................... 42
Status of Research Efforts in Specific Important Areas......... 42
Noise Reduction Funding........................................ 44
Economic Effects of Capacity................................... 45
Airport and Airline Impacts on Human Health.................... 45
Quality of Life Issues......................................... 47
Further Clarification of Decreased Funding in Important Areas.. 51
Recommendations Regarding NASA Funding......................... 52
Changes to the FAA's R&D Program in the Context of the 2007
Operating Plan............................................... 55
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations Planning
Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 58
Dr. R. John Hansman, Jr., Co-Chair, FAA Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee; T. Wilson Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems; Director,
MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology........................................ 66
Dr. Donald J. Wuebbles, Chair, Workshop on the Impacts of
Aviation on Climate Change; Department Head and Professor,
Department of Atmospheric Sciences; Executive Coordinator,
School of Earth, Society, and Environment, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign................................... 71
Mr. Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association;
Chairman, Environment Subcommittee, FAA Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee............................. 73
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S R&D BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Federal Aviation Administration's
R&D Budget Priorities for
Fiscal Year 2008
thursday, march 22, 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
The purpose of the March 22nd Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
hearing is to review the FY 2008 budget request for the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) research and development (R&D) programs
and examine current and potential R&D priorities, including support to
the NextGeneration Air Transportation System (NextGen). On March 29th,
the Subcommittee will examine the NextGen initiative, which is being
planned and developed by the interagency Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO).
Witnesses:
The witnesses scheduled to testify at the hearing include the
following:
Ms. Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations Planning, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration
Dr. R. John Hansman, Co-Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and
Development Advisory Committee; Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics; Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation
Dr. Donald Wuebbles, Chair, Workshop on the Impacts of Aviation on
Climate Change; Department Head and Professor, Department of
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
Mr. Steve Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association; Chairman,
Environment Subcommittee, FAA Research, Engineering and Development
Advisory Committee
Background
Potential Issues
The following are some of the issues that could be raised at the
hearing:
Are the content and priorities of FAA's R&D program
appropriate, and have adequate resources been allocated to the
program?
Has FAA's R&D program been appropriately aligned with
the needs of the next generation air transportation system
(NextGen) initiative?
What impact is NASA's restructuring of its
aeronautics program having on FAA's R&D program?
What has been the impact of FAA's R&D program on the
aviation industry's operations?
What role, if any, should FAA play in addressing the
R&D challenges associated with the impact of aviation on
climate change?
Since FAA certification has become more difficult as
new technologies and systems become more complex, is there any
R&D that could improve the certification process?
Overview
Aviation is a vital national resource for the United States. It
supports commerce, economic development, law enforcement, emergency
response, and personal travel and leisure. It attracts investment to
local communities and opens up new domestic and international markets
and supply chains. Aviation and aerospace activities make up as much as
nine percent of America's Gross Domestic Product and also represent the
fastest growing source for technological exports.
Research and development (R&D) is central to maintaining and
improving the Nation's aviation system so that it can respond to
changing and expanding transportation needs. Civil aviation research
and development is carried out both by NASA and by the FAA.
FAA R&D Activities
FAA has undertaken a wide range of aviation-related R&D, including
such categories as the following:
R&D in support of the next generation air
transportation system (NextGen) initiative
R&D to improve airport capacity and safety
R&D on aviation-related environmental concerns, such
as noise and emissions
R&D on aviation weather (aviation weather is a major
source of delays in the Nation's air transportation system)
R&D on wake turbulence (wake turbulence has a major
impact on the spacing/separation of aircraft, which has an
impact on the efficiency of operations)
R&D on air traffic control and flight deck human
factors
R&D on aging aircraft, fire safety, safety risk
analysis
R&D on General Aviation (GA) directed at reducing GA
accidents
R&D on Unmanned Aircraft Systems and their
integration into the national airspace
As can be seen from the above list, the R&D portfolio at FAA is
broad. However, two caveats should be noted. First, the R&D at FAA
tends to be near-term and more operationally focused than the
aeronautics R&D conducted at NASA--they are intended to be
complementary efforts. Up until NASA restructured its aeronautics
program over the past year, NASA had typically carried its aviation-
related R&D to a level of technical maturity that enabled the FAA to
pick it up, complete its development, and implement it in the national
airspace system. Second, FAA's research budget for individual research
areas can be very small--on the order of several millions of dollars in
some cases--with the total R&D being on the order of $260 million in
the FY 2008 budget request.
Mechanisms for Conducting FAA R&D
FAA R&D is carried out by means of a variety of mechanisms. For
example, the FAA maintains a Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ
where a range of R&D activities and test facilities are located. In
addition, the FAA has maintained a contractual relationship with the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development (CAASD) at MITRE
Corporation, a Federally Funded R&D Center (FFRDC) where a variety of
R&D efforts related to air traffic management are carried out.
The FAA has also entered into a number of partnerships with other
federal agencies, most notably with NASA and DOD--and it has formal
cooperative agreements with both agencies. FAA also participates with a
number of other federal agencies on various interagency initiatives.
Other research mechanisms include the following:
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRDAs) with industry
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Grants
Joint University Program for Air Transportation
Research (Ohio University, MIT, and Princeton)
Aviation Research Grants to Universities
Air Transportation Centers of Excellence (involving
70 academic institutions throughout the U.S.)
Airport Cooperative Research Program
Technology Demonstrations with industry
Relationship to NASA's Aeronautics R&D Program
As noted above, FAA and NASA's R&D programs are intended to be
complementary, not duplicative. The FAA describes NASA as ``the FAA's
closest R&D partner in the Federal Government.'' In a number of key
areas, NASA has traditionally conducted both basic research and more
applied ``transitional research,'' with the latter R&D having the goal
of achieving a level of technological maturity that enables the FAA to
pick it up and implement it in the national airspace system. As a
result, an aeronautics program at NASA that has insufficient resources
or that is unable to carry research to the point at which it can be
picked up by the FAA will eventually impact the R&D options available
to the FAA. A number of organizations have raised concerns about that
potential outcome. For example, in the area of aviation safety, the
REDAC (FAA's R&D advisory committee) stated in its June 20, 2006 review
of the FY 2008 FAA R&D program plans:
``The FAA needs to make an assessment of the impact of the
budget cuts in NASA's aeronautics R&D. Subcommittee on Aircraft
Safety is concerned that there may be inadequate resources in
the FAA's budget for taking on safety-related research that
NASA used to perform in the past but won't be funded to cover
in the future.''
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) made the following
statement in its November 2006 report on the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NGATS):
``. . .The Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO] faces
challenges with some planning and expertise gaps. For example,
NASA is moving toward a focus on fundamental research and away
from demonstration projects. Many experts told us that this
creates a gap in technology development.''
Recommendations of External Advisory Committees
REDAC
The FAA has an advisory committee called the Research, Engineering
and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) that is tasked with
monitoring the agency's R&D activities. One of the witnesses, Dr.
Hansman, has been a long-time member and leader of the REDAC, and he
will be able to outline the concerns and recommendations of that
advisory committee. Some of its most recent recommendations include the
following:
``Research should be conducted on advanced materials
and joining processes being introduced on new aircraft; on new
wiring technologies and on large bypass engines. Also on
aircraft modifications designed to mitigate the risk of
MANPADS, on fires due to non-HAZMAT-declared shipments, on
expanding operational deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles
[UAVs] and on reversing the trend toward a dwindling pool of
qualified Aviation Maintenance Technicians [AMTs].''
``[REDAC Environment and Energy] subcommittee members
expressed widespread concern that we need to be proactive in
addressing fuel availability/energy independence [and]
recommend that the Administrator. . .work with DOE, DOD, and
NASA to identify commercial needs and leverage research to
commonly address this challenge.''
``We need an R&D program that assesses the impact of
integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national
airspace system. The funding for RE&D related to unmanned
aircraft systems in FY08 and beyond does not reflect the
complexity of the technical and operational issues associated
with their routine integration into civil airspace.''
``In anticipation of the acceleration of technology
deployments required to realize [the next generation air
transportation system] the committee recommends that FAA assess
the costs of [next generation system] deployments and apply
sufficient funds to accelerate the technology transfer and
implementation.''
``[The FAA needs to] establish an R&D program that
will lead to consistent and safe reduction of [aircraft]
separation standards. . .''
National Academies' Decadal Survey
In 2006, the National Academies completed a ``Decadal Survey'' of
civil aeronautics and aviation research priorities. One of the research
priorities identified in the Survey related to the certification
process:
``Certification is the demonstration of a design's compliance
with regulations. For example, before it can be operated by
U.S. airlines, a new aircraft must be shown to comply with U.S.
federal aviation regulations. As systems become more complex
and non-deterministic, methods to certify new technologies
become more difficult to validate. . .NASA, in cooperation with
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), should anticipate
the need to certify new technology before its introduction, and
it should conduct research on methods to improve both
confidence in and the timeliness of certification.''
Aircraft Energy and Emissions Issues
With respect to energy, in the last year or so there has been
increased interest by both the military and by commercial users in
securing a stable supply of fuel. That has led to efforts to develop
alternative fuels for aviation. Those alternative fuels would at first
be used to supplement petroleum-based products and eventually
potentially replace them. The FAA has convened workshops to look at
alternative fuels and has been developing an ``alternative fuels
roadmap,'' but it is unclear how far FAA intends to proceed on
alternative fuels R&D.
With respect to emissions, an announcement late last year by the
European Union that it intended to impose penalties in 2012 on non-
European air carriers that pollute too much has focused increased
attention on the issue of aircraft emissions--particularly of
greenhouse gases. The European move has been criticized and moves are
underway to attempt to block it, but there is growing consensus that
aviation operations will be a growing source of greenhouse gases and
other undesirable compounds unless technological or operational fixes
are made. Both NASA and FAA have undertaken research on aircraft
emissions and mitigation technologies in the past, but more needs to be
done. One of the witnesses, Dr. Wuebbles, last year chaired an FAA-
sponsored workshop on the impact of aviation on climate change, and he
will discuss some of the research needs identified by that workshop.
Mr. Alterman of the Cargo Airline Association is serving as the current
chairman of the REDAC's Environment Subcommittee and can also discuss
these issues.
Budgetary Information
In FY 2008, the FAA plans to invest a total of $259,194,000 in R&D.
This investment spans multiple appropriations for the FAA and includes:
$140,000,000 in Research, Engineering and Development; $90,354,000 in
ATO Capital; $128,000 in Safety and Operations; and $28,712,000 in the
Airport Improvement Program.
In general, the R,E&D account funds R&D programs that improve the
national airspace system (NAS) by increasing its safety, security,
productivity, capacity, and environmental compatibility to meet the air
traffic demands of the future. The AIP account generally funds airport
improvement grants, including those emphasizing capacity development,
and safety and security needs; and funds grants for aircraft noise
compatibility planning and programs and low emissions airport
equipment. It also funds administrative and technical support costs to
support airport programs. The ATO capital account and the Safety and
Operations account are new account designations in the FY 2008 budget
request. They replace the former Facilities and Equipment (F&E) and
Operations accounts.
A breakdown of 2008 R&D project funding is presented in Table 1,
with applied research projects listed first, followed by development
projects.
Chairman Udall. This hearing will come to order.
Good morning to everybody. With this being our first
subcommittee hearing of the 110th Congress, I would like to go
ahead and introduce several new Members of the Space and
Aeronautics Subcommittee before we get to our opening
statements.
Mr. Lampson, who is returning after a brief absence, has
joined the Committee, as has Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, the 9th
district, Mr. Ross of Arkansas, the 4th district, and Mr.
Chandler of Kentucky from the 6th district. I do know that Mr.
Rothman will be joining us later. I know Mr. Ross and Mr.
Chandler and Mr. Lampson are all trying to make time to join us
today as well.
At this point, I would like to recognize Mr. Calvert to
introduce his new Members. I did want to thank Chairman
Calvert. He is my Chairman from the last--the 109th
Subcommittee days, and I have enjoyed working with him on the
past, and I know we are looking forward to working together
again.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I am getting used to sitting over here
on the--this side of the dais, so--but congratulations, Mr.
Chairman. I know you are going to do a great job. And I am
equally represented by my Members as you are today. Dana
Rohrabacher, who also chaired this subcommittee, comes from my
home State of California, and Frank Lucas from the great State
of Oklahoma, who is a farmer and rancher who has served a long
time on this committee, also, Joe Bonner from Alabama from the
good old port city of Mobile, Alabama, he is going to be with
us a bit later, and, of course, Tom Feeney from Florida, who,
like, Mr. Rohrabacher, won in his first elected--try at elected
office, so he is going to be with us I think a bit later, also.
So with that, that is my add to the Committee here.
Chairman Udall. We have got a great team of Republicans and
Democrats alike, and I know we are going to have a productive
110th Congress.
At this time, I would like to provide my opening statement,
and then I will turn to Mr. Calvert for his.
Good morning. Thank you to the witnesses. We have a
distinguished panel today before us, and I want to extend my
appreciation to all of you for your participation.
As I did earlier, I wanted to welcome my colleagues, and in
particular, Ranking Member Calvert, to the first hearing of the
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the 110th Congress. We
have a good mix of returning veterans and thoughtful newcomers
on this subcommittee. I don't know whether that means that the
veterans aren't thoughtful, but certainly, the veterans bring a
wealth of experience and wisdom to the Subcommittee's work.
There are--is no lack of important issues for us to
consider this year, and one of those issues is the outlook for
the FAA's R&D program. A review of the FAA's R&D program is
especially appropriate now, given that Congress will be
reauthorizing the FAA this year, and we need to be sure that
the FAA has a healthy and effective research capability.
As our FAA witness will, no doubt, remind us, FAA carries
out a wide range of R&D activities, including research related
to such things as developing the NextGeneration Air
Transportation System, incorporating UABs into the national
airspace, understanding the impact of wake turbulence on
aircraft separation standards, reducing general aviation
accident rates and the list goes on.
Yet, it needs to be noted that the FAA's research is
intended to complement the aeronautics research carried out by
NASA, not substitute for it.
As I have said in the past, I am concerned that the changes
NASA is making to its aeronautics program are ill advised, both
in terms of the reduced funding commitment and in retreating
from R&D that has direct relevance to the public good and to
our economic well-being.
In particular, I am concerned that the FAA's options for
future technologies and systems are going to be negatively
impacted by the cutbacks underway at NASA, and I intend to
explore that issue at today's hearing.
Another issue I would like to have our witnesses address is
how well aligned FAA's R&D program is to the needs of the
NextGeneration Air Transportation System Initiative. Is it
focused on the right priorities? Does it have the right
resource commitments?
Finally, the issue of the impact of aviation on climate
change is receiving increasing attention due, in part, to
proposed European Union emissions penalties on aircraft
operations. I think it is in our strong interest to know what
the state of research is in this country, both on the
scientific questions surrounding the aviation impacts and on
the technological options for mitigating those impacts.
Well, we have a lot to discuss today. Again, I want to
welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mark Udall
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today, and I
want to extend my appreciation for your participation.
I'd also like to take a moment to welcome my colleagues--and in
particular Ranking Member Ken Calvert--to this, the first hearing of
the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee in the 110th Congress.
We have a good mix of returning veterans and thoughtful newcomers
on the Subcommittee, and I'm really looking forward to an active and
productive year ahead.
Of course, there are no lack of important issues for us to consider
this year, and one of those issues is the outlook for FAA's R&D
program.
A review of FAA's R&D program is especially appropriate now, given
that Congress will be reauthorizing the FAA this year, and we need to
be sure that FAA has a healthy and effective research capability.
As our FAA witness will no doubt remind us, FAA carries out a wide
range of R&D activities, including research related to such things as:
developing the next generation air transportation system, incorporating
UAV's into the national airspace, understanding the impact of wake
turbulence on aircraft separation standards, reducing general aviation
accident rates and the list goes on.
Yet it needs to be noted that FAA's research is intended to
complement the aeronautics research carried out by NASA--not substitute
for it.
As I have said in the past, I'm concerned that the changes NASA is
making to its aeronautics program are ill-advised both in terms of the
reduced funding commitment and in retreating from R&D that has direct
relevance to the public good and to our economic well-being.
In particular, I'm concerned that FAA's options for future
technologies and systems are going to be negatively impacted by the
cutbacks underway at NASA, and I intend to explore that issue at
today's hearing.
Another issue I would like to have our witnesses address is how
well aligned FAA's R&D program is to the needs of the next generation
air transportation system initiative. Is it focused on the right
priorities? Does it have the right resource commitments?
Finally, the issue of the impact of aviation on climate change is
receiving increasing attention--due in part to proposed European Union
emissions penalties on aircraft operations.
I think it is in our strong interest to know what the state of
research is in this country both on the scientific questions
surrounding the aviation impacts. . .and on the technological options
for mitigating those impacts.
Well, we have a lot to discuss today.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Udall. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Calvert for
his opening statement.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again,
congratulations on your first hearing and calling this
important hearing to examine the Federal Aviation
Administration's R&D budget for fiscal year 2008.
The FAA plays a unique federal role. Not only does it
regulate air carriers, pilots, airports, air traffic design and
operation, it operates the Nation's air traffic control system
24/7. A huge part of our economy, including the commercial air
carrier system, is dependent on the FAA to provide navigation
and air separation services to ensure delivery of goods and
services to every corner of our nation.
Against this backdrop, the FAA's budget request for fiscal
year 2008 is $14.1 billion, yet, its request for research,
engineering and development is $140 million, or about one
percent of its overall budget. Looking more broadly at R&D
activities within the agency, its investment ticks up to $260
million, not quite two percent.
For an entity that relies on a nationwide, state-of-the-art
network for communications, tracking, guidance systems, this is
a startling low level of funding. Yet, it is possible because,
historically, over the last 40 years, FAA has relied on the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to perform a
large R&D role, especially in the area of air traffic control.
The relationship between the FAA and NASA is changing, but more
about that in a moment.
FAA's research, engineering, and development program
emphasizes a research agenda that focuses largely on air
traffic design, materials, human factors, weather, environment,
fuel, and others. The technologies they developed have led to
important breakthrough products, examples being: fuel-inerting
systems, flame-retardant systems, aircraft deicing systems.
This brief list does not do justice to their work, but it gives
an indication of the many types of valuable technologies they
have brought to this marketplace.
There is plenty more research to be done, especially as new
aircraft and materials are being introduced. Consider, for
instance, the number of very light jet models under development
and Boeing's new 787 with the first all-composite fuselage. The
technologies incorporated in these designs and their operation
and behavior must be fully understood if the FAA is to maintain
an enviable safety record. And FAA, together with other federal
agencies, continues to do important weather-prediction
research.
I am concerned, however, with the FAA's R&D budget is going
forward, especially with regard to taking on a greater role of
researching and developing air traffic control technologies. As
I mentioned a moment ago, NASA has traditionally done much of
the basic research related to our nation's air traffic control
system. But the relationship appears to be changing as NASA
reduces its expenditures for air traffic--excuse me, aerospace
systems research.
NASA has also stated it will no longer develop technologies
to the level of maturity enabling quick adoption without huge
additional investment and years of research, a capability that
FAA does not possess today.
I am interested to hear from our witnesses how they
describe FAA's challenges and whether, in their view,
sufficient budgetary resources are being brought to bear on
solving them, as well as to offer their assessment about the
content and scope of FAA's R&D portfolio.
Commercial aviation is here to stay, and roles connecting
the world's markets is growing dramatically, both in the number
of people carried and the amounts and value of cargo delivered.
There is no substitute for the services aviation provides. So
it is incumbent on government and industry to research and
develop safer, more efficient, environmentally-benign aircraft
to ensure uninterrupted growth in our economy.
So I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to
listening to our witnesses today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ken Calvert
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's hearing to examine the
Federal Aviation Administration's R&D budget request for Fiscal Year
2008.
The FAA plays a unique federal role. Not only does it regulate air
carriers, pilots, airports, and aircraft design and operations, it also
operates the Nation's air traffic control system 24/7. A huge part of
our economy, including the commercial air carrier system, is dependent
on FAA to provide navigation and air separation services to ensure
delivery of goods and services to every corner of our nation.
Against this backdrop, FAA's budget request for FY08 is $14.1
billion, yet its request for Research, Engineering and Development is
$140 million, or about one percent of its overall annual budget.
Looking more broadly at all R&D activities within the agency, its
investment ticks up to $260 million, not quite two percent.
For an entity that relies on a nationwide state-of-the-art network
of communications, tracking, and guidance systems, this is a
startlingly low level of funding, yet it's possible because
historically--over the last forty plus years--FAA has relied on the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to perform a large R&D
role, especially in the area of air traffic control. The relationship
between FAA and NASA is changing, but more on that in a moment.
FAA's Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) program
emphasizes a research agenda that focuses largely on aircraft safety
design, materials, human factors, weather, environment, and fuels,
among others. The technologies they've developed have led to important
breakthrough products, examples being fuel inerting systems, flame
retardant materials, and aircraft de-icing systems. This brief list
doesn't do justice to their work, but it gives an indication of the
many types of valuable technologies they've brought to marketplace.
There is plenty more research still to be done, especially as new
aircraft and materials are introduced. Consider, for instance, the
number of very light jet models under development, and Boeing's new 787
with the first all-composite fuselage. The technologies incorporated in
these designs, and their operation and behavior, must be fully
understood if FAA is to maintain an enviable safety record. And FAA,
together with other federal agencies, continues important weather
prediction research.
I am concerned, however, about FAA's R&D budget going forward,
especially with regard to taking on a greater role researching and
developing new air traffic control technologies. As I mentioned a
moment ago, NASA has traditionally done much of the basic research
related to our nation's air traffic control system. But the
relationship appears to be changing as NASA reduces its expenditures
for airspace systems research. NASA has also stated that it will no
longer develop technologies to a level of maturity enabling quick
adoption without huge additional investment and years of research, a
capability that FAA may not possess today.
I'm interested to hear our witnesses describe FAA's challenges, and
whether, in their view, sufficient budgetary resources being brought to
bear on solving them, as well as offer their assessment about the
content and scope of FAA's R&D portfolio.
Commercial aviation is here to stay, and its role connecting the
world's markets is growing dramatically, both in the number of people
carried and the amounts and value of cargo delivered. There is no
substitute for the services aviation provides, so it is incumbent on
government and industry to research and develop safer, more efficient
and environmentally benign aircraft to ensure uninterrupted growth in
our economy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to our witnesses for taking
time from the busy schedules to join us today.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, those statements will be added to the record.
At this time, I would like to introduce our excellent panel
of witnesses. I am going to start with Ms. Victoria Cox. She is
the Air Traffic Organization Vice President for Operations
Planning in the Federal Aviation Administration. Next to her is
Dr. John Hansman. He is the Co-Chair for the FAA's Research,
Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee and is
currently the Director of MIT's International Center for Air
Transportation. Next to Dr. Hansman is Dr. Donald Wuebbles, who
is the Chair--I guess was the Chair for the Workshop on the
Impacts of Aviation on Climate Change and is presently the head
of the University of Illinois' Department of Atmospheric
Sciences. And to his left, we have Mr. Steve Alterman, the
President of the Cargo Airline Association and Chairman of the
Environment Subcommittee of the FAA's Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee.
You will each have, I think, as you know, five minutes for
your spoken testimony, after which the Members of the
Subcommittee will each have five minutes to ask questions in
each round of questioning.
So, Ms. Cox, we will start with you. Thank you for being
here today.
STATEMENT OF MS. VICTORIA COX, VICE PRESIDENT FOR OPERATIONS
PLANNING SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Cox. Good morning, Chairman Udall, Congressman Calvert.
I am Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations Planning
Services in the Air Traffic Organization of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
I would like to request that my written statement be
included for the record.
Chairman Udall. So ordered.
Ms. Cox. Thank you.
I am honored to be here this morning to testify on the
FAA's fiscal year 2008 budget request for research and
development activities.
Because of the enormous economic benefits afforded by
aviation, the United States must have an aviation system that
is second to none, a system that can respond quickly to
changing and expanding transportation needs. We have the most
effective, efficient, and safest aviation system in the world
today, but today's system is at capacity, and demand for air
services is growing. Future congestion can only be alleviated
by transforming the system we have today. Our current system
just isn't scalable to handle future demand.
We are a partner in the development of the NextGeneration
Air Transportation System, or NextGen, envisioned by the Joint
Planning and Development Office. NextGen includes performance
targets that will reduce congestion by providing far greater
capacity than our current system allows. It will deliver
initial capabilities by 2015 that will accommodate the demand
for forecasted--demand forecasted for that timeframe. The
NextGen of 2025 will be capable of supporting a three-fold
increase in demand.
The Operational Evolution Partnership, or OEP, is the
mechanism by which the FAA will assess R&D requirements for
supporting NextGen. It will lay out a path from concept
development to implementation, ensuring that our R&D is indeed
focused on the NextGen vision. OEP version one will be
published in June of 2007.
Critical to FAA operations today and for NextGen are our
research programs. The FAA has recognized this fact by
proposing funding increases in research, engineering, and
development totaling $280 million over the next five years. In
fiscal year 2008, the FAA plans to invest a total of
approximately $260 million in overall research and development.
As the tempo of operations at our airports continues to
rise, our research projects include the development of
technologies that ensures safe transit of aircraft on taxiways
and runways. We are continuing research on aviation safety
issues. Aviation safety research is essential to meeting FAA
flight plans, safety objectives, and NextGen performance
targets. The potential of the NextGen system to handle
tremendous growth in air traffic compels us to maintain our
vigilance in safety research.
As we look at the NextGen system, we are working hard to
ensure that we meet the increasing demand for flying in an
environmentally-sound manner. The focus of the Environment and
Energy Research Program is making aviation quieter, cleaner,
and more energy-efficient, which has added--which has the added
benefit of reducing climate impact.
The FAA is also planning wake turbulence research, the
results of which will help us increase capacity while
maintaining safety. It will help us to safely reduce separation
distances between aircraft, support the efficient use of
closely-spaced parallel runways, and allow airports to operate
closer to their design capacity.
In addition, FAA is requesting funds for further research
on unmanned aircraft systems. The program ensures the safe
integration of these vehicles into our system. NextGen will
dramatically alter the roles and responsibilities of key
players. Human factors research is needed to define the
changing responsibilities of humans in the system to allocate
the functions to people or to automation and to design
automation so it serves the needs of the people who are
accountable for system performance.
To succeed in maintaining safety and ensuring sufficient
capacity in the future, we do need a stable funding stream that
will enable the FAA to launch the NextGen system. Secretary
Peters has said that it is critical to deploy state-of-the-art
technology that can safely handle the dramatic increases in the
number and type of aircraft using our skies. Continued
collaboration and success in research and development will make
this statement a reality.
We are enthusiastic about and we are focused on the
opportunity to direct our R&D efforts toward the realization of
the NextGeneration Air Transportation System, and I look
forward to working with you to making the NextGen system a
reality.
This concludes my testimony, and I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victoria Cox
Good morning, Chairman Udall, Congressman Calvert and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations
Planning Services in the Air Traffic Organization of the Federal
Aviation Administration. I am honored to be here this morning to
testify on the FAA's FY08 budget request for Research and Development
(R&D) activities.
Aviation is a vital national resource for the United States. It
provides support for business, jobs, economic development, law
enforcement, emergency response, and personal travel and leisure. It
attracts investment to local communities, and opens up new domestic and
international markets and supply chains. As a result, the United States
must have an aviation system that is second to none--a system that can
respond quickly to its changing and expanding transportation needs.
This can only be achieved through the introduction of new technologies
and procedures, innovative policies, and advanced management practices.
Our nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its
own success. We 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 and demand for air services is growing rapidly.
The FAA is committed to reducing congestion in our nation's air
transportation system and thereby maintaining and facilitating
increases in the economic benefits afforded by the system. Future
congestion can only be alleviated by transforming the system we have
today--our current system is not capable of being ``scaled up'' to meet
future demand. We must transform the current system to the system
envisioned by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)--the
Next Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen. NextGen includes
performance targets for the year 2025 that, if achieved, will reduce
congestion by providing far greater capacity than our current system
with higher efficiency levels than we have today, while maintaining
safety.
The FAA is integrating NextGen into its planning activities,
including its five-year strategic Flight Plan. In addition, the FAA is
using the Operational Evolution Partnership, the new OEP, to guide our
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, and its participants will include
representatives from JPDO.
OEP is the FAA's way to plan, execute and implement NextGen in
partnership with private industry. Through OEP we are seeking
stakeholder input, evaluating available technologies, defining and
prioritizing research and development requirements, establishing
milestones and commitments, and providing status, context and guidance
for initiatives related to NextGen.
OEP will provide a single entry point for new NextGen initiatives
to enter the FAA capital budget portfolio. It ties these initiatives
directly to our budget process, and it is the way that the FAA will
implement the JPDO's vision of the future system. It will provide an
integrated view of the programs, systems and procedures that are
critical to transforming the system; and it will let us see them in the
framework of the steps that must be taken by all FAA lines of business
in order to achieve timely implementation. It also allows us to
understand the near-term steps and mid-term goals that we must
accomplish to sustain and improve the National Airspace System (NAS) on
our way to the NextGen system of 2025.
Research is absolutely critical to FAA operations today and for
NextGen. FAA has recognized this fact by proposing funding increases in
R&D totaling $280 million over the next five years. These funding
increases are enabled by the financing reforms contained in the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the FAA. Among other reforms,
H.R. 1356, the NextGen Financing Reform Act of 2007, adopts cost-based
user fees (or offsetting collections) for the costs of air traffic
control services for commercial aviation users. FAA's annual spending
of these user fees would be fully offset by the user fee collections.
Therefore, FAA's spending would rise or fall based on FAA's costs and
would not compete with any other discretionary budget priorities (as
spending Trust Fund revenues do today).
The FAA uses R&D to achieve its near- and long-term goals and
objectives. In the past, the R&D program was driven by the near-term
operational needs of the aviation system, and a large share of the
agency's R&D was focused on specific near-term safety and capacity
issues. The FAA's R&D program is being adapted to be more flexible,
balanced, and dynamic so we can respond simultaneously to the critical
near-term needs of the system while providing for the NextGen system.
The OEP is the mechanism by which the FAA will assess R&D requirements
for supporting NextGen, and new initiatives will be reviewed and
prioritized before inclusion in Agency budget planning.
Research and Development will help FAA achieve NextGen by
identifying challenges, understanding barriers, and developing
solutions across the parameters of safety, environment, air traffic
management, human factors, systems integration and self-separation. To
better manage our R&D program, we have developed the National Aviation
Research Plan (NARP), which describes the FAA R&D programs that support
both the day-to-day operations of the National Airspace System and the
vision for NextGen. The projects identified in the NARP enable the FAA
to address the current challenges of operating the safest, most
efficient air transportation system in the world while building a
foundation for NextGen. Research makes known the unknown. It identifies
constraints and barriers, separates solutions that are effective from
those that are not, and will help transform our nation's air
transportation system.
Even before NextGen and the new OEP, we have not been developing
our R&D goals and portfolio in a vacuum. We continually assess our
research program in conjunction with our stakeholders and customers to
ensure we keep our R&D resources focused on the most critical tasks.
The R&D program receives expert advice and guidance from the Research,
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC). Established by
Congress in 1989, the REDAC reports to the FAA Administrator on
research and development issues, and provides a liaison between our R&D
program and industry, academia, and other government agencies. The R&D
program benefits significantly from the recommendations provided by the
REDAC. The committee, its subcommittees and working groups work hand-
in-hand with us to develop our R&D program. As our advisory committee
members will probably tell you, one of our greatest challenges is our
ability to define what the future system will look like. Of what
technologies will it be comprised? JPDO has just within the last few
weeks released the NextGen Concept of Operations, and in the next few
months will publish the NextGen Enterprise Architecture. The
significance of these documents should not be understated. They are
essential to understanding the transformed operational environment;
will allow us to more precisely develop a plan for achieving it; and
will provide the basis for architecture-based, quantitative resource
planning.
In fiscal year 2008, the FAA plans to invest a total of
approximately $259 million in Research and Development. $140 million of
this total is for Research, Engineering and Development (RED), which
breaks down as $123 million from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund,
and $17 million from the General Fund.
The RED budget request includes $91.3 million in RED for continued
research on aviation safety issues. This request supports critical
safety research in the areas of: continued airworthiness of aging
aircraft, fire safety, advanced aircraft materials and structural
safety, catastrophic failure prevention, atmospheric hazards,
propulsion and fuel systems, and weather. Aviation safety research is
essential to meeting FAA Flight Plan safety objectives and NextGen
performance targets. The potential of the NextGen system to handle
tremendous growth in air traffic compels us to maintain our vigilance
in safety research. We must continue to invest in aircraft safety to
reduce accident rates to insure that an increase in accidents does not
accompany the increase in traffic.
An investment in safety R&D has and will continue to result in
critical safety improvements for the flying public. Our scientists and
engineers, for example, are developing a fire proof airline cabin,
improving aviation maintenance programs, developing better weather
forecasts, ensuring the safety of composite aircraft components,
reducing runway incursions, and creating new, more effective ways to
train pilots, controllers, dispatchers, and crews.
In addition to safety programs, RED funding includes environmental
issues, wake turbulence projects, unmanned aircraft systems, and human
factors studies.
As we look at the NextGen system we are working hard to ensure that
we meet the increasing demand for flying in an environmentally sound
manner. The focus of the environment and energy research program is
making aviation quieter, cleaner, and more energy efficient--which has
the added benefit of reducing climate impact. We are investing in
research and development, and demonstration projects that will help us
better understand aviation's environmental health and welfare impacts
and bring new technologies, operational innovations, and other
capabilities on line to address and reduce these impacts. In FY08 we
are requesting $15.5 million in environment and energy research as well
as $3 million for environment projects under the Airports Cooperative
Research Program, funded under the Airport Improvement Program.
The FAA is also requesting funds to support wake turbulence
research, the results of which will help us increase capacity while
maintaining safety. This program provides a better understanding of the
swirling air masses, or wakes, trailing downstream from aircraft
wingtips. It will help us to safely reduce separation distances between
aircraft, support the efficient use of closely spaced parallel runways,
and allow airports to operate closer to their design capacity. FAA is
requesting an increase in funding for wake turbulence research from $4
million in fiscal year 2007 to $13.7 million in fiscal year 2008,
including $3 million in the ATO Capital request.
In addition, FAA is requesting funds to further research on
unmanned aircraft systems. The program ensures the safe integration of
unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System. This
research provides information to support certification procedures,
airworthiness standards, operational requirements, maintenance
procedures, and safety oversight activities of unmanned aircraft system
civil applications and operations. FAA is requesting an increase in
funds for unmanned aircraft systems research to $3.3 million for fiscal
year 2008.
Human Factors projects will develop procedures, training and
decision support approaches that mitigate human error while exploiting
the innovation and problem-solving capacity that is the hallmark of
human behavior. We will also develop system performance metrics that
include people as critical elements of system performance while
evaluating the impact of new technologies and procedures on human
decision-making through integrated demonstrations. In fiscal year 2008,
FAA is requesting $19.9M for human factors research and engineering
efforts.
The R&D request includes $18 million to continue supporting the
JPDO ($14.3M in RED and $3.5M in ATO Capital). As the unit that
spearheads NextGen for the Federal Government, JPDO will continue
defining the future operating environment, identifying demonstration
opportunities, and working with the relevant agencies who will
implement the JPDO vision.
$90 million in the ATO Capital account request is intended for
research and development work. This includes $23 million for the R&D
work at the MITRE Center for Advanced Aviation System Development
(CAASD). Other requests for Capital funding include the NextGen
demonstration projects. We are requesting $20 million to stage NextGen
Demonstration projects that will be used to lower risk; identify early
implementation opportunities; refine longer-term objectives;
demonstrate compatibility with other JPDO agencies; and, if results
dictate, eliminate certain concepts from further consideration.
We are requesting $28 million for research and development under
the Airport Improvement Program. The two key elements of the AIP
program are increasing the capacity of our nation's airports and
improving the safety of aircraft operating from these airports. As the
tempo of operations at our airports continues to rise, AIP research
projects include the development of technologies that insure safe
transit of aircraft on taxiways and runways, improved runway designs
that insure the safe control of aircraft landing in ice and snow
conditions, and the development of state-of-the-art crash and rescue
equipment to minimize the loss of life and injury in the event of an
accident. In addition to our in-house airport research, the Airport
Cooperative Research Program, funded through AIP, helps us leverage
outside R&D expertise by providing grants to research institutions to
help us solve real-world airport safety and capacity issues.
Given expected demand growth, it is important to improve operations
well in advance of 2025 so we can avoid gridlock, especially since we
expect one billion passengers per year traveling in the system by 2015.
With that in mind, we are conducting research to support mid-term
capabilities that must be in place to address demand forecasted for
that time frame. The OEP is helping us to define projects that deliver
mid-term results and also provide the stepping stones to NextGen.
We believe that a timely and efficient transition to NextGen
requires us to participate in concept development and validation,
prototyping and field demonstrations. Such involvement will give us in-
depth understanding of required NextGen operational improvements and
hasten our ability to implement NextGen systems in the National
Airspace System. The President's budget request for FY08 includes an
estimated $4.6 billion for NextGen investments over the next five
years. That number includes increases in funding for SWIM from $21
million to approximately $52 million, while funding for NAS-wide
implementation of ADS-B goes from $86 million in FY08 to an estimated
$156 million in FY12.
We have been working closely with the JPDO on defining mid and
long-term R&D activities that support seven solution sets that are key
to NextGen: initiation of trajectory-based operations; increased
arrivals/departures at high density airports; increased flexibility in
the terminal environment; improved collaborative air traffic
management; reduced weather impact; increased safety, security and
environmental performance; and transformed/networked facilities.
Trajectory-based operations, or management by trajectory, will
allow aircraft to fly trajectories negotiated with air traffic control
as opposed to today's practice of managing aircraft sector by sector
and requiring them to fly routes specified by air traffic control.
NextGen demonstrations in fiscal year 2008 will test various aspects of
trajectory-based management in the oceanic environment and demonstrate
how oceanic flights using tailored routes can avoid congestion and take
advantage of shorter routes.
High density airports are those where demand for runway capacity is
high, there are multiple runways with airspace and taxiing
interactions, or there are other airports in close proximity that
create the potential for airspace interference. Airspace redesign
coupled with new concept validation work will support this solution
set.
Flexible terminals and airports will apply technologies that
enhance both pilot and controller situation awareness and improve
service on the ground. Wake turbulence research will support reduced
separation standards that will contribute to this theme.
Collaborative air traffic management will consist of strategic and
tactical interactions between air traffic controllers and customers. It
will include flow programs as well as collaboration on procedures to
shift demand to other routings, altitudes, times, etc.
Enhanced weather forecasts as well as improved use of forecasts
will contribute to a reduction in weather impacts. Weather plays a
critical role in air traffic congestion and delays in today's system.
As much as sixty percent of today's delays and cancellations for
weather stem from potentially avoidable weather situations. For fiscal
year 2008 and beyond, FAA is focusing on capabilities to help
stakeholders at all levels make better decisions and better react to
avoidable weather situations thus minimizing their impact.
Safety, security and environment enhancements will result from
deployment of new procedures and systems that support NextGen
objectives. The Runway Status Lights program, for example, under our
Runway Incursion Reduction funding supports this safety theme. R&D
funded environment and energy programs also contribute significantly
here. The estimated $4.6 billion in NextGen investments over the next
five years also includes several initiatives to deal with aviation
environmental issues. Historically, new technology accounts for 90
percent of environmental footprint reduction. Our prototype Continuous
Descent Approach (CDA) has the double benefit of reducing noise and
emissions. We are seeking to expand on this work in fiscal year 2008
and beyond to develop and prototype air traffic and ground procedures
to reduce aircraft noise and fuel burn and emissions. And we are
seeking to advance Environmental Management Systems by developing
noise, local air quality and climate impacts metrics and decision
support tools that will allow us to dynamically manage the
environmental impacts of the NextGen system.
Human Factors considerations overlie all of these themes. NextGen
systems will dramatically alter the roles and responsibilities of key
players in the National Airspace System: pilots will take on more
separation responsibilities; automation will enable air traffic
controllers to manage larger numbers of aircraft while improving
safety; network-enabled operations will provide broader situation
awareness to stakeholders throughout the system and enable a new level
of air-ground cooperation. Human factors research is needed to define
the changing responsibilities of humans in the system, to allocate
function to people or automation and to design automation so it serves
the information needs of the people who are accountable for system
performance. We are requesting funding increases in fiscal years 2008-
2012 for human factors R&D in both the RE&D and ATO capital programs.
Proposed Research and Development in support of the seven NextGen
solution sets will be outlined in the publication of OEP Version One in
June 2007. The OEP will lay out the path from concept development to
implementation in the National Airspace System, ensuring that our R&D
is indeed focused on achieving NextGen capabilities.
Our planning is also in line with the Administration's National
Aeronautics Research and Development Policy published in December 2006.
As outlined earlier in this testimony, we propose to conduct research
in areas that support safety, the environment and air traffic
management; we plan to conduct research to support certification of
safety and environmental performance of aircraft systems; we are
working and plan to continue to work to bring our requirements in line
with NextGen; and through the OEP, we are aligning our efforts with
NextGen.
To succeed in maintaining safety and ensuring sufficient capacity
in the future, we do need a stable funding stream that will enable the
FAA to launch the NextGen system. This is critical, as Secretary Peters
stated ``if we are to deploy the state-of-the-art technology that can
safely handle the dramatic increases in the number and type of aircraft
using our skies.'' As outlined in the H.R. 1356, the NextGen Financing
Reform Act of 2007, research will be funded to allow critical safety
and capacity R&D to continue at a pace necessary to field NextGen
technologies by 2025. These increases in research funding are linked to
and dependent on this proposal. We are enthusiastic about and focused
on the opportunity to direct our R&D efforts toward the realization of
the Next Generation Air Transportation System, and look forward to
working with this committee to make the NextGen vision a reality.
This concludes my testimony, and I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions
the Committee may have.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Ms. Cox.
Dr. Hansman, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. R. JOHN HANSMAN, JR., CO-CHAIR, FAA RESEARCH,
ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE; T. WILSON
PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS AND ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS; DIRECTOR, MIT INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR
TRANSPORTATION, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Hansman. Yes. I also submitted written testimony, which
I hope will go in the record.
But as a Professor, I have to have slides. So the United
States has, as Ms. Cox said, the best and most efficient air
transportation system in the world. This is a complex, adapted
system that has evolved over the past seven years. This shows
you the traffic in one day over the system.
[Slide.]
The system is being stressed by demand on the system. The
blue line here shows you the North American revenue passenger
kilometer trends. You can see that the demand is increasing and
is expected to increase in the future.
The stress is starting to show in a couple of places. One
is delays. This shows you the delay patterns over time. You can
see that the delays have been building in the system. They were
moderated somewhat by the attacks, the drop in traffic after
September 11. The demand is back up in the system, but the
other thing is, if you look at this carefully, the blue line is
the month-by-month data. You can see that, starting in 1998,
the system started to become marginally stable, and you can see
volatility in the delays due to weather impacts and other
demands on the system.
In addition, you have issues, such as fuel price, so this
shows you the jet fuel price as a function of time, and you can
see, over the past several years, we are at extremely high
levels of fuel. Not only fuel is an issue, but also
environmental. This is an example of an analysis done by the
SAGE tool. One of my colleagues, Professor Ian Wates, who is
part of the partner program. This actually shows you the carbon
emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft over the
world. And you can see the two hotspots in the world are the
United States and Europe. So there is significant concern
there.
I want to go to the questions that I was asked to address.
First, is what concerns, if any, does the REDAC have about
the content priorities of the FAA's R&D programs, what we would
recommend to be done? In general, the REDAC has been generally
supportive of the content of the programs evaluated by a number
of the subcommittees. There is, as been noted earlier, concern
about the declining support for the national support for
aeronautics research and development both the FAA and R&D, the
concern that this resulted in decline in the national
capability in aeronautics and air transportation. We are also
concerned about the FAA's ability to attract and retain people
in emerging technology areas. Some of the examples are safety-
critical software, systems engineering, data mining.
Another question was: what impact does NASA's restructuring
of its aeronautics program have on the FAA's R&D program? To
the extent we know, NASA's program is transition--in
transition, so it is a little bit difficult to address--assess,
but there is clearly a shift to more fundamental, long-term
research, which is probably appropriate, but it is unclear
where that is going to go, and also a shift to lower, what we
call, technology-readiness levels.
So there is going to be some need to cover the short-term
gap and also applied aeronautics issues, and the FAA may have
to pick these up. The particular concerns in this technology
maturity gap for technologies that NASA develops, they won't be
taking them far enough to really field, so someone is going to
have to come into the gap and figure out how to mature these
technologies to the point that they are ready to go into the
system. There is also concern about things that have been
historical areas of excellence for NASA, such as human factors.
And there are a number of databases that NASA has been
particularly managing that will have to be taken over. And
again, this general concern about loss of national capability
in applied aeronautics. And finally, the human resources
pipeline. If we are not supporting aeronautics research, it is
hard to motivate faculty and students to move into these areas
that are going to be critical for us in the future.
To what extent has the FAA's R&D programs been integrated?
NextGen is--with the NextGen and JPDO, NextGen is still a work-
in-progress. It is influencing the R&D requirements, and there
have been initial implementation efforts, but there is a
concern about the balance between the near-term and long-term
issues.
Finally, in terms of major challenges, there are a number,
but the one I really want to get to is the difficulty of us
for--to actually implement technologies into the system. This
is a simple model one of my students developed, looking at how
technologies come into the system. The challenge we have now is
these take a long time. It is typically decades to get new
technologies in the system. Another thing is we have actually
lost some of the national capability to do major changes in the
system, because the NAS, the National Aeronautics System, has
been stable for the past 40 or 50 years. So as we contemplate
major changes from the JPDO, it is not really clear that we
have the safety and environmental approval process capability
to rapidly implement these systems, so this is a major area of
concern, and I would be happy to talk about it more later.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansman follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. John Hansman, Jr.
Chairman Udall and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Aviation
Administration's research and development capability. I am a Professor
of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and the Co-Chair of the FAA Research and Development
Advisory Committee (REDAC). The REDAC is a Congressionally mandated
committee which advises the FAA Administrator on research and
development.
The roll of research and development in the FAA is to support
current and future operational requirements as well as the agency's
mission of providing a safe, secure, and efficient global aerospace
system. The U.S. has the best and highest performance Air
Transportation System in the world. There are, however, increasing
signs that the system is under stress. Let me highlight a few examples.
The system is approaching its capacity limits at key points. As a
result, due to increasing demand (Figure 1) and the highly integrated
nature of the network (Figure 2), nominal interruptions, such as
weather problems, result in a nonlinear increase in system delay. This
can be seen in the national data shown in Figure 3 where summer delays
began to amplify in 1998. Delays were subsequently moderated due to
traffic reduction following the attacks of September 11, 2001. As
traffic levels have returned, the overall delays have grown to record
levels and expected to grow in the future. The FAA and airlines have
actually done a remarkable job of minimizing delays given the limited
airport and system capacity, but major weather related delay events,
such as those at Denver, New York, and the problems last weekend on the
east coast are further indications of system vulnerability.
Other factors stressing the system are emerging requirements for
increased fuel and environmental efficiency. Aviation fuel prices
(Figure 4) have, like other fuel sources, increased markedly in recent
years and are likely to remain high. Environmental issues are becoming
increasingly prominent internationally and at home. Concern over
aviation noise continues to limit our ability to expand operations at
key airports and the increased attention on global warming is driving
requirements on aircraft emissions.
I will comment briefly on the specific questions which you have
asked me to address.
What concerns, if any, does the REDAC have about the content and
priorities of the FAA's R&D program, and what would the REDAC recommend
be done?
The REDAC has been generally supportive of the specific content of
the FAA's R&D programs given the limited resources allocated to R&D and
system development. The REDAC subcommittees review the R&D programs in
the areas of Airports, National Airspace System Operations, Human
Factors, Environment & Energy, and Safety and generally have concurred
with the FAA's R&D plans.
The REDAC has been concerned for a number of years that the
declining support for aeronautics R&D both at the FAA and NASA have
resulted in the decline of national aeronautics capability. In some
important areas research efforts are below critical mass and others are
not supported at all.
The REDAC is also concerned about the ability of the FAA to attract
and retain highly skilled personnel in emerging technology areas which
are important to the FAA R&D mission. Important efforts such as the
Safety Management System are not as effective as they should be due to
lack of intellectual capital. The REDAC has recommended the FAA
increase its capability in key emerging areas such as; complex safety
critical software, system engineering, and safety data mining.
What impact is NASA's restructuring of its aeronautics program having
on FAA's R&D program?
The restructuring of the NASA aeronautics program has significant
implications on the FAA R&D program. Over the past decade, as
aeronautics research support in the U.S. has declined, the FAA and NASA
have worked to integrated their research programs to avoid duplication
and to cover key topics in the areas of aviation safety, aircraft
technology, and air traffic control. NASA has shifted its focus to
longer-term and more fundamental aeronautics research and developing a
core knowledge base. While this is a reasonable strategy given their
limited resources it will be incumbent for the FAA or some other agency
to cover shorter-term and applied civil aeronautics issues which NASA
had previously addressed. It should be noted that this has been a
difficult area to assess as the NASA program has been in transition and
it is still not fully clear what the full content of the NASA's program
will be and it's consequent impact on the FAA.
There are, however, several areas of concern. One is the technology
maturity gap problem. As NASA has limited its focus on lower Technology
Readiness Levels (basic research and technology feasibility) the FAA
will have to pick up more responsibility for moving key technologies
for the NAS through the mid TRL levels (development and demonstration).
This will be in addition to the FAA's normal efforts at high TRL level
system integration. The REDAC, among others, have highlighted this
issue and the FAA has proposed several efforts to address the TRL gap.
In some areas (e.g., Environmental) the technologies will benefit both
industry and government so the FAA has been able to propose cooperative
agreements with industry such as the Research Consortium for Lower
Energy, Emission, and Noise Technology Partnership. In other areas
(e.g., Air Traffic Management and Safety Analysis) the FAA will be the
primary technology user and will have to manage the higher TRL level
efforts. This will require resources and will likely be a significant
challenge for the FAA.
Another area of concern is the maintenance of aviation safety and
human factors databases developed through long-term NASA efforts.
Through the Aviation Safety and Reporting System (ASRS) and several
human factors field studies, NASA has developed several databases which
are national assets and relied on by the FAA and other aviation safety
researchers. If NASA does not continue to support these databases it
will be necessary to protect these resources.
Finally there is the issue of nurturing and maintaining the
national capability in applied aeronautics. It is important for the FAA
and NASA to work together to encourage and enable the next generation
who will move the system forward. There are some notable successes such
as the FAA Centers of Excellence and the recent NASA NRA program.
However, the general decay in aeronautics research coupled with re-
structuring uncertainty has had an adverse impact on university
programs and the pipeline of young talent attracted to solving the
challenges which the FAA will face.
To what extent has FAA's R&D program been integrated with the needs of
the JPDO, and is that an appropriate level of integration?
To the extent that the JPDO has been able to define near-term
operational and R&D requirements the FAA has begun to integrate them
into its plans. Examples include the initial implementation of ADS-B
and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) as well as increased FAA
support for environmental programs. However, the NextGen system is
still a work in progress and is not sufficiently defined to drive a
majority of the FAA R&D programs. In addition, as the JPDO is focused
on longer-term transformational concepts, there is a tension between
those needs and the R&D required to address nearer-term issues and to
manage the system.
What are the major challenges facing the FAA's R&D program over the
next five years?
Building and maintaining the intellectual capability in the FAA as
well as supporting R&D organizations, balancing both near-term and
long-term (NextGen) issues, and finding the resources to excel will be
challenges.
However, I believe that the major challenge for the FAA R&D program
and the agency as a whole will be to find ways to efficiently and
quickly implement the technologies, and new operational concepts into
the NAS while maintaining or increasing level of safety and minimizing
environmental impact. This will be necessary to support both near-term
and NextGen system transitions. It is unclear if we have the strategic
core competency to effectively implement the new concepts in the NAS
and we must develop approaches to enable effective transition.
Figure 5 depicts a simple model of change and system transition in
the NAS (developed by one of my students Aleksandra Mozdzanowska) which
illustrates this point. Change can be motivated by safety, capacity,
efficiency, environmental or other concerns and we often focus R&D on
the technology or operational concept aspects indicated on the right
side of the figure. However, success will be determined by how well we
can implement and develop system capability as indicated on the left
side of Figure 5. The time constant for implementation can be very long
and most major system changes have historically taken decades.
As our expectations for safety and environmental impact have
increased, the safety and environmental standards have risen and these
can be significant barriers to implementation. Many of the standards
post date the basic technical and operational structure of the NAS
which has been fairly stable for the past 30 to 50 years. As a
consequence there is very little experience in making the type of major
system changes envisioned in the NextGen operational concepts,
procedures, and capabilities, particularly those which simultaneously
require air and ground system changes.
Given the number and complexity of expected operational
capabilities envisioned over the next five to 10 years the FAA will
need to develop new approaches to program management, safety and
environmental analysis, as well as efficient processes for operational
approval which ensure that safety, environmental, schedule, and cost
goals are met.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Wuebbles, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD J. WUEBBLES, CHAIR, WORKSHOP ON THE
IMPACTS OF AVIATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE; DEPARTMENT HEAD AND
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES; EXECUTIVE
COORDINATOR, SCHOOL OF EARTH, SOCIETY, AND ENVIRONMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Dr. Wuebbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first start by--I have a written statement, but even
though I am a professor, I am going to actually read my
statement instead of using slides.
Chairman Udall. Doctor, you should turn on your mike or
bring it closer.
Dr. Wuebbles. Okay. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
My name is Don Wuebbles. I am a professor of atmospheric
sciences and Director of the School of Earth, Society, and
Environment at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.
Thank you for the invitation to testify in support of a new
research agenda in the United States for understanding the
impact of aviation on the Earth's climate.
In June 2006, I organized and chaired a workshop on the
impacts of aviation on climate change that was developed in
coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration. The
findings from the international panel of experts participating
in that workshop are the basis for my statement.
The 2004 report to Congress from the Partner Center for
Excellence at MIT indicated that the most serious, long-term
environmental issue facing the aviation industry may be the
effect of aviation emissions on climate, both because of
potential impacts, and also because of the lack of
understanding of the issues.
Projections from industry and from governmental
organizations, including the FAA, suggested that over the next
two decades, the demand for aviation could grow to three times
its present level. This projected growth will likely result in
increased impacts from aviation on the environment. One
important concern is aircraft influence released at cruise
altitudes that interact with background atmosphere and undergo
complex processes, resulting in potential impacts on climate.
Our workshop examined the current state of scientific
knowledge about the effects of aviation on climate, identified
key uncertainties and gaps, and determined further research
needs.
I will describe some of the findings and what is still
unclear, but the bottom line is that because of potentially
serious implications of aviation influence on our planet,
further research, and funding for that research, are
imperative.
Aviation contributes about two percent of the global human-
related emissions of carbon dioxide. As a result of policies to
reduce other human-related emissions, this percentage could
increase in the future. The climate effects from the emissions
of carbon dioxide are much better known than the effects from
other aviation emissions, particularly the effects resulting
from nitrogen oxide emissions on atmospheric ozone and methane,
the effects from emitted aerosols and aerosol pre-cursors, and
the climate effects associated with contrail and cirrus cloud
formation. The scientific understanding of those effects range
from fair to poor, very poor.
The estimates of climate impacts due to contrail and
contrail-induced high-altitude cirrus clouds are especially
uncertain. Contrails form if ambient air along the flight track
is colder and moister than the threshold based on known
thermodynamic grandeurs that are currently not well
characterized at cruise altitudes. In high, supersaturated air
masses, contrails can organize themselves in clusters that add
significantly to the natural high cloud cover that can affect
climate. The workshop recommended new, carefully-coordinated,
regional-scale measurement campaigns along with process studies
and laboratory studies towards understanding the factors
affecting the growth, decay, and trajectories of contrail ice
particles and determine resulting effects on cirrus, including
the role of aerosols.
The workshop also found much better--that much better
approaches are needed for comparing relative effects of all
aviation emissions on climate, particularly to place those
effects on a common scale for assessing the overall climate
impact and to quantify the potential trade-offs on the climate
impact due to aircraft technology, aircraft operations, and
various policy scenarios. For example, should the aviation
community emphasize increased energy efficiency, thus reducing
emissions of carbon dioxide, are policies to reduce formation
of contrails and effects on cirrus clouds.
This is an important consideration for national and
international policy. Some in Europe are advocating action
without adequate analysis, which could lead to bad, unintended
consequences.
As a key conclusion, the workshop participants acknowledged
an urgent need for aviation-focused research activities to
provide better science-based understanding of the impacts of
aviation emissions on climate change. We need improved metrics,
measurement techniques, and modeling capabilities to quantify
and predict impacts and to understand the interrelationships of
aviation and environmental factors.
This effort will entail coordination with existing and
planned climate research programs within government agencies
and could be organized through expansion of such programs or by
totally new activities. The workshop participants indicated
that such efforts should include strong and continued
interactions among the science and aviation communities as well
as among policymakers to develop well-informed decisions.
The next steps required include further ranking and
prioritizing of identified research needs, creating a research
roadmap with associated roles and responsibilities of various
participating agencies and stakeholders, and identifying
resources needed to implement the roadmap.
The FAA has already taken some steps to make resources
available. There is funding allocated to these efforts in the
fiscal year 2008 President's budget starting in fiscal year
2009; however, one agency cannot do it alone. This should be a
focus of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. The need is
immediate. We need scientific focus and resources in the United
States to pursue aviation climate impact research to put us in
a position to make smart decisions for the NextGen aviation
system and to allow us to shape the international debate with
the International Civil Aviation Organization and other forums.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wuebbles follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald J. Wuebbles
The Need for New Research to Address
the Impacts of Aviation on Climate Change
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
My name is Don Wuebbles. I am a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
and Director of the School of Earth, Society, and Environment at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Thank you for the invitation to testify today about the need for a
new research agenda in the U.S. for understanding the impacts of
aviation on the Earths' climate system. In June 2006, I organized and
chaired a workshop on the impacts of aviation on climate change that
was developed in particular coordination with the Federal Aviation
Administration. This workshop was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) Joint Planning and
Development Office Environmental Integrated Product Team JPDO/EIPT and
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction
(PARTNER) Center of Excellence. The resulting findings from the
international panel of experts participating in that workshop are the
basis for my statement.
A 2004 report to Congress from the PARTNER Center for Excellence at
MIT indicated that the most serious long-term environmental issue
facing the aviation industry may be the effects of aircraft emissions
on climate--both because of potential impacts and also the lack of
understanding of the issues. Projections from industry and from
governmental organizations, including the FAA, suggest that over the
next two decades, the demand for aviation could grow to about three
times its present level. This projected growth will likely result in
[higher aviation emissions of various pollutants and associated]
increased impacts from aviation on the environment, and human health
and welfare. [These effects are dependent upon a variety of factors
(such as the size and mix of the operational fleet necessary to meet
the stated demand as well as mitigation steps such as new technological
advances, more efficient operational procedures, market based options
and regulatory intervention).] One of the most important concerns is
the potential impact of emissions on the climate. Once released at
cruise altitudes [within the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere],
the aircraft effluents interact with the background atmosphere and
undergo complex processes, resulting in potential impacts on the
Earth's climate system.
Our workshop examined the current state of scientific knowledge
about the effects of aviation on climate, identified key uncertainties
and gaps, and determined further research needs. I will describe some
of our findings and what is still unclear. But the bottom line is that
because of the potentially serious implications of aviation effluents
on our planet, further research and funding for that research are
imperative.
In agreement with earlier studies [e.g., the 1999 assessment by the
international science community through the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)], the workshop concluded that the major ways that
aviation can affect climate are the direct effects from aircraft
emissions of the important greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
(CO2) (and, to a much lesser extent, water vapor), the
indirect forcing on climate resulting from changes in the atmospheric
distributions and concentrations of ozone and methane as a primary
consequence of aircraft nitrogen oxide emissions, the direct effects
(and indirect effects on clouds) from emitted aerosols and aerosol
precursors, and the climate effects associated with contrails and
cirrus cloud formation.
Aviation contributes about two percent of the global human-related
emissions of carbon dioxide. As a result of policies to reduce other
human-related emissions, this percentage could increase in the future.
The climate effects from aviation emissions of carbon dioxide are much
better known than the effects from other emissions. This workshop
agreed with prior assessments that the level of scientific
understanding to estimate climate response due to aviation emissions
other than carbon dioxide ranges from fair to very poor.
The potential importance of aircraft nitrogen oxide emissions on
the atmospheric concentrations of ozone is well recognized. Aviation
perturbed ozone levels can also affect the amounts of methane, another
important greenhouse gas. However, the workshop determined that
important uncertainties remain in our understanding of these effects.
The workshop recommended new detailed inter-comparisons of current
models of atmospheric physics and chemistry relative to the existing
database of measurements of key atmospheric gases and particles. Also,
participants recommended expanding the analysis of the wealth of data
already measured from aircraft and satellite platforms with a focus on
the atmospheric regions perturbed by impacts of aviation emissions. In
the longer-term, there is a need for new field campaigns to better
understand the physical and chemical processes in these regions.
The estimates of climate impacts due to contrail and contrail-
induced formation of high-altitude cirrus clouds are especially
uncertain. Contrails form if ambient air along the flight track is
colder and moister than a threshold based on known thermodynamic
parameters that are not well characterized at cruise altitudes. Early
contrail evolution depends, in poorly understood ways, on aircraft and
engine emission parameters. In ice-supersaturated air masses, contrails
can organize themselves in regional-scale clusters that add
significantly to the natural high cloud cover and have the potential,
albeit with large uncertainties, for a relatively large effect on
climate. Factors controlling the climate effects of cirrus clouds and
contrail-cirrus (e.g., ice crystal habit, vertical profiles of ice
water content, effective radius) are poorly constrained by existing
observations. The extent of global distribution of supersaturation at
cruise altitudes has not been adequately verified to enable its
reliable prediction.
Workshop participants discussed many uncertainties and knowledge
gaps related to aircraft emissions of aerosols, their role in plume
evolution, interaction with the background atmosphere and the formation
of high altitude cirrus clouds. The magnitude of the atmospheric impact
depends on details of plume processing and on the relative ability of
background aerosol particles to act as ice-forming nuclei. It was also
noted that models do not adequately treat the radiative properties of
cirrus, thus limiting their abilities to study contrail-cirrus cloud
interactions. Large uncertainties also exist as to how properties of
ambient aerosols are perturbed in the presence of jet engine emissions
under various atmospheric conditions and aircraft configurations.
The workshop recommended new carefully coordinated regional-scale
measurement campaigns to measure the factors affecting the growth,
decay, and trajectories of contrail ice particle populations, and to
define the abundance and properties of ambient aerosols as well as
gaseous aerosol precursor concentrations. Process studies that explore
the role of emitted aerosol particles, and how volatile aerosols
interact with each other and with background aerosols, are required to
understand the effect of emitted aerosol particles on cloudiness.
Laboratory measurements are also urgently needed to develop improved
aerosol-related parameterizations of heterogeneous ice nucleation for
use in atmospheric models.
The Workshop also found that much better approaches are needed for
comparing relative effects of all aviation emissions on climate,
particularly to place these effects on a common scale for assessing the
overall climate impact, and to quantify the potential trade-offs on the
climate impact due to changes in aircraft technology, aircraft
operations and various policy scenarios. For example, should aviation
emphasize increased energy efficiency, thus reducing emissions of
carbon dioxide, or policies to reduce formation of contrails and
effects on cirrus clouds? There is no published study that utilizes the
current understanding of the impact of aviation emissions on
atmospheric composition to examine the possible choices, dependencies,
and problems for evaluating aviation trade-offs. This is an important
consideration for national and international policy--some in Europe are
advocating action without adequate analysis--which could lead to bad
unintended consequences.
Conclusions
As a key conclusion, the workshop participants acknowledged an
urgent need for aviation-focused research activities to address the
uncertainties and gaps in the understanding of current and projected
impacts of aviation on climate and to develop metrics to better
characterize these impacts. This effort will entail coordination with
existing and planned climate research programs within government
agencies, and could be organized through expansion of such programs or
by totally new activities. The workshop participants indicated that
such efforts should include strong and continuing interactions among
the science and aviation communities as well as among policy-makers to
develop well-informed decisions. The next steps required include
further ranking and prioritizing of identified research needs; creating
a research roadmap with associated roles and responsibilities of
various participating agencies and stakeholders; and identifying
resources needed to implement the roadmap.
The FAA has already taken some steps to make resources available--
there is funding allocated to these efforts in the FY08 President's
Budget starting in FY09. However, one agency cannot do it alone--this
should be a focus for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. We need
better science-based understanding of the impacts of aviation emissions
on climate change. We need improved metrics, measurement techniques,
and modeling capability to quantify and predict impacts and to
understand inter-relationships of aviation environmental factors. This
is not a ``science project''--the need is immediate. Decisions, with
broad policy implications, such as the European Emissions Trading
Scheme are being made without a firm understanding of the underlying
science. We need scientific focus and resources in the U.S. to pursue
aviation climate impact research--to put us in a position to make smart
decisions for the NextGen aviation system and to allow us to shape the
international debate within the International Civil Aviation
Organization and other fora.
Biography for Donald J. Wuebbles
Don Wuebbles is Executive Coordinator (Director) of the new School
of Earth, Society, and Environment at the University of Illinois. He is
also a Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences as well as
in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Wuebbles
was Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences from 1994 until 2006
before accepting the new position. He was also the first Director of
the Environmental Council at the University of Illinois, from 1996
until August 1999; as Director, he was responsible for oversight and
development of all educational and research programs at the University
of Illinois relating to the environment. Don earned his B.S. (1970) and
M.S. (1972) degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Illinois. He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the
University of California at Davis in 1983. Don spent many years as a
research scientist and group leader at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory before returning to the University of Illinois in 1994. He
is the author of about 400 scientific articles, most of which relate to
atmospheric chemistry and global climate change as affected by both
human activities and natural phenomena. His research emphasizes the
development and use of mathematical models of the atmosphere to study
the chemical and physical processes that determine atmospheric
structure, aimed primarily towards improving our understanding of the
impacts that man-made and natural trace gases may be having on the
Earth's climate and on tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry. He has
been a lead author on various national and international assessments
related to these issues, including chairing a recent international
workshop on the potential impacts of aviation on climate.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Dr. Wuebbles.
And now we turn to Mr. Alterman. The floor is yours for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, CARGO AIRLINE
ASSOCIATION; CHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, FAA RESEARCH,
ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Alterman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee.
My name is Steve Alterman, and I am the President of the
Cargo Airline Association, the association that represents
those carriers that fly only freight. I also have the honor as
serving as the Chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee of
the FAA's REDAC Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to be
here today.
Initially, I think it is important for everyone in Congress
to understand the critical importance of research and
development to the industry as we move toward a new paradigm in
aerospace management. As a practical matter, today's R&D forms
the basis for tomorrow's operational products, and any delay in
this element of work has significant negative long-term
effects. All too often, this component of the modernization
equation is overlooked in the contentious debate over
financing. It should not be.
Over the past decade, our industry segment has worked
closely with the FAA and various portions of the research and
development portfolio, from the development of Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, it is a terrible acronym, but
it is a wonderful product, it is called ADSB, to the balancing
of environmental sensitivity to--with the needs of the
traveling and shipping public. If we were to learn one thing
from these efforts, it is that there must be a firm commitment
from both industry and government to the necessary research and
the transition from the research mode to one of implementation.
I couldn't agree with John Hansman more about the challenge of
implementing once we get the research done. I think it is a key
point.
Put somewhat differently, the FAA research and development
effort must be a true partnership with each participant being
willing to support the other. From an industry perspective, we
need to do not only the scientific elements of the project, but
we need to understand both the cost and benefits to the
industry and the government as we do this.
I am not going to go into the NASA funding debate other
than to tell you that industry has as much concern over it as
Congress seems to have and the rest of the panelists have. we
think it is very unfortunate, the reprioritization of their
efforts, and we need to figure out--either get that back on
track or work around so that we can get the necessary research
done.
I would like to concentrate this morning, in my time left,
on three separate issues. One is the--our involvement with the
ADSB technology that the FAA has identified as the building
block of future surveillance in the NextGen system. We started
working on this about 11 years ago, trying to develop a new
collision-avoidance system to replace TCAS. We were ahead of
our time, and haven't succeeded in that yet, but we realized,
in working with the technology, that it had much broader
application. And we think that providing better and more timely
information to both cockpit crews and controllers, we can move
forward with the modernization effort. It is an essential
building block. We work closely with the FAA Safe Flight 21
office in this effort, both with surface management systems to
try to work on the safety on the ground and potentially
airborne applications, using the ADSB technologies. Our
members, Fed-Ex and UPS have been involved at both Memphis and
Louisville with trials and working together with the FAA.
In addition, a companion project in the State of Alaska was
demonstrating the benefits of ADSB technology to the general
aviation community. And I think all of us in the industry, and
I think I can speak for all of us, absolutely support those
efforts.
The FAA has recognized this by actually making that
announcement and forming a program office within the agency to
implement ADSB.
What have we learned in this process? Well, first, we
wanted to--things take too long. I think that Mr. Hansman is
correct. I hate to keep agreeing with him, but things take too
long. To a large extent, delays are inherent in any process
that requires the involvement of a massive bureaucracy, but
there must be ways to accelerate R&D efforts that are for the
potential for significant improvements.
Second, you know, research and development may, in fact, be
the easy part. As a colleague from Federal Express noted early
in the project, ``This ain't no science project.'' Our industry
has invested over $100 million of our own money in the ADSB
technology effort alone. We need to see it implemented, not
just studied.
The second area of research in which the cargo industry has
participated involves the development of new operational
procedures. I think this is important, because, as we talk
about the complicated technology challenges of the future,
there are certain low-tech cousins of those technologies that
could help in the near-term. Operational procedures is one of
those, and we have been working closely with the FAA on a
program called Continuous Descent Arrivals, with UPS being the
demonstrating company, which has showed that we get not only
operational benefits: less fuel burn, environmental benefits,
and safety benefits, and we are in the process now of figuring
out how to take what we learn in Louisville and migrate that to
the rest of the country.
Finally, perhaps the most aggressive area of FAA research
and development is in the environmental area. We absolutely
support what is being done there, and I know my time is up, but
I will just simply say that I know you are studying the fiscal
year 2008 budget. Those funds are necessary, but they are
necessary, in large part, as a basis for the efforts that are
contained in the FAA's reauthorization proposal. As an
industry, we absolutely support the section 600 provisions in
those--in that bill that would do more environmental research
and provide environmental demonstration programs and research
programs.
That concludes my oral statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alterman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. Alterman
Good morning. My name is Steve Alterman and I am the President of
the Cargo Airline Association, the nationwide organization representing
the interests of the all-cargo air carrier industry, as well as other
businesses and entities with a stake in the all-cargo supply chain. (A
list of current members is attached). I also have the honor of serving
as the current Chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee of the FAA's
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC). Thank
you for the opportunity today to present some industry thoughts on FAA
R&D efforts.
Initially, I think it is important for Congress to understand the
critical importance of research and development as we move toward a new
paradigm in airspace management. As a practical matter, today's R&D
forms the basis for tomorrow's operational products, and any delay in
this element of work has significant negative long-term effects. All
too often, this component of the modernization equation is overlooked
in the contentious debate over future system funding. It should not be.
Over the past decade, our industry segment has worked closely with
the FAA on various portions of the research and development portfolio,
from the development of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B) capabilities to the balancing of environmental sensitivity with
the needs of the traveling and shipping public. If we have learned one
thing from these efforts, it is that there must be a firm commitment
from both industry and government to both the necessary research and
the transition from the research mode to one of implementation. If
either side breaks down, useful projects may be doomed.
Put somewhat differently, the FAA research and development effort
must be a true partnership--with each participant willing to support
the other. From the industry perspective, the research should include,
not only the scientific elements of the project, but also an analysis
of the benefits and costs to both government and industry.
Another preliminary point worth noting is that recent ``re-
prioritizing'' of NASA research to concentrate on space missions, and
downgrade aeronautics activities, has seriously affected the FAA
research effort. In order to compensate for the decrease in NASA
activity, it is vitally important that the FAA R&D budget be increased
to permit needed research to be undertaken in a timely fashion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the alternative, NASA aeronautics research funding should be
restored to former levels, with specific Congressional guidance on how
the money should be spent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving to more specific aspects of the FAA R&D program, I would
like to concentrate on three separate areas of activity, all of which
contain valuable lessons.
The Cargo Airline Association's involvement with ADS-
B technology began over 11 years ago when member companies were
searching for a collision avoidance alternative to the radar-
based TCAS system. While we were not successful in developing
this new capability (I think we were ahead of our time), we
soon realized that the technology held promise for projects
over and above airborne collision avoidance. Providing better
and more timely information to both cockpit crews and
controllers, both in the air and on the ground, appeared to be
a realistic goal. Working with the newly-formed FAA Safe Flight
21 Office, all-cargo airlines developed both new Surface
Management Systems and potential airborne applications using
ADS-B technology, with test-beds established both in
Louisville, Kentucky and Memphis, Tennessee. In addition, a
companion project in the State of Alaska, Project Capstone,
demonstrated the operational and safety benefits of ADS-B
technology to the General Aviation community.
Over the years, it became obvious to all those involved in
these research and development efforts that ADS-B would have a
central place in any modernized air traffic system. And the FAA
agreed. In December 2005, the agency announced that ADS-B would
form the basis for future system surveillance. To facilitate
this transition, the FAA also announced that a new ADS-B
Program Office would be formed to provide the implementation
vehicle. Today, this Office is in the process of laying the
groundwork for the purchasing and installing the ground
stations necessary for initial ADS-B applications.
While this progress is certainly encouraging, we cannot stop
there. Plans must be made for future improvements involving
air-to-air ADS-B applications--applications that will provide
significant benefits to commercial aviation users. The research
necessary for such improvements must be done now if we expect
implementation in a timely manner. The House of Representatives
recognized this need in its proposed Fiscal Year 2007
Appropriations package wherein it added $20 million to the
Administration's $80 million budget request for ADS-B
development and specified that the extra $20 million be spent
on air-to-air application development.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These funds were never actually appropriated since no
Transportation Budget was ever enacted for FY 2007 and we are now
operating under a Continuing Resolution.
What have learned in the course of this process? First,
things take too long. To a large extent, delays are inherent in
any process that requires the involvement of a massive
bureaucracy, but there should be ways to accelerate R&D efforts
that have the potential for significant airspace improvements.
Second, research and development may in fact be the easy part.
As a colleague from Federal Express noted early in the ADS-B
development process, ``This ain't no science project!'' Indeed,
we must have the resources and leadership to transform the
research into products for the National Airspace System. We
cannot let either industry or government inertia overwhelm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these efforts.
The second area of research in which the all-cargo
industry has participated involves the development of new
operational procedures. These procedures are the low-tech
cousins of technological improvements and possess the promise
to provide near-term benefits while longer-term solutions to
problems are being developed. Specifically, one of our members,
UPS Airlines, has been working cooperatively with the FAA on
the concept of Continuous Descent Arrivals (CDAs), an
operational procedure that provides more efficient vertical
profiles in the landing process. To test the viability of such
arrivals, nighttime operations at Louisville were selected
since UPS provides the overwhelming majority of operations. The
results have been encouraging, with the airline experiencing
more efficient operations and significant fuel savings and the
public enjoying the measurable environmental benefits of less
noise and aircraft engine emissions. The challenge now is to
migrate the Louisville experience into ``mixed environments''
where many different airlines operate in high density airspace.
These tests are currently in the planning stages. Of course,
after all the research is completed, and all the necessary data
collected, the ultimate goal will be to incorporate these
procedures into the national airspace system. Again, this
effort will require both industry and government involvement
and cooperation. The major challenge for the airline community
is to adequately quantify and understand both the costs and
benefits of the modified flight procedures and then to work
cooperatively with the agency and controller communities to
ensure a smooth, safe transition to the new flight
procedures.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to give the Subcommittee more detail on this
initiative, attached hereto is the testimony of Captain Karen Lee of
UPS Airlines before the Senate Aviation Operations, Safety and Security
Subcommittee on March 22, 2007.
Perhaps the most aggressive area of FAA research and
development is in the area of environmental issues confronting
the industry and the Nation. To put this challenge in
perspective, the FAA, in the context of the ongoing JPDO
activity, has established a goal of reducing noise and
emissions in absolute terms, by the year 2025, notwithstanding
an expected major leap in air traffic. This ambitious program
depends on a robust research and development effort and we are
encouraged by, and support, the initiatives set forth in
sections 601 et seq. of the FAA's proposed Next Generation Air
Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007. These
proposals include environmental mitigation demonstration pilot
programs (section 604); airport grant eligibility for
assessment of advanced flight procedures to mitigate noise
(section 605); and the establishment of a research consortium
within the existing PARTNER Center of Excellence to address
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
advanced engine and airframe technology.
Finally, with respect to the specific issue of how to
address the issue of aviation's impact on climate change, we
respectfully suggest that R&D challenges be funneled through
the existing PARTNER Center of Excellence. This university-
based consortium is the best forum for analyzing the
complicated issues inherent in any discussion of climate change
and aviation's contribution to it.
In summary, it is clear to the all-cargo industry that a robust FAA
research and development program is absolutely essential if we are to
meet the future goals of modernizing the airspace system and providing
the capacity needed to serve passengers and shippers worldwide. We
believe that the agency has established a strong track record in this
area and we are committed to working with all parties to this process
in the coming years. If there is any word of caution, it is that we
cannot let the bureaucracy delay the implementation of those projects
that prove, in the research and development phase, to be beneficial.
Thank you very much.
Hearing Before the Senate Commerce Committee
Subcommittee on Aviation
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization
March 22, 2007
Testimony of Karen Lee
Director of Operations, UPS Airlines
Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Lott and Members of the Committee, my
name is Karen Lee and I am Director of Operations at UPS Airlines.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning on air traffic
modernization and what we at UPS have been doing over the last 10 years
with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). We believe
that modernization of our current aviation system should be the major
priority in the FAA Reauthorization this year. Our efforts on ADS-B
demonstrate the benefits that modernization will provide.
UPS has been committed to the development and implementation of
ADS-B systems and applications for over 10 years. ADS-B is a satellite-
based surveillance technology that allows each aircraft to broadcast
information about itself such as position, speed and altitude. It does
this continuously, as often as once per second, and this surveillance
information is available to any user equipped to receive and display
it.
UPS, along with the Cargo Airline Association, first became
involved with ADS-B in 1996 as a potential means of meeting collision
avoidance requirements. Although we ultimately installed T-CAS in order
to meet those requirements, our early work with ADS-B demonstrated many
potential benefits, such as improved efficiency and safety, as well as
environmental benefits. As a result, UPS continued its work on the
technology.
Use of ADS-B technology creates a new level of safety and
redundancy in our airspace system since pilots will now be able to see
the traffic around them and controllers will have surveillance data
that is much more accurate and timely than they have today. There are
many applications that are enabled when aircraft are equipped to see
other aircraft. Many of those applications create opportunities to make
aircraft operations safer and more efficient while reducing noise and
emissions.
ADS-B is now recognized as the foundation of the Next Generation
Air Traffic System. Administrator Blakey has been a strong proponent of
ADS-B and has been very supportive of the efforts we have undertaken at
our international air hub in Louisville, Kentucky.
There are two basic scenarios in which ADS-B surveillance can be
very beneficial. The first is in geographic areas that do not have
radar surveillance. ADS-B surveillance information can be provided from
the aircraft to air traffic controllers through inexpensive ground
receiving stations and shown on a display that looks exactly like a
radar display. Controllers use the ADS-B surveillance data exactly the
same way they would use radar information; it just comes to them
directly from the aircraft.
You are probably familiar with the FAA Capstone project in Alaska
where more than 250 light aircraft are equipped to broadcast ADS-B
position information. Using ADS-B, Alaska has reduced its accident rate
by 47 percent and has done so in areas that radar could not be
installed because of rugged terrain.
The second scenario is in high density airspace. Let's use
Louisville as an example. During the UPS rush hour, from 11:00 at night
until 1:30 in the morning, we can land 47-52 aircraft per hour. We
should be able to land 60-62 aircraft per hour in most weather
conditions. Our inability to do so represents a loss of capacity and
efficiency that costs us millions of dollars every year.
Our traffic arrives somewhat randomly and the flow and sequence of
arriving aircraft is unpredictable. The enroute center directs our
aircraft into the terminal area as they arrive from all directions and
the approach controllers then must organize and sequence the aircraft
to line up for final approach. Our flights end up ``driving'' around at
low, highly inefficient altitudes while waiting for their turn for
landing--sometimes flying 60 or 70 miles to travel the last 40 miles of
flight.
In addition, due to high controller workload and lack of shared
traffic information with our pilots, our flights arrive at the runways
with very uneven spacing. If you were to stand at the end of the runway
and measure the time between landing aircraft, you would find a high
level of variation--90 seconds, then 105 seconds, then 80 seconds, then
180 seconds and so on. What we really need is 95 seconds, 95 seconds,
95 seconds (or the appropriate time interval for the night's
conditions--it is variable). Anything more than that interval is loss
of capacity. And because our aircraft arrive somewhat randomly and
unpredictably and all under radar vectors, they are scattered over a
wide area as they enter the terminal area--making the controller's job
that much more difficult to get us organized and lined up.
This is very similar to every busy airport in the world. Some are
worse than others, but all capacity and efficiency losses are driven by
the same factors: less than perfect surveillance information, each
aircraft handled individually by a controller to be sequenced, each
aircraft spaced and vectored to final approach and pilots who are blind
to traffic around them. This results in wide variations in spacing on
final approach and much higher fuel burns.
We are on the verge of a major milestone in the effort to become
more efficient and to optimize the airspace capacity available to us.
There is a wonderful convergence of emerging technologies and
procedures that have created the dawn of a new era in aviation--indeed
created the dawn of the next generation air transportation system.
In July we will fly the world's first NextGen RNAV Continuous
Descent Arrival procedures using an ADS-B application called merging
and spacing. This will mark the first time that pilots will be given
responsibility for spacing their aircraft, at very accurate time
intervals, using ADS-B surveillance information in the cockpit from
cruise altitude all the way to the runway. The goal is to accurately,
consistently and precisely deliver our aircraft to the end of the
runways, in the most efficient way possible, in almost all weather
conditions, night after night. When we accomplish this, we anticipate
we will save over 800,000 gallons of fuel annually, reduce our noise
footprint by 30 percent and our emissions by 34 percent below 3000
feet, and increase the capacity of our airport by 15-20 percent or
more.
We are confident of our success for several reasons. ADS-B
technology is maturing rapidly. In fact, UPS has 107 Boeing 757 and 767
aircraft equipped with a first generation system and has accumulated
thousands of hours of experience using the simple, but powerful
application of Enhanced See and Avoid. We have seen significant
improvements in our operations at Louisville as a result of this
implementation and have gathered enough experience to validate our next
implementation this year.
Our air traffic controllers are willing partners in our ADS-B work
and have enjoyed benefits by working with us. We have a wide base of
industry support and have worked closely with FAA and others throughout
this project. Our pilots have enjoyed the early benefits of enhanced
situational awareness and traffic displays in the cockpit for several
years now and are actively involved in the preparation for the next
steps in 2007. And, as I have mentioned, Administrator Blakey and the
FAA are moving forward with ADS-B plans in the United States and are a
strong ally in this effort.
Although aircraft equipage is always seen as an obstacle to
progress, we believe that the architecture we are implementing is very
practical. We are using one set of hardware to house several different
applications. The electronic flight bag provided by Boeing will allow
us to provide electronic charts and manuals for our pilots, electronic
logbooks for maintenance, graphic satellite weather for in-flight use,
and a display for CPDLC for data link communications with ATC in the
future. The same display used for all of those applications will also
be used for ADS-B applications, the first of which is the Continuous
Descent Arrivals using merging and spacing.
It will also house a very important safety enhancement: a moving
surface map with traffic for ground operations. Studies show that the
threat of most runway incursions and potential ground collisions will
be solved by using the surface map with traffic.
We all have a major challenge ahead in transforming and modernizing
the best aviation system in the world. We must do this in order to
provide the capacity needed to accommodate future growth, to provide an
additional margin of safety and to achieve the environmental
improvement that is required. We believe that ADS-B will be the
foundation for the modernized system.
Thank you and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Stephen A. Alterman
CURRENT POSITIONS
President, Cargo Airline Association, a nationwide (U.S.) trade
organization that promotes the use of air freight and
represents the United States all-cargo industry before
Congress, State and local governments and the Courts.
Senior Partner, Meyers & Alterman, a Washington, D.C. law firm
specializing in air transportation law.
FORMER POSITIONS
Chief of the Legal Division, Bureau of Enforcement, U.S. Civil
Aeronautics Board, and, before that, Trial Attorney for the
Bureau of Enforcement (1968-1975).
EDUCATION
Educational experience includes a law degree from Boston University
School of Law (1968) and an undergraduate degree in Political Science
from Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (1965).
Other past and present positions include:
Chairman, Environment Subcommittee, FAA Research,
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, 2003-Present.
Member, Steering Group, Environmental Integrated
Product Team (JPDO), 2005-Present.
Member, Aviation Security Advisory Committee, 1996-
Present.
Member, Federal Advisory Panel on Land Use Planning,
1993-1995.
Member, FAA Aviation Rule-making Advisory Committee,
1991-Present.
Member, Federal Airport Noise Working Group, 1987-
1991.
Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Fuel Savings,
1991.
Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Passenger
Facility Charges, 1990.
Discussion
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Alterman.
Let me thank the panel, again, for a very informative and
very succinct testimony.
At this point, we will open the first round of questions,
and I will recognize myself for five minutes. And I want to
direct my first question to Ms. Cox, but to notify the three
other panel members I would like to think about your response
as well, and then we will move down the line.
Suggested Additional R&D Funding Priorities
I know, as an FAA employee, you, of course, support the
President's budget request, but I would like to know what your
top-three R&D funding priorities would be if Congress were to
provide additional funding for your R&D programs and why you
would make those your three additional priorities.
Ms. Cox. Yeah. I think that we are in an unusual situation
this year. We are, first, starting to take a serious look at
the research and development that will be required to support
the NextGen system, so obviously, the support of the NextGen
system is a priority. And the reauthorization has afforded us
the opportunity this year to do an in-depth study of the
requirements that we believe we need to make this happen over
the next five years so that the fiscal year 2008 budget that we
presented reflects serious increase in the RE&D budget and
increases in overall NextGen support through all of the
appropriations that represent R&D.
So I think you see there, in the budget, some of our key
priorities.
As the rest of the panel members have indicated,
environment is a key issue as we move forward, and I think that
our budget request in the fiscal year 2008 budget and for the
years beyond certainly reflect that indication.
We need to focus on our air traffic system and issues that
will help us to increase capacity by reducing separation in the
systems.
And we need to look at overall effects of human factors. As
I mentioned in my oral testimony, the way people behave in the
system of tomorrow will be very different from today, and we
can't just put that in place immediately. We have to do a lot
of studying about how we do that most appropriately as we look
at the shifts in responsibilities.
Chairman Udall. Thanks, Ms. Cox.
Dr. Hansman.
Dr. Hansman. Yeah, I have three. The first is approaches to
accelerating the operational approval of new technologies and
procedures. We really don't know how to do that right, and we
need ways to do the safety analysis. And we have to make that
more efficient.
The second is the environmental concerns, which are
emerging and becoming more significant, both on global warming
and also the contrail problem.
And then the third is pushing the transition in the system
and the NextGen, and as Ms. Cox mentioned, I think human
factors, because humans will be a ``part of the system'' and
will be very important here.
Chairman Udall. Thank you.
Dr. Wuebbles.
Dr. Wuebbles. As I said in my testimony, I have expressed
an urgency for support to look at the effects of aviation on
climate. We need to prepare ourselves, particularly, I think,
over the next several years for the next major international
look at policy that will happen in 2009. And we don't really
want to go into that kind of situation without being much
better aware of where we stand in terms of our understanding of
effects while others are trying to promote various
international regulations.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Alterman.
Mr. Alterman. Yes, I agree with everybody. I think they are
right on. And from a purely parochial standpoint, we believe
that we should continue funding the ADSB program and accelerate
that funding. Congress, for fiscal year 2007--the House of
Representatives for fiscal year 2007 recommended $100 million
for ADSB development, which was $20 million more than the
President's budget, with the extra $20 million going to
research and development for future air-to-air applications.
The Senate, in its bill, had $80 million. Of course, none of
those were actually implemented, because we are operating under
a CR for 2007, but we urge you to continue funding the ADSB
development program.
As a practical matter, it is a two-stage effort. The FAA is
doing a very good job now on stage one, which is putting ground
stations in. We need to continue the research on future air-to-
air applications. And I can't stress enough the need for
environmental funding for funding environmental research. It is
a major issue, and I think if there is one thing I can leave
with you, the industry thinks it is an issue, too. It is not
something that is simply in the scientific community or with
the agency. We feel that we have an obligation, as we go
forward, to enhance the environment to the extent possible. We
need to do that, because we think environmental constraints
will actually beat capacity constraints in limiting our growth.
With respect to the fiscal year 2008 budget, the money
there, I think, from our perspective is fine. You will note
that the proposal from the agency for fiscal year 2009 and
forward has a major jump in environmental funding, and we
support that.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Alterman. It is obvious the
industry sees the environmental concerns that have been
expressed and have been surfaced as an opportunity and the
actions you are taking in the form of enlightened self-
interest, so thank the leadership in the industry, if you
would.
At this point, I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member, my good friend from California, Mr. Calvert, for five
minutes.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Cox, you pointed out your top-three priorities. I want
to just, for the record, point out, I came here 15 years ago,
and I remember we were talking about reviewing the air traffic
control and I don't know if we are that much further along than
we were 15 years ago, but I just thought I would point that
out. But hopefully, we can make a lot more progress in the next
few years since we, obviously, on the record, have increasing
air traffic, and changing air traffic.
Impact of Administration's Financing Reform Package on FAA
Budget
Part of, as I understand it, your R&D budget is going to be
if Congress enacts the Administration's proposed financing
reform package, including ticket taxes and aviation fuel taxes.
How important is that in the new authorization for you to fund
your R&D efforts?
Ms. Cox. Obviously, a stable and predictable funding stream
is important for our R&D efforts, and we believe that the
Administration's plan will provide that. This is a particularly
unique situation that we have with NextGen in that, in the
past, we have looked at programs as standing as individual
projects that we would put forward to support the modernization
of a system. Today, the individual projects that we are putting
forth, such as ADSB, such as data communications, our wake work
that supports reduced separation are all inextricably linked
together, so what we have is an integrated system of
capabilities, a portfolio, if you will, of capabilities that is
required to produce the desired outcome. And that, in
particular, requires a stable funding stream, and not one that
funds one program but not the other, but that--so that we are
really hopeful that we can get our programs funded as a
portfolio of projects, and that is a little different from what
we have expected in the past.
Mr. Calvert. So you see this as a dedicated fund for your
R&D budget, and the appropriators are going to agree to that,
that that is not going to be made part of the general fund and
be appropriated from year to year?
Ms. Cox. Well, the 2008 budget, and past budgets, have been
a split, I believe, between the general fund and the airports
and the airways trust fund. And for the RE&D budget, the 2008
budget, requests the same thing.
Status of Research Efforts in Specific Important Areas
Mr. Calvert. Next, for Dr. Hansman, you state that some of
the important areas, research efforts are below critical mass
and others are not supported at all. Can you elaborate on that?
What areas are we being underserved in?
Dr. Hansman. These are comments that have come out of some
of the subcommittee--REDAC Subcommittee reviews, so for
example, in the safety area, because of the importance of doing
safety management system, which is a data-based approach to
addressing safety concerns, the amount of funds that were
available to do safety research prevented funding of other
things, such as work on aircraft icing, some worked on fire
protection, terminal area safety. So there is a trade-off, and
some things are being uncovered. And then the other areas are
things like safety-critical software. Software is becoming a
more urgent part of the system. So we are sort of below
intellectual critical mass in the agency to really move forward
and anticipate the problems of the future.
Mr. Calvert. Would you agree with that, Ms. Cox, that--Dr.
Hansman's assessment of these gaps?
Ms. Cox. You know, I think that we have gaps that we need
to address, and particularly in getting to NextGen. One of the
things that we need to do in order to--I believe that Mr.
Alterman reflected the fact that we move too slowly. In order
to speed up the way that we go forward in implementing the
results of our technology is for the implementing organization,
and in the case of the NAS, it is the FAA, for the implementing
organization to become involved in these efforts at a lower
technology-readiness level, perhaps, than we have in the past
so that we have an in-depth understanding of the capabilities
and a better understanding of how to implement the system.
We have shown great success as we take over NASA
technologies at the stage where we begin the technology
maturation and in moving those forward. In cases where we
haven't stepped in as early with NASA and co-worked with them,
we have not done as well. So I think in the future, and the
2008 budget request reflects this desire to become involved at
an earlier level in most of these technology areas so that we
can advance the implementation.
Mr. Calvert. I thank you. I will just catch on the next
round.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman from California.
It is now my privilege to yield five minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey. I mentioned Mr. Rothman earlier. He
comes from a district in New Jersey where the dependence on the
modern air traffic system is important, but he also has a wide
range in constituency that is concerned about new generation
engines, noise reduction.
And Mr. Rothman, it is great to have you as a Member of the
Subcommittee, and you now have five minutes to ask questions of
the panel.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that
very kind introduction.
I think the FAA is familiar with me, not everyone, perhaps,
but I have had the great privilege of representing the 9th
Congressional district in New Jersey. Now I am in my 11th year,
and we have an airport in our district called Teterboro
Airport. And we have had some issues over the years.
I thank each and every one of you for your service and for
your scholarship and all your years devoted to these matters.
I have got a whole lot of questions. I will probably get to
them in the second or third round, but let me start with a
couple of points, which is sometimes it seems to me that those
involved in the airline industry or in the FAA haven't
addressed this fundamental issue. Let us assume that we have
the science and technology that would allow planes to fly in
our skies perfectly safely without any emissions or any noise,
and they could fly wing-to-wing, thus blotting out the sun. Is
that the goal here? Or is it something different, some balance
between a quality of life that regards the open sky, or some
parts of it open and the sun as things to be pleasant to look
at now and then?
That is one issue. Have we thought about that? Or are we
just racing down this track of pure science and technology
without figuring out, you know, reducing it out to its absurd
or its extreme? Do we want the Jetsons? Perhaps some of you
remember the image in the Jetsons. I don't. I don't think my
constituents want it. I don't think most Americans want it. But
that is my view. But I am going to represent that view strongly
until someone persuades me that it is unreasonable.
Noise Reduction Funding
I do--I did note, with great interest, and everyone is
addressing the environmental issues. And start with Ms. Cox.
The focus of the environment and energy research program is
making aviation quieter, cleaner, and more energy-efficient.
I--that is great to hear. And I was just curious. I noted that,
if I am reading the budget correctly, $15.4 million of the
budget is being spent on the environment and energy. That is
about 11 or 12 percent of the budget. And of the $15.4 million
going to the environment and energy, how much, if you know, is
just going towards noise mitigation, noise reduction?
Ms. Cox. I am not the expert to break out the split versus
emissions versus noise reduction. I know that our funding
addresses both. And in fact, it is a little bit more in 2008
than $15.4 million. In 2008, we are also requesting that the
airports cooperative research program add a third area to
address. They now address safety and capacity. We are adding
environment to that and requesting an additional $3 million in
that program to work on the environment, on issues such as
emissions and noise reduction. And I will be happy to get back
to you with that breakout.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Can I just ask the panel my general little question?
Dr. Hansman. Yeah, I would say two things. First, actually,
on the mitigation, I believe you were just talking the research
part of mitigation. There is also a significant amount of money
that is spent on sound, you know, insulation mitigation. That
is on the order of about $300 million a year, I believe.
Mr. Rothman. Yeah. Unless they are going to do the houses
as well as----
Dr. Hansman. Yeah.
Mr. Rothman.--the schools----
Dr. Hansman. Yeah.
Mr. Rothman.--you know, waking up the residents at 5:00 in
the morning, it----
Dr. Hansman. So I--but I want to address the first comment
that you made, which is what is the appropriate balance of air
transportation. We thought about this a lot. The U.S. economy--
and our quality of life actually presumes air transportation,
so you have to think about this from the overall context. So it
was actually interesting to me, after September 11, when the
traffic died in the system and people stopped flying, it turns
out that the first people to start flying were not the business
travelers. It turns out that they were people on personal
travel, because our society in the United States has
distributed in a way that we have spread out. So when your
grandmother or your mother is in Florida and sick, you presume
you can get on an airplane and go to Florida.
Economic Effects of Capacity
Mr. Rothman. My question is: at what point do we say the
theater is filled, it is sold out, you can't stand in the
aisles. The restaurant you want to go to is sold out. You will
have to come back another day. We don't allow you to eat in the
aisle.
Dr. Hansman. So here is what happens with that. So when
capacity--when you get local constraints on capacity, what
happens is it will become expensive and difficult to travel to
that location. And you know in New Jersey that this happens.
Then what will happen is economic activity in people's where
they will go will move to other locations. So if you think
about it, it becomes a dynamic on sort of competitive economic
regional economics.
Mr. Rothman. I note that my time is up, but if you are
successful in your technological efforts, it may be really
cheap for a very long time to fly, and the sky will be nearly
completely blotted out before it gets too expensive. So I don't
want to gamble on the market. That is why they invented the
government to look into these things to regulate----
Dr. Hansman. And we have a lot of sky.
Mr. Rothman. Yeah.
Chairman Udall. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I am
going to have to step out temporarily. I am going to ask Mr.
Rothman to assume the chairmanship, but before I do that, I
wanted to recognize the gentleman from California, who, on the
heels of Vice President Gore's presentation yesterday on
climate change, I am sure has some interesting things to say
today.
And the gentleman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And with all respect to Mr. Rothman, I do think there is
still the friendly skies to--as United Airlines has described
them, and will be for a long time.
My father was a pilot for 23 years, and in the Marine Corps
and later worked flying Tigers Airline. I think the airline
industry is a commendable and very responsible part of our
society. When you talk about the pursuit of happiness as being
an important right of the American people, I think the airline
industry has played a significant part in providing people an
avenue to pursue happiness, which of course is an important
thing for a free society. It can never be underestimated.
Airport and Airline Impacts on Human Health
A couple questions here. Dr. Wuebbles, I am sorry that our
Chairman had to leave for this, you mentioned about the studies
that you were doing on how the pollution level from airlines,
contrails, et cetera, affect the environment. How much
percentage of money are we spending here in terms of--as
compared to determining the affect of airlines on the health of
human beings? For example, people who live near airports, of
course, as planes are coming in, I am sure there is a pollution
factor there as well, is there not?
Dr. Wuebbles. There certainly is. Let me look at your
question. The--we can essentially say, in terms of effects of
aviation on climate, analysis that are going on right now, as
far as I know, that is--the amount of funding is essentially
zero. There is none in FAA. There is none in NASA or at other
agencies that I know of. So----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, they had to pay for that study that
you were talking about. I mean, everybody got together and went
to great----
Dr. Wuebbles. The only----
Mr. Rohrabacher.--events and restaurants, I am sure, and--
--
Dr. Wuebbles. We met outside the Boston Airport at a hotel.
Everybody flew in. We have--we were not provided--we--the only
thing that was provided was some expenses for travel. So that
was it. Everybody donated their time, otherwise. So, you know,
if you want to say, you know, it is that little amount, it is
basically what we are spending in the United States right now.
And we can contrast that with--to programs in Europe where they
are spending a fairly significant amount on research to look at
some of these issues.
I am not really aware of how much money we are spending in
terms of looking at air quality from airports. I know that
there was some money in the FAA budget, I just don't know the
amount.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I know people have studied noise,
which noise is a major factor, and I take it from what you have
said, we have made some progress in that in the last 20 years.
But the actual pollution that comes out of an airplane when it
is landing and that effect on the health of the people who live
near that airport I think should be something that is at least
as important to us as whether or not traveling at high
altitudes is going to affect the climate of the Earth.
Dr. Wuebbles. I think both issues are very important, and
on that--you know, I don't disagree with the fact that we need
to be spending more on looking at air quality issues, and
particularly particulates and effects on ozone.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If I disagree with the former Vice
President who was testifying here yesterday, if I disagree with
him on anything, it would be that if we--let me put it this
way. If we are going to go at this issue of pollution, I
believe that we should be going at it in order--focus our
efforts on trying to make sure that people's lives are healthy,
that my children don't breathe in contaminated air and thus
have heart or lung problems versus the idea of setting the
pollution problem and focusing on whether or not the Earth is
one degree warmer now, after 150 years of advancing
industrialization of humankind. And----
Dr. Wuebbles. Congressman, I agree with your concern about
the air quality effects, however, I will also say that, having
looked greatly at the issues related to climate, that that also
is an extremely important issue and potentially have great--
many impacts on our children and grandchildren, and it is
something we ought to be seriously----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Does a----
Dr. Wuebbles.--paying attention to.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you believe that the--you said two
percent of the CO2 that is man-caused comes from the airline
industry?
Dr. Wuebbles. Yes, roughly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And the--of the that is being poured into
the atmosphere----
Mr. Rothman. The gentleman's time is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much, and I think I
made----
Mr. Rothman. Would you like to finish your question or----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, you know what? I----
Mr. Rothman. We will get it on the next round.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think we made the point, and----
Mr. Rothman. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--I hope that we do research that is not
just the trendy research as to what climate change is all about
but research aimed at trying to protect people's health.
Dr. Wuebbles. I think both are important, yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rothman. I thank the gentleman from California.
I am going to begin my five minutes now, another one. It is
a great privilege of being in the chair with nobody on my side,
but it did take me 11 years to get here, in the minority, most
of them.
Quality of Life Issues
I wanted to note--I don't know if the other gentlemen had
any comment on my Jetsons blocking off the sun thing and about
the balancing of quality of life interests. And by the way, I
do want to second my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher's, interest in the
inability of our kids to breathe as we also enjoy air travel.
Mr. Alterman. We endorse breathing. We think that is good.
I think that, you know, when we look at this, everything in
life is balanced--is an attempt to balance competing interests
and trade-offs. I mean, even within the environmental
community, we discover, scientifically, that if we address one
issue, we may--and solve that issue, we may adversely affect
other issues. It is all a trade-off, and I don't think any one
of us wants blackened skies. I am a photographer. I don't like
them. But, you know, it is a balancing, as Dr. Hansman said, of
the economic needs of the country, the mobility of the country,
against the environmental sensitivity. I think, as I stated in
my written statement, this is one of the major challenges to
the aviation industry. How do we balance the needs of the
economy, the needs of the people for mobility, against the
absolute need for environmental sensitivity, to the extent
possible? So all of the issues that have been mentioned by the
committee here are very important. Those are balanced against
other interests.
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Alterman, if I may, we have experienced in
our history, the history of civilization, perhaps, where one
technology is replaced with another technology and other
modes--one mode of transportation is replaced with another. For
example, when a highway gets clogged and you can't widen the
highway anymore, we have to find another way to move people and
goods, and there--you know, whether it is trains or planes or
who knows what, but the marketplace, hopefully with government
either not getting in the way or assisting will provide that
alternative.
But I did want to ask, Mr. Alterman, you had said in your
testimony that you were looking forward to a reduction in noise
in absolute terms by 2025 on page 5 of your testimony. And I
wondered, the FAA, in the context of ongoing JPDO activity, has
established a goal of reducing noise and emissions in absolute
terms by the 2025, notwithstanding an expected major leap in
air traffic. What did you mean by that, ``absolute terms''?
Mr. Alterman. Well, those weren't my words. Those were the
FAA words.
Mr. Rothman. Ms. Cox, what did you mean by that?
Ms. Cox. Again, sir, I will have to defer to my technical
experts on the environment to tell me what that means.
Mr. Alterman. Well, I am not sure I am a technical expert.
I am a dumb lawyer, but what it means, to me, as Chairman of
the Environmental Subcommittee of the REDAC is we want--it is
not a percentage. In other words, if aviation expands, doubles,
let us say, that doesn't mean we are going to--our goal is not
to simply have less than doubling of the pollutants. It is to
actually reduce them at the same time to less noise, less
people impacted by noise in 2025 than are impacted today, less
people impacted by air quality issues in 2025 than today. It is
an ambitious goal. I am not sure, to be honest with you,
whether we can do it, but it is the goal we have established,
and I think it is a laudable one, and we need to work toward
it.
Mr. Rothman. With all due respect, I wanted to get to Dr.
Hansman, who looks like he is ready to make a comment, also. I
may be wrong, but I think that there is a growing interest
amongst the American people to--a grown sensitivity to noise
and emissions from aircraft, and they are kind of fed up. And
there will be a revolt, at least that is--you know, again, I
have a little airport in my district, but people outside of my
district, Republicans, conservative folks, are telling me they
are fed up. They bought a house in a nice part of the state,
and all of a sudden, at 5:00 in the morning or 11:00 in the
morning, there is this screeching of the brakes from the 747
over their head or the 747s are lined up, 25, 30 miles out from
New York City. And it just is really not what they bargained
for.
Dr. Hansman, did you have a thought? I know you mentioned
in your testimony that internal and domestic concern, the
environmental issues are becoming a bigger and bigger part of
the challenges for aviation.
Dr. Hansman. Yeah. I think you have addressed one of them,
which is the noise concern. It is a significant concern, and it
limits the capacity of the system, because, you know, people
near New York don't want to have more airplanes coming over
their house. On the other hand, people want to be able to fly
to different locations. So we have this trade-off that we have
to deal with. And in fact, the real benefit of the research is
to really try to get mitigation. And there is--you know, there
is progress being made, particularly on the noise side, some of
the things that were talked about, the CDA approaches. There is
a project going on at MIT right now called the Silent Aircraft
Initiative, where the objective is to see whether it is
possible to design an airplane where the noise outside of the
airport contour is at or below the background noise level. So
you know, I think that there is some hope.
Mr. Rothman. Great. Thank you.
My time is up.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
I have several airports in my district, so noise is--the
Chairman is correct. It is not a Democrat or a Republican
issue, but I think that a point should be made that the
technology that has been developed over the last number of
years have developed much quieter engines. The problem, it
seems to me, is the inventory of older aircraft that is flying
today. You take a DC-9, for instance. It is a relatively small
aircraft. It puts out a noise contour that is significantly
higher than, say, a 747 with a newer engine design. So you
know, maybe a mutual thing that we could do is figure out a way
to change over that inventory at a quicker rate in order to get
new aircraft that has quieter noise contours that would satisfy
the Chairman's interests as well as my own in developing
quieter aircraft at a rapid rate. I--as a matter of fact, I
have an industry, Mr. Alterman may want to comment, told me
that if you could change the inventory relatively quickly and
some of these older aircraft that are still flying, you could
actually reduce significantly, and much quicker, the noise
issue throughout the United States, especially in major
airports. Is that an accurate comment, Mr. Alterman?
Mr. Alterman. Yeah. Again, it is a matter of balance. I
mean, if you put all new equipment into the fleets, yes, you
would get noise benefits, clearly. The problem is that this is
not an industry where you can go to the drug store and say I am
going to buy a new piece of--you know, a new toothpaste today.
There is----
Mr. Calvert. But I am thinking of--and this also applies to
emissions, because some of the engines are, obviously, a lot
more efficient than the engines that were developed 30 years
ago. And I am a believer in the carrot approach rather than the
stick approach in governance and the regulatory environment, is
to give incentives to re-engine some of these aircraft or new
aircraft, because the aircraft were designed that--at the time
that they were designed, not thinking about the noise problem.
Would the industry, do you think, have a positive reaction to
an incentive, such as a tax incentive to depreciate that
equipment over a rapid period of time?
Mr. Alterman. Knowing our industry, they would be more than
happy to consider any financial benefits for doing that, sure.
And I think that--I think the--to be honest, you know, we would
all like to accelerate it. I think we are--we have made great
strides, I mean, as you have mentioned. I am not sure I
remember the exact numbers, but I think since the 1970 era, we
have had a reduction of approximately 90 percent in the number
of people affected by noise, as defined by the FAA in the 65
LDN. That number may be wrong. I can probably turn to the FAA
to get the right number.
Mr. Calvert. Maybe, you know, we can have others comment.
Ms. Cox, I know, wants to comment on this. but I know that the
gentleman's difficulties, as well as my own, is really
applicable to when I get a complaint on noise, I can almost
tell them what aircraft flew over, you know, I--because I know
the aircraft.
Would you like to comment on that, Ms. Cox?
Ms. Cox. Well, I was going to elaborate on the number. 700
million people, 30 years ago, were impacted by noise, and it is
500,000 today. But if you are one of that 500,000, then you are
not concerned about the people who are relieved of that. And so
we are conducting research to address that issue. And
particularly, in the particulates and emissions area, we are
conducting a great deal of research and have had some success.
The fuel consumption in the United States has been reduced by
five percent since 2000 with the commensurate benefits in the
number of carbon emissions that there are in the air.
Mr. Calvert. Obviously, airlines make decisions, and the
air cargo industry makes decisions based on economics. The DC-
10 was a great aircraft, but it burnt a lot of fuel and put out
a lot of emissions. The cargo industry has gone to the DC-10,
because they can offset their costs more effectively on moving
parcels versus people. They can more equitably move those costs
over.
How do we--you know, it seems to me that the industry--the
new aircraft that is coming across, the 777, the 787
Dreamliner, if you take a look at the emissions that are coming
out of these new engine designs from all the major engine
companies, much , much better. Tremendous. The same thing with
the automobile industry. If we could take the old cars off the
road, you would have a relatively dramatic increase in air
quality just by removing the inventory of old cars. The same
thing applies with the air carrier industry, it seems to me.
That is just--of course, outside our jurisdiction, but
something that is of interest to me.
How do we do that? How do we give an incentive to the
industry, because I think you can see dramatic improvement,
both in noise and emissions, both have an environmental plus,
plus a--noise reduction? How do we do that in a rapid period of
time? And it seems to me, you solve a lot of problems and, at
the same time, do the technology for down the road, but there
is some immediacy to these issues to keep the American people
engaged in this subject. They would like to see this thing
resolved sooner, rather than later.
Anybody like to comment on that? My time has expired, but
maybe he will--the Chairman will let me the indulgence of the
committee.
Dr. Hansman. There are historical precedence. The noise
thresholds we use now have actually come--have been reduced
over time, so we are now at stage three. There is discussion
about what stage four is. One of the important parts of the
research is the threshold for the next noise stage, stage four
noise, will be what is technically feasible, so it is not
useful to propose this noise target that you can't get to. And
I think it is a very interesting idea to figure out how you
would incentivize behavior in--both in terms of noise and
emissions, you know, over the short-term and the long-term.
Chairman Udall. Anyone else care to comment? I think it is
a very important question that the Ranking Member has asked.
The Chairman will yield himself five minutes at this time.
I would tell the panel, we have votes scheduled for 11:15
to 11:30. I am going to ask another round of questions, and
then I know Mr. Rothman would like another five minutes, but we
will begin to draw down the hearing and aim to close the
hearing at--between 11:15 and 11:30.
Further Clarification of Decreased Funding in Important Areas
As for, Dr. Hansman, in your testimony, you stated that the
REDAC has been concerned for a number of years the declining
support for the R&D functions at both the FAA and NASA have
resulted in the decline of national aeronautics capabilities.
In some important areas--and this is a quote, I think, from the
testimony you gave. ``In some important areas, research efforts
are below critical mass, and others are not supported at all.''
What do you consider to be the most damaging consequences of
the declining support of both the FAA and NASA? And can--would
you be able to elaborate on some of the specific research areas
that are either being shortchanged or not supported at all? And
why are they important? And then they rest of the panel, if you
want to comment after Dr. Hansman, I would look to your
comments as well.
Dr. Hansman. I will give a few examples. I am not sure I
have the comprehensive list in front of me.
One area of concern, for example, is human factors area
work, and it is, historically, a great strength in NASA. We
have the best aviation human factors capability in the world.
The level of support for human factors in NASA has degraded
significantly on, particularly, applied human factors to
aviation problems. This is going to be critical for many of
these NextGen concepts as we determine what is the appropriate
role of automation and human performance.
Another area that we are not as strong as we should be is
on some aviation weather issues. That is an area of concern.
Deicing procedures, fire protection, terminal area safety,
things like that are all areas of concern.
Chairman Udall. Other panelists? Dr. Wuebbles.
Dr. Wuebbles. I was at the REDAC Environment and Energy
Subcommittee meeting the last two days, and it was clear that
climate, actually, has been rising as a new major issue within
that committee in terms of its recommendations to the FAA. So
it is being recognized there as an important issue.
Chairman Udall. Mr. Alterman, if I could move in a similar
way to your testimony, you pointed out that NASA's recent
downgrading of its aeronautics activities ``has seriously
affected the FAA research effort''. And then you go on to say
that if Congress decides to restore NASA aeronautics funding to
former levels, there should be ``specific Congressional
guidance on how the money should be spent''. Would you
elaborate on what that guidance would consist of, and what
would you recommend that any restored NASA aeronautics funding
be spent on----
Mr. Alterman. Well, I--it is probably presumptuous of me to
say that, but I--what we have discovered, when people get a pot
of money with no direction, I am not talking about earmarks, I
am talking about direction on where you--we should spend it, as
you have heard from the panel, there are a whole range of
activities that NASA has traditionally been involved in, and we
always need to prioritize. We never have the money we
absolutely need, so there need to be priorities on how you are
going to spend money. So my thought was that if , in fact, you
are going to give any agency a pot of money, it would help, I
believe, to prioritize how that money--I am not saying spend
this dollar here and that dollar there, but if the feeling of
Congress is that climate change is important or noise
mitigation or whatever NASA might be doing, it--those things
need to be prioritized, and the agency that gets the money
needs to know how you feel about the priorities and how you
spend it.
The other comment that I might make, although I am sure it
is true of all bureaucracies, is, you know, we all get letters
requesting contributions from charitable contributions all of
the time, and the first question I ask is who is going to get
the money if I give $100 to this organization. And I am always
looking for organizations that actually flows the money to the
intended recipients and not spent on a bureaucracy where people
are making a whole bunch of money. I think the same thing is
true when we get to pots of money that the government hands out
to other agencies. We need to be sure that we are not simply
funding a bureaucracy with nothing at the other end of it.
Chairman Udall. A point well made, Mr. Alterman.
Recommendations Regarding NASA Funding
The rest of the panel, do any of you have recommendations
on how any NASA money--aeronautics money that was restored
might be spent? And Ms. Cox, I know that NASA is perhaps a
sibling, perhaps a cousin, and I am sometimes reluctant to give
my siblings or my cousins advice. On the other hand, there are
days when I want to give them advice, so I turn to you to see
if you have any further thoughts.
Ms. Cox. Well, one thing that we are looking into, NASA is
one of the partner agencies of the Joint Planning and
Development Office. So we don't have as much clarity as we
would like to have now around future planning from the agency,
so we are looking to the JPDO to work with their partner agency
to identify what these issues are and what research might or
might not be done in the future so that we can take the
recommendations from the JPDO and proceed accordingly.
Chairman Udall. If I might clarify, you look to the JPDO at
playing a key role here as a convener and as an organization
that can help get to what is really important?
Ms. Cox. Right, because they do--they have the vision for
the NextGen. They provide guidance toward our budgetary
planning. They have oversight to our R&D program. And because
NASA is a partner agency and contributes to those
recommendations, I would expect that to come from them.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Hansman.
Dr. Hansman. The one area I have real concern over is
innovation. It turns out, as things have been declining and we
have been trying to focus around very specific things, there is
actually very little in the NASA budget or process where
someone with a brilliant new idea, so when finally we--some
undergraduate invents the gravity drive that will enable the
George Jetson car, there is actually not that much of an
opportunity for those ideas to actually flow in and be funded
in the system. So right now, it is very specifically targeted
research efforts, they way they are doing it.
Chairman Udall. Dr. Wuebbles, do you have any further
comment? You have got the last word here.
Dr. Wuebbles. In relationship to NASA, I think that a
strong coordination between NASA and FAA towards looking at the
climate issue would make a lot of sense. If we go back to--
throughout most of the 1990s, NASA had a major program looking
at the environmental effects of aviation, and--that I was part,
in fact. And I would, you know, like to see those capabilities
certainly restored within the agency.
Chairman Udall. Thank you.
I would recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for five
minutes.
Mr. Rothman.
Mr. Rothman. I thank the Chairman.
Allow me just to say it is a pleasure and a privilege to
serve with you, Mr. Chairman, and your grace and your
generosity and wisdom are much appreciated, as always, and it
is a pleasure to be serving on your committee.
To our Ranking Member, who--our former Chairman, I look
forward to working with you on a whole host of things,
including that great idea about--although several great ideas,
about the inventorying of the older aircraft and how we can
incentivize as opposed to punish those who would be better off,
from our point of view, not being in the sky in their planes.
I was wondering, I know next week there is going to be a
hearing of our subcommittee of NextGeneration air--the NextGen
project, and I was wondering, respectfully, if the FAA could
send over folks who are mindful or have at their fingertips
these noise-mitigation figures and goals for the air--for the
FAA.
Ms. Cox. Sir, I believe I have someone just behind me who
passed me a note on your last question, but I would leave it to
him to interpret it.
Carl Burleson, could you----
Mr. Rothman. Well, maybe, since I only have a few more
minutes, and we are going to have a whole other hearing on
that, perhaps this person could join us next time as well, or
whoever you suggest----
Ms. Cox. And there are many people in his organizations who
are far better qualified than I to address those questions.
Mr. Rothman. Well, on that issue, maybe, but--and I wanted,
also, to invite the panel members, I hope I am not saying
anything improper, to recommend to the Subcommittee, at least
in my area of particular interest. I am mindful of the great
value to humanity, civilization, our economy, our quality of
life, of air travel, so that is the given, okay. But I do--I
want to focus on reducing, if not eliminating, air noise as an
ideal goal. Are there projects, like at MIT, programs in other
places around the world that we should be funding? If it is a
project-by-project kind of a thing that this government does,
do you have any ideas? Are there any projects that deserve
funding? In this area, I would be most welcome to hear about
them. And I just am going to rattle these off, and then if
there is 10 seconds left, a response, but--I would also be
interested to know the percentage of noise related to the older
inventoried aircraft. You know. How does that break down? Did
95 percent of the noise used to come from stage one and stage
two now that they are kind of being phased out? And by the way,
I introduced legislation to do that voluntarily, but--and
invited industry to join me. I said, ``How long will it take
you to phase them out? Five years? Ten years? What can we work
out? I am a reasonable guy.'' They told me to go jump in the
lake. That is when the carrot sort of dropped and the hammer
came into my hand. But I would be interested in that inventory.
Also, on airspace redesign, I am concerned. Let us assume
we get to zero noise from aircraft but there is this constant
flow over the head of, you said, half a million people. I
believe it is more than that, but I would be interested to know
how that figure came--comes about.
Ms. Cox. It is 500 million.
Mr. Rothman. Oh, 500 million. Okay. Well, that is quite a
lot, then. Enough for us to care about.
In airspace redesign, even if it is quiet, can we relocate
it so that the sky isn't blotted out for any one segment or
have to, you know, during the soccer game, see this stream
overhead? Dr. Hansman is jumping at the----
Dr. Hansman. The only thing I want to say is that you have
got to get to the airport. So you can move the trajectory some,
but, you know, if you have a limited number of airports, and we
are not really building any new ones in the United States, you
have got to get to and from the airports, so that is a
fundamental constraint.
Mr. Rothman. You know, and again, it is all in the
balancing of the equities and where we have to spend more on
noise-proofing everybody's home or building railroads in the
middle of our high turnpikes and throughways to get to the
airport. There are lots of choices that--cost is an issue, too,
but--Mr. Alterman?
Mr. Alterman. I just want to remind everybody that we take
seriously this challenge. But one of the things that we have to
remember is, as Mr. Rohrabacher said, he is concerned about the
health impacts. When--one of the problems we have is the
interrelationship of the various pollutants. And we could solve
your noise problem, perhaps, but the results of solving the
noise problem might be much unhealthier air. And----
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Alterman, please accept this as a given. I
would never want one to be at the expense of the other, so it
would have to be----
Mr. Alterman. Well----
Mr. Rothman.--together----
Mr. Alterman. Yeah, well, that is my point.
Mr. Rothman.--and it is not a zero-sum game, if that is the
right use of that phrase. I would want to--I would want noise
reduced. I would also want environmental health issues
addressed, as well. I want neither to suffer at the hands of
the other.
Mr. Alterman. Yeah, and that is our goal, too. I only
raised the issue, because we have been concentrating in the
last few minutes on the noise, and I just want--I don't want
any misunderstanding that we have to treat this as an issue
that relates to all the pollutants, and not just noise.
Mr. Rothman. As a father of two teenagers with asthma in
Northern New Jersey, I feel your pain.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Udall. Thank you, Mr. Rothman.
I wanted to see if Mr. Calvert had any additional
questions.
Mr. Calvert. No, I just wanted to thank the witnesses and
congratulate the Chairman for his first successful hearing.
Chairman Udall. Don't get ahead of yourself. We haven't
finished yet, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. But I have.
Changes to the FAA's R&D Program in the Context of the 2007
Operating Plan
Chairman Udall. I would--as I bring the hearing to a close,
I want to direct a question to Ms. Cox, perhaps, for the record
or for a short answer. And it focuses, that is, my question, on
what changes have been made, if any, to the FAA's R&D program
in the context of the 2007 operating plan as a result of joint
resolution, in other words, the continuing resolution.
Ms. Cox. As you know, we are fortunate to have our budget
in hand now, and we are proceeding with that plan at a slower
pace than, obviously, we would have, had we had more clarity
about our budget initially. But with the funding that we have
now, we are able to implement the operating plan that we have
in place.
Chairman Udall. Would you provide details, for the record?
Ms. Cox. Absolutely.
Chairman Udall. And then as a follow-on, do you anticipate
any adjustments to the fiscal year 2008 R&D plan and funding as
a result in the year now identified fiscal year 2007 operating
plan? And if you want to take that, for the record, as well, I
would be happy to let you do so.
Ms. Cox. I will, because there are specific areas that we
will need to address with that that I don't have at my hand.
Chairman Udall. Thank you.
I want to bring the hearing to a close, but before we do, I
want to thank all of the witnesses. You have been an excellent
panel. Thank you.
Mr. Alterman, in particular, you shared with me that you
come to the Hill about every 10 years to testify, and I think
we may bring you back annually or maybe every six months,
because you are, clearly, adept and comfortable here. And I
thank you for your presentation, along with the rest of the
panel.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Committee may ask of witnesses. Without
objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Victoria Cox, Vice President for Operations Planning
Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. What changes, if any, have been made to FAA's R&D program in the
FAA's FY 2007 Operating Plan as a result of the Joint Resolution? Do
you anticipate any adjustments to the FY08 R&D plan and funding
allocations as a result of the FY07 Operating Plan?
A1. No changes have been made to the FY 2007 Operating Plan. As a
result of the FY 2007 Operating Plan, we do not anticipate any
adjustments to the FY 2008 R&D Plan. However, an analysis using JPDO
budget guidance identified research and development programs, projects
and funding supporting NextGen. The FY 2008 plan includes an additional
$10M request for NextGen research involving wake vortex and human
factors.
Q2. Aircraft noise is a significant concern for communities across the
United States.
Q2a. Do you believe FAA's FY08 request for noise research is
sufficient?
A2a. The FAA is currently investing $15 million dollars per year under
RE&D and about $3 million per year under Airports Cooperative Research
Program (ACRP) on noise and emissions mitigation research. Of those
amounts, about 95 is spent on noise research geared toward developing
analytical tools to better understand the relationship between noise
and emissions and different types of emissions, better identifying and
measuring the issues and impacts associated with aircraft noise, and
generating improved solutions to mitigate these problems, and assessing
the impact and advance implementation of operation procedures to reduce
noise. However, as noise and emissions are interrelated, 90% of the
noise investment also supports emissions mitigation. The vast majority
of FAA's resources are spent on near-term mitigation as we invest about
$300 million in insulation and land purchases to mitigate noise.
However, the Administration NextGen Finance Reform bill proposes a
number of R&D initiatives and investments that will provide
opportunities to accelerate maturity of noise and emissions
technologies (the Consortium for Low Emissions, Energy and Noise
(CLEEN) program under section 606). We are also seeking new
flexibilities in the use of mitigation funds to include development and
implementation of operational procedures.
Q2b. What have been the FAA's accomplishments to date in this area?
A2b. Over the last thirty years the population significantly impacted
by aircraft noise was reduced from seven million to 500 thousand by
improvements in source reduction technologies, operations and other
mitigation measures. These technology improvements were generated by
research undertaken by NASA, DOD, and industry. Specific outputs of the
FAA research program had a greater regulatory and policy focus
including:
Developed highly influential advanced computer models
for airport and heliport noise analysis--over 600 copies of the
models have been sold around the world and used in over 160
U.S. airport studies involving more than $1.8 billion in
airport noise compatibility grants; they have also provided the
basis for an aircraft overflight noise exposure prediction
model for Grand Canyon National Park.
Conceptualized and developed a new generation of
analytical tools which will revolutionize approaches to
aviation environmental assessment and regulation by enabling a
comprehensive approach that assesses interdependencies and
optimizes solutions based on cost-benefit analyses of impacts
and mitigation. The tools will provide significant cost savings
and other benefits to users.
However, in recent years, the FAA has taken a more aggressive role
in maturing nearer-term technology and operational solutions including:
Developed a clean and quiet new procedure--Continuous
Descent Arrival (CDA). By landing using a continuous decent,
lower power approach CDAs enable reducing community noise by 3-
6 dB as well as fuel burn and emissions. We are in the process
of transitioning CDA into the NAS.
In collaboration with Industry and NASA under the
Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) Program demonstrated a number
of quiet aircraft technologies, including inlet acoustic
treatments, low noise landing gear, and chevron nozzles for
community noise reductions.
Q2c. What do you think are the most promising research opportunities
in aircraft noise reduction--and what should be FAA's role in the
research? NASA's role?
A2c. The vast majority of promising opportunities involve either new
engine/airframe technology or innovation in air traffic management
procedures. Ninety percent of the environmental improvements (noise and
emissions reductions) in the aviation system in the last 30 years have
come from improved technology. Without a pipeline of near-term (5-10
years) technology improvements, we cannot achieve the absolute
reduction of significant noise and air quality impacts that we believe
are necessary to enable NextGen growth. We need robust research and
development to accelerate technology solutions to manage and mitigate
environmental constraints. The goal is to have a fleet of quieter,
cleaner aircraft that operate more efficiently with less energy.
To that effect, the FAA is seeking to establish a Consortium for
Low Emissions, Energy and Noise (CLEEN) technology (Section 606). The
program is focused on collaboratively (50/50 private sector/federal
funding) demonstrating aircraft and engine technologies that reduce
noise and local air quality and greenhouse gas emissions at the source
to a developmental level that will allow quicker industry uptake of
these new environmental technologies in order to produce a more
efficient, cleaner and quieter fleet. We believe it is feasible to
reduce noise levels by 10 dB at each of the three certification points
relative to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft technology.
Aside from cleaner and quieter technologies, FAA has a crucial role
to play in collaboration with airlines and airports in advances in
reducing community noise exposure by leveraging advances in
Communication, Navigation and Surveillance technology in the short- to
medium-term to optimize aircraft arrival and departure procedures,
sequencing and timing on the surface, in the terminal area and enroute,
thereby increasing airport and airspace throughput and reducing noise,
fuel burn and emissions. Provisions in Section 604 would facilitate
these endeavors.
There are also promising research opportunities advancing
analytical tools to help us assess environmental impacts to make sure
that we can assess the issues and solutions--so we target the right
problem and solve it in the most cost-effective manner.
Regarding research role, industry focuses on developing near-term
technology (B787). NASA is focusing on long-term technology. Between
the two, there is a gap where we need to bring to maturation the next
generation of technology (e.g., quieter, cleaner versions of B787) that
would make a difference in the next 5+ years and we believe this is the
role of FAA can play under CLEEN.
Q2d. Please provide noise research funding numbers for FY06 through
FY12.
A2d. Aerospace systems have historically been designed--and regulations
for their certification and use have been written--as though aviation
noise and various emissions had nothing to do with one another.
However, aviation noise and emissions are highly interdependent
phenomena. Our environment and energy research investments are based on
a new, interdisciplinary approach. Consequently, the majority of our
investment benefits both noise and emissions. Our research investments
that will help us understand and mitigate aircraft noise and emissions
impacts are shown in Table 1.
Q2e. What specifically does the goal of ``reducing noise and emissions
in absolute terms by 2025'' mean?
A2e. Our goal is to reduce the significant impacts of aircraft noise
and local air quality emissions on a net basis. For example, if half a
million people are impacted by significant noise today, as defined as
exposed to 65 DNL, the target is less than half a million people would
be exposed, despite a here fold capacity growth, to the appropriate
noise metric for 2025. We are also working on developing sufficient
understanding of the science and impacts to develop appropriate metrics
for greenhouse gas emissions.
Q3. How does the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
function? What is FAA's role? Does the Committee produce an interagency
research plan? If not, why not? If so, please provide a copy. What
specifically has this Committee accomplished to date?
A3. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) was
formed in 1993 to provide a forum for a coordinated Federal Government
approach over future research needs to better understand, predict and
control the effects of aviation noise, to encourage new technical
development efforts in these areas, and set technical policy with
respect to aircraft noise. It does not produce research plans, but
seeks to foster coordination of efforts among relevant agencies.
The Committee is currently composed of representatives of the
departments of Transportation (Office of the Secretary and the Federal
Aviation Administration), Defense (all three branches), Interior
(National Park Service), Housing and Urban Development; the agencies of
Environmental Protection, National Aeronautics and Space. Each of these
federal agencies either conducts significant research on aviation noise
or has broad policy roles with respect to aviation noise issues (such
as HUD, NPS and EPA). In the past FAA or the Defense Department
representatives have led the committee since their work is directly
related to aviation. Currently, the Chair is from the Navy.
The most widely recognized product of the FICAN (published by a
proceeding committee in 1992) is the report ``Federal Agency Review of
selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues'' which has findings,
conclusions and recommendations for the aircraft noise policy issues.
The FICAN has also published findings and reports on extensive array of
aircraft noise issues such as low-frequency noise, supplemental
metrics, effects of aircraft noise on learning, noise in national
parks, etc.
Additional information on FICAN can be found at: http://
www.fican.org/
Q4. In his testimony Dr. Hansman stated that ``. . .the NASA program
has been in transition, and it is still not fully clear what the full
content of the NASA program will be and its consequent impact on the
FAA.''
a. Has NASA given you a clear and complete description of its
restructured program yet, and has it identified those areas of
research that supported FAA in the past that will be cut back
or eliminated? If so, what are those areas?
b. Has NASA told you how far (in terms of technological
maturity) it will take the research that it is planning to do?
c. What is the impact of NASA's redirected aeronautics program
on the FAA, and when will that impact be felt?
A4. The FAA has program documentation from NASA for its aeronautics
research. The documentation does provide a clear, top-level description
of its research thrusts and milestones. However, we are waiting for the
completion of detailed project plans to better understand the details
of the research and to what level of maturity the research will be
brought. Currently, JPDO, NASA and FAA are working together on the
general requirements for technology transfer from NASA to FAA to ensure
that we understand and have plans to ensure that NASA's research
efficiently transitions to FAA for further development and systems
engineering in preparation for implementation investment decision
making. Furthermore, the JPDO has a requirement to deliver an R&D plan
to OMB this fall. As a part of that process, JPDO will document the
research requirements for NextGen and the responsibilities of each
agency in addressing those requirements. In summary, we do have general
documentation from NASA that demonstrates alignment to NextGen
requirements and we are working together and with the JPDO to work
through the details to ensure we can transition NASA research into FAA
implementation.
Because of lengthy lead times, research required to support NextGen
implementation through FY 2015 has been completed with a provision for
supporting technology transition of this research. However, because of
these lengthy lead times, the research required for products to be
implemented in FY 2016 and beyond must be started soon. As previously
stated, the FAA is working with the JPDO and NASA to understand what
research will be delivered so potential ``gaps'' can be defined.
Q5. Dr. Hansman discusses the ``technology maturity gap'' that is
emerging as a result of NASA's planned cutbacks. Others, including the
GAO, have raised the same concern.
a. What are the most important research areas that are
projected to face a ``technology gap?''
b. Does your FAA R&D budget for FY08 with its five-year runout
assume that FAA will fund all of the technology maturation
tasks that you had been counting on NASA to do? If not, how
much additional funding will you require for FAA to do all of
the technology maturation?
A5. We are depending on NASA for the longer-term, transformational
elements of the transition to NextGen that we expect to begin
implementing after 2015. Up to that point, the research, much of which
was originally pioneered by NASA, has largely been completed or is at a
more advanced stage of development. Therefore, for the next several
years, we do not expect that there will be any significant technology
gaps. The FAA's reauthorization that is currently with Congress
reflects our expanded requirements for R&D to meet the mid-term needs
of the transition to NextGen (up to 2015). In the long-term, we are
looking to NASA to answer challenging transformational questions, such
as the relative roles of humans and automation in NextGen, how to
implement automated, fault-tolerant gate-to-gate 4D trajectory
management within the NAS. As previously discussed in response to
Question 4, we are actively working with NASA and JPDO to understand
the details of the research that is required and to ensure we have a
technology transition pathway.
Q6. Dr. Hansman in his testimony raises a concern about whether or not
NASA intends to continue supporting the aviation safety and human
factors data bases that have been built up over the long-term by NASA.
What has NASA told you--does NASA intend to maintain and support these
important data bases?
A6. The aviation safety data bases from the NASA Voluntary Aviation
Safety Information Sharing Program (VASIP) are being transitioned to
the FAA for implementation as part of the Aviation Safety Information
Analysis and Sharing System (ASIAS). NASA responsibilities consist of
supporting transition of Voluntary Aviation Safety Information Sharing
(VASIS) technologies to ASIAS by the end of FY 2007. NASA will continue
development of data mining analytical tools that could be applied to
systems such as ASIAS. The NASA-managed Aviation Safety Reporting
System (ASRS) will continue to be supported by the FAA as new
electronic reporting procedures are implemented. The NASA National
Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) has been picked up and
sponsored by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
Q7. Has the interagency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)
given you a clear set of research requirements yet?
a. If so, would you please provide them to the Committee?
b. If not, why hasn't the JPDO done so, and when do they
intend to provide them?
c. You have outyear funding set aside in your budget for
``Next Gen'' research. What specifically is that funding
intended to be used for?
d. Do you consider JPDO research requirements ``guidelines''
for FAA's R&D program to consider, or do you consider them to
be mandatory requirements that will have to be addressed
completely in FAA's R&D plan?
A7. JPDO provided R&D needs to the partner agencies in January of this
year based on the NextGen Concept of Operations and the transitional
Operational Improvements. This was a starting point for FAA/JPDO
collaborative planning. Within the FAA, we have used the Operational
Evolution Partnership (OEP) as the mechanism for incorporating NextGen
requirements into our R&D plan. The JPDO has been a full partner in the
OEP process to ensure that NextGen R&D needs are appropriately
reflected in FAA's plan. Furthermore, the JPDO will publish an
Integrated Work Plan late this summer and, as a part of that, is
developing a multi-agency R&D plan that it will submit to OMB this
fall. FAA is fully participating in this effort as well, and we will
ensure that the OEP and multi-agency R&D plan are synchronized. We will
use the outyear funding set aside for NextGen R&D to carry out the
FAA's portion of the multi-agency R&D plan.
Q8. General aviation operations are an important part of the Nation's
aviation system. What specific research do you have underway or planned
related to general aviation, and how much do you plan to spend on that
research?
A8. A significant component of general aviation research addresses
human factors issues associated with getting better weather information
into the cockpit to improve pilot decision making and reduce accidents.
Reducing visual flight rules (VFR) flight into instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC), which is the leading cause of general
aviation fatalities, is a primary focus. Developing better training and
testing of weather knowledge and its application is another component
along with identifying proactive methods for general aviation data
collection that could be used for risk assessment and accident
prevention. Non-weather related human factors research includes
development of the technical information needed to publish proficiency
standards for very light jets. Total funding is $1.15M.
Q9. Do the technology demonstrations come out of the agency's overall
R&D budget, and if so, how do you prioritize between R&D and carrying
out technology demonstrations?
A9. The demonstrations are part of the overall R&D budget. They are a
key part of the R&D development which includes, per OMB Circular A-11,
``design and development of prototypes and processes,'' and are
included in the FAA's 2007 National Aviation Research Plan (NARP).
The demonstrations have been prioritized among all developmental
activities. They are included in the R&D portfolio since these
demonstration leverage research that has identified opportunities to
move air traffic control towards NextGen trajectory based operations
through new algorithms for decision support systems, new flight deck
systems, and new procedures. They were given their priority among
developmental activities because successful results will lead to
NextGen midterm implementations.
Q10. What is the timetable for certifying Unmanned Aircraft Systems
for operations in the national airspace system?
A10. The development of guidance and regulations for Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UASs) will be an evolving process, and is crucial to the safe
integration of UASs into the National Airspace System (NAS). To support
these activities, the Aviation Safety Organization established the FAA
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office in early 2006 to specifically consider
and address required activities to support the safe establishment and
growth of the UAS Industry. The level of effort for related efforts
requires significant resources from the FAA's Air Traffic and Aviation
Safety organizations.
In 2004, the FAA requested that RTCA, a government-industry
consensus standards development forum, initiate an effort to develop
civil standards for UASs. In response, RTCA established Special
Committee 203 (SC-203) to develop and recommend UAS standards,
specifically for Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA) and Command, Control
standards, and Communication (C3) technology. Since its inception, SC-
203 has met 10 times, making significant progress in defining UAS
operational concepts, as well as serving as a liaison with the
international community in effort harmonization the developing
standards. The committee's current schedule reflects a timeline to
deliver recommendations for UAS technical standards to the FAA in 2011.
Approval of these technical standards is largely dependent upon the
successful parallel effort of industry to develop DSA and C3
technologies. In the interim, the FAA is evaluating various
alternatives to accelerate limited operations of UASs in the NAS. The
desired goal is to implement streamlined processes to enable UAS access
to the NAS, based on the level of maturity of UAS technology.
Appropriate levels of funding and resources will be needed to
accomplish this task. If resources are available and the industry
wishes to pursue civil, commercial applications for UASs, the FAA has
an enabling strategy to facilitate routine UAS ``file and fly'' access
to the NAS within the 2012-2015 timeframe.
Q11. The REDAC had recommended that ``When the decision occurs to
implement research results, funding must be identified for the
transition process. . .'' The FAA responded that it is working with the
Agency's Research Project Description process to create a line item to
support Technology Development and transfer of technology. Is that line
item included in the FY08 budget request?
A11. The FAA's reauthorization that is currently with Congress reflects
our expanded requirements in fiscal years 2008-2012 to support
transition of research. Our Capital Investment Plan for fiscal years
2008-2012 carries a ``Future NextGen Air Transportation System--System
Development line (Budget Line Item Number 1A 14X) beginning in fiscal
year 2009.
Questions submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
Q1. Historically NASA has played a major role performing research and
development on behalf of FAA, especially with respect to air traffic
control technologies, but that relationship appears to be changing.
NASA's aeronautics research budget has been reduced by more than half
over the last few years, and NASA is no longer developing new
technologies to a high level of technical maturity. Looking to the
future, how would you characterize NASA's role with respect to FAA?
Will it continue to diminish? How detrimental is that to the overall
effort?
A1. NASA has and will continue to play a critical role in ATC research.
Without their continued foundational research, the longer-term, higher-
risk elements of the NextGen transformation will likely go unrealized.
Their policy decision to not pursue higher levels of technical
readiness will ultimately require FAA to accept technologies earlier in
the pipeline. We are working closely with NASA and the JPDO to develop
general requirements for technology transition which we will use to
work specific plans between the agencies. FAA's reauthorization bill,
which is with Congress, specifies the funding requirements for FAA to
deliver on development and implementation of NextGen over the next five
years. As we work the details of transitioning technology between NASA
and FAA, we will update our budget projections to cover those outyear
requirements.
Q2. Traditionally NASA has developed promising technologies to a high
maturity level enabling FAA to incorporate them into its air traffic
control system without too much additional development. Now that NASA
is confining its development work to a basic level of technical
maturity, does FAA have the resources and capability to fill this void?
Where will it get the personnel?
A2. Timely and efficient transition of research products will require
the FAA to engage at a lower technical maturity levels. Past successful
transitions of NASA technologies have taken longer to fully implement
in the National Airspace System than we can allow if we are to realize
the NextGen system in time to meet forecasted demand.
The FAA's reauthorization request reflects our expanded
requirements for R&D to meet the mid-term needs of the transition to
NextGen. The requested funding will allow this transition. We will
focus internal resources on NextGen research and technology development
and will use attrition to hire technical and program management
expertise. We will use the Operational Evolution Partnership to focus
MITRE CAASD research on NextGen requirements; we are assessing
resources available at Volpe to supplement FAA capabilities, and we may
look to industry for assistance.
We are in the process of seeking outside expertise in the form of a
``blue ribbon panel'' to explore strategies to strengthen our technical
and contract management expertise.
Q3. NASA, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies have
demonstrated that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can be flown safely in the
national airspace system and have the potential to serve useful civil
and emergency services roles. Many industry experts envision UAVs
playing more prominent roles in the U.S. airspace, but FAA requirements
to fly them are complex and it can take weeks to gain permission to
fly.
Q3a. What is the current state of research on operating UAVs in
controlled airspace?
A3a. The introduction of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) into the
National Airspace System (NAS) continues to present many challenges to
the aviation community, including the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Although NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and other
federal agencies have safely flown UASs in the NAS, the FAA works with
these organizations to develop conditions and limitations for UAS
operations to ensure they do not jeopardize the safety of other
aviation operations or harm the general public. Typically these
operations are flown in segregated airspace, or require the use of
visual observers to mitigate identified risks.
Several Research activities are ongoing in support of UAS
operations and are in various levels of maturity. Many of these efforts
are multi-year activities, and will require continued finding, often
competing with other safety related R&D activities, and include
investigating the following areas:
UAS Regulatory Studies;
UAS Airframe Technology Survey;
System Safety Management;
Compression Ignition Engines;
Propulsion System Technologies;
Ground Observer Requirements for UAS Operations;
Design and Development of Visibility Analysis Tool;
Vision Model to Predict Target Detection and
Recognition;
Sensory Deficiency Assessment Program;
UAS Maintenance and Repair; and
Ground Control Station Radio Frequency Interference.
To resolve the complex issues surrounding UAS-NAS integration, FAA
is collaborating extensively with the DOD Joint Integrated Product
Team, representatives from the DOD Policy Board on Federal Aviation, as
well as various other U.S. Government agencies, including Department of
Homeland Security, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, and
NASA.
To further international harmonization associated with UAS-airspace
integration, FAA is actively engaged with counterparts from both the
European and international aviation authorities. For example, FAA
actively co-chairs the European counterpart organization to RTCA SC-
203, EUROCAE Working Group #73, for UAS technical standards
development. FAA closely collaborates with EUROCONTROL annual work
plans for research and development activities to help mitigate UAS-
airspace impacts, which includes the study of human factors.
Q3b. By what date does FAA anticipate UAVs having routine and
convenient access into the national airspace system?
A3b. The development of guidance and regulations for Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UASs) will be an evolving process, and is crucial to the safe
integration of UASs into the National Airspace System (NAS). To support
these activities, the Aviation Safety Organization established the FAA
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office in early 2006 to specifically consider
and address required activities to support the safe establishment and
growth of the UAS Industry. The level of effort for related efforts
requires significant resources from the FAA's Air Traffic and Aviation
Safety organizations.
In 2004, the FAA requested that RTCA, a government-industry
consensus standards development forum, initiate an effort to develop
civil standards for UASs. In response, RTCA established Special
Committee 203 (SC-203) to develop and recommend UAS standards,
specifically for Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA) and Command, Control
standards, and Communication (C3) technology. Since its inception, SC-
203 has met 10 times, making significant progress in defining UAS
operational concepts, as well as serving as a liaison with the
international community in effort harmonization the developing
standards. The committee's current schedule reflects a timeline to
deliver recommendations for UAS technical standards to the FAA in 2011.
Approval of these technical standards is largely dependent upon the
successful parallel effort of industry to develop DSA and C3
technologies. In the interim, the FAA is evaluating various
alternatives to accelerate limited operations of UASs in the NAS. The
desired goal is to implement streamlined processes to enable UAS access
to the NAS, based on the level of maturity of UAS technology.
Appropriate levels of funding and resources will be needed to
accomplish this task. If resources are available and the industry
wishes to pursue civil, commercial applications for UASs, the FAA has
an enabling strategy to facilitate routine UAS ``file and fly'' access
to the NAS within the 2012-2015 timeframe.
Q4. How does FAA coordinate its weather research programs (FY08
request is $16.8M; five year request totals $84M) with those of other
federal agencies (e.g., National Weather Service) to ensure that
research efforts aren't duplicated, and that research products are
being widely disseminated?
A4. The Aviation Weather Research Program is highly leveraged with
other government agency work including the Department of Commerce, the
Naval Research Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and, recently, with several of the Department of
Energy's programs as well as several Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs). Within the Department of Commerce
collaborative work on aviation weather extends to several National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratories including the Earth
Sciences Research Laboratory and the National Severe Storms Laboratory,
along with the National Weather Service's National Centers for
Environmental Prediction. In addition to interagency outreach the
program also coordinates science activities with several countries
including Canada, Great Britain, and China.
In FY 2007 the program manager began participating in the Joint
Program Development Office's (JPDO) Weather Executive Council. The JDPO
includes membership from seven agencies, including Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department
of Commerce, Department of Defense and Office of Science and Technology
Policy. In FY 2006, the JPDO Executive Council reviewed aviation
weather activities at several agencies, including the FAA's Aviation
Weather Research Program. The JPDO Weather Executive Council also
includes representatives from industry to enhance outreach.
Additionally, as part of the FAA's Research, Engineering and
Development portfolio, the program is reviewed both by internal
management and by the Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Council.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by R. John Hansman, Jr., Co-Chair, FAA Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee; T. Wilson Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems; Director,
MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. A concern that has been raised is the potential impact of the
cutback in NASA's human factors research program. How important is
human factors research to the success of FAA's system development
initiatives, and how concerned is the REDAC about the NASA cutbacks?
A1. Human factors issues are critical in terms of the safety and
capacity performance of the NAS. Human error remains a primary cause
factor in 60-70 percent of fatal accidents. Controller cognitive and
workload limits are one of the major constraints on the capacity of the
NAS. Many of the proposed NextGen concepts will change the roles of the
humans in the system but humans will remain in key supervisory roles
for the foreseeable future. It is very important to understand the
human-automation integration issues associated with implementing
NextGen. These issues should be addressed early in the system
development process to avoid unintended safety issues or expensive late
stage redesign efforts. when human factors concerns emerge late in
system development.
The REDAC has expressed significant concern about the national
capability in aviation human factors. This concern precedes the recent
NASA cutbacks.
Q2. In your testimony you state that ``as the JPDO is focused on
longer-term transformation concepts, there is a tension between those
needs and the R&D required to address nearer-term issues and to manage
the system.''
Q2a. What does the REDAC think the appropriate balance should be
between funding for transformational R&D and R&D required to address
nearer-term issues?
A2a. The REDAC has recommended a portfolio approach with a balance
between near-term focused research to address emergent problems,
longer-term research for transformational goals such as NextGen, and a
small investment in long-term exploratory research to stimulate
innovation.
Q2b. Does FAA currently have the right balance between those two kinds
of research?
A2b. The FAA has traditionally focused on research to support short-
term issues. The forces on the agency, and the research requirements,
processes tended to prioritize investment towards current issues.
Because of the time required to program and execute the research
programs, the results were often too late to be as effective as would
be desired. An increase in research towards anticipated needs would be
beneficial. The FAA management has recognized this need and is
developing processes to define research requirements to support both
the mid-term Operational Evaluation Plan and the longer-term NextGen
issues. The REDAC would also like to see a small part of the portfolio
for investment in innovation and new concepts.
Q3. In your testimony you state that ``the major challenge for the FAA
R&D program and the agency as a whole will be to find ways to
efficiently and quickly implement the technologies, and new operational
concepts into the national airspace system while maintaining or
increasing level of safety and minimizing environmental impact.'' You
then conclude that ``it is unclear whether we have the strategic core
competency to effectively implement the new concepts in the national
airspace system, and we must develop approaches to enable effective
transition.''
Q3a. Can you elaborate--is it a research problem, a workforce problem,
a management problem, a funding problem, or something else?
A3a. While all of the elements above have some role, the key issues are
cultural. The current culture has developed over a long period of
management and maintenance of the NAS. Most of the changes to the NAS
have been adaptations to the current system and there have been very
few major changes for the past three decades. There have been no recent
changes of the transformational scale proposed in some of the NextGen
concepts. Also during this time, there has been an admirable
improvement in the level of safety or the system. There has also been
an increase in the safety and environmental analysis required to get
operational approval. Finally as the system has grown in scale it has
also grown in complexity. These factors combine to make it extremely
difficult and time consuming and to make substantial changes in how the
NAS operates.
Q3b. What would you recommend be done?
A3b. There are three recommendations. First, developing the capability
for efficient operational approval should be a goal for the FAA, the
JPDO, as well at the partner agencies. Second, research should be
conducted into both the operational approval processes and the
techniques (such as lean process, advanced safety analysis, and system
trade studies) to improve the efficiency and to enable system
transition. Third, several pathfinder programs should be defined for
expedited operational approval where the processes are monitored for
efficiency, coordination, and effectiveness to identify both best
practices and areas where improvements are needed. These programs
should provide a template for subsequent programs.
Q4. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are likely to play a very
significant role in future aviation activities. Is the FAA doing enough
to understand the impacts of UAS on the national airspace system and to
certify them for operations in the airspace? If not, what would you
recommend be done? Should other governmental agencies be involved?
A4. The FAA is struggling to respond to the growing demand for access
to the NAS from both military and civil UAS users. Two key demands are
military requests for easier ``file and fly'' access for their large
scale vehicles (such as Predator and Global Hawk) and civil or public
agency users (e.g. police) who desire to fly small model aircraft scale
UAVs for surveillance missions.
Operational approval of UAS in the NAS is an example of the type of
transformational system change I discussed in the previous question.
Routine UAS operations represent a significant departure from current
NAS operations and may require fundamental changes in NAS operations
and policy. This is a significant challenge for the FAA. The UAS
program office is putting out a significant effort but appears to be
under-resourced in terms of staff and funding. The shift in NASA focus
away from UAS and other applied areas has also pulled resources away
from the UAS programs office in technical areas such as UAV flight
dynamics, airspace modeling tools, and UAS frangibility.
The REDAC would recommend increasing support for research related
to UAS in the NAS and for the UAS program office with the goal of
accelerating operational approval. The DOD and NASA are potential
collaborators in these efforts.
Q5. Aircraft noise is a significant concern for communities across the
United States.
Q5a. Do you believe FAA's FY08 request for noise research is
sufficient?
A5a. Noise has been identified as one of the key focus areas in the FAA
FY09 requests due both to the impact on local communities and the
ability of the system to expand capacity. Given the importance as well
as the time required to ramp up capability, it would be prudent to
initiate some of the FY09 efforts in FY08.
Q5b. What have been the FAA's accomplishments to date in this area?
A5b. At the aggregate level there have been significant improvements.
For example the number of people exposed to the 65 dbA noise level in
the U.S. has decreased from approximately seven million in the mid-
1970's to approximately 500,000 today. The FAA has also been supporting
the development of new operational approaches such as recent flight
tests of low noise Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA) at Louisville,
KY.
Q5c. What level of funding would be consistent with its importance and
would allow us to exploit opportunities for aircraft noise reduction?
A5c. The proposed FY09 levels of $55 Million plus $5 Million from ACRP
funds proposed in the National Aviation Research Plan appear to be
appropriate.
Q5d. What do you think are the most promising research opportunities
in aircraft noise reduction--and what should be FAA's role in the
research? NASA's role?
A5d. In the near-term, operational procedures such as the Continuous
Descent Approaches and flight procedure modification will provide the
most promising opportunities for aircraft noise reductions. The
challenges for these efforts will be in integrating these new
procedures into the NAS and the impact on airspace design, procedures,
and capacity. NASA and the FAA can collaborate on the airspace and
operational procedures. NASA has also charted a path to develop
aircraft with significantly lower noise footprints. This is a
commendable effort, but given the slow turn over of the commercial
aircraft fleet the operational procedures improvements will be the most
important in the short-term.
Q6. How would you characterize FAA's cooperative research with
academia and industry? Do you have any recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of the cooperative activities?
A6. The FAA has several effective Centers of Excellence (COE) focused
on specific topics such as aviation environmental impact, operations
research, etc. The COEs typically stimulate cooperative research
between academia and participating industry partners. The FAA is less
effective at stimulating innovative concepts and bringing in new
researchers and students into cooperative activities. It would be
desirable to have a small part of the research portfolio dedicated to
innovation and the support of students with the goal to stimulate both
excitement and opportunities in fields critical to the FAA mission.
Questions submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
FAA/NASA Collaboration
Q1. Historically NASA has played a major role performing research and
development on behalf of FAA, especially with respect to air traffic
control technologies, but that relationship appears to be changing.
NASA's aeronautics research budget has been reduced by more than half
over the last few years, and NASA is no longer developing new
technologies to a high level of technical maturity. Looking to the
future, how would you characterize NASA's role with respect to FAA?
Will it continue to diminish? How detrimental is that to the overall
effort?
A1. Given the diminished NASA aeronautics research budget, NASA has
elected to focus it's efforts toward more fundamental research which
has resulted in some cutbacks in areas that have recently supported FAA
needs. NASA continues to work in air traffic control systems and
technologies but with a longer-term perspective driven by fundamental
research issues or NextGen requirements. NASA is also working on safety
and environmental research in collaboration with the FAA. NASA will
continue to work with the FAA both directly and through the JPDO on
longer-term fundamental research but the FAA will have to cover the
shorter-term and more applied research efforts.
Q2. Traditionally NASA has developed promising technologies to a high
maturity level enabling FAA to incorporate them into its air traffic
control system without too much additional development. Now that NASA
is confining its development work to a basic level of technical
maturity, does FAA have the resources and capability to fill this void?
Where will it get the personnel?
A2. In response to the NASA aeronautics program refocusing, the FAA has
recognized the need to increase funding and attention to longer-term
research and the transition of lower TRL technologies operational
maturity. It should be noted that the NASA cutbacks primarily impact
NASA developed technologies and the transition ``gap'' problem has been
longstanding for other technologies. The issue is exacerbated by the
need to modernize the system reflected in the NextGen concepts. It is
unclear if the FAA has the reservoir of personnel and expertise to
address the issue.
Transitioning New Technologies
Q3. You state that FAA's ability to implement change into the air
traffic management system can take years, if not decades, and you also
question whether FAA has the core competency to implement new concepts.
What prevents FAA from implementing changes more rapidly, especially if
it's their desire? If it's structural, can't FAA change the process to
make it more responsive? Are legislative changes needed, and if yes,
what are they?
A3. The task of changing a mature, national, safety critical
infrastructure, such as the Air Traffic Management (ATM) system, is a
major challenge. The system must continue to operate around the clock
and across the Nation while maintaining the current high level of
safety for each step of the transition path. As the ATM system has
evolved it has become more interdependent and includes more
stakeholders. As a result, many potential changes will have broad
impact and will involve many stakeholders. Proposed changes must also
pass through much higher levels of safety, environmental (NEPA), and
financial review than when the ATM system was initially developed.
For example, the high safety standards and complexity of the system
make it exceptionally difficult to prove that a fundamentally new
technology or concept meets the Target Level of Safety (TLS) for the
system. The difficulty is increased because all the interactions with
other elements of the system, as well as all failure modes, need to be
considered. Often the problem may not be a real safety issue but the
lack of data or analysis to prove that the change will meet the safety
standard prevents change from occurring. Because safety is the highest
priority of the ATM, the FAA cannot give operational approval until is
assured that the change is safe. Similar challenges exist for
environmental impact reviews as well as the OMB review process for
federal investment and the individual stakeholder impact analysis.
Fundamentally, it is a much more difficult problem to change a
mature ATM system than the original development of that system. We have
not made changes of the order contemplated by NextGen since the
development of RADAR based ATC in the late 1950's.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Q4. NASA, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies have
demonstrated that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can be flown safely in the
national airspace system and have the potential to serve useful civil
and emergency services roles. Many industry experts envision UAVs
playing more prominent roles in the U.S. airspace, but FAA requirements
to fly them are complex and it can take weeks to gain permission to
fly.
Q4a. What is the current state of research on operating UAVs in
controlled airspace?
A4a. The problem of approving UAV operations in civil airspace is an
example of the difficulty in assuring that changes in the NAS meet the
high safety standards the FAA believes it has the responsibility to
protect. While it is true that NASA, the DOD and others around the
world have flown UAVs in civil airspace these have generally been in
fairly restricted conditions and there is some disagreement as to what
the appropriate safety standards for UAVs should be. Because the
current regulatory structure has assumed human occupants, many of the
regulations and safety criteria assume that there is a pilot in the
vehicle and these criteria need to be amended or interpreted.
Because of the difficulties of evaluating the projected level of
safety of totally new UAS operational systems it is attractive for the
FAA to require that the UAS system have the equivalent level of
function or safety to manned systems. As an example, one of the major
research areas has been to define technologies or procedures which
provide the equivalent ``sense and avoid'' capability to a pilot's
visual ability to avoid traffic. This approach is technically
challenging and may be appropriate for large, highly capable UAVs, but
would be prohibitive for very small model scale UAVs. There is also
research into operational procedures and risk analysis.
It should also be noted that the FAA and NASA funding levels for
research on operating UAVs in controlled airspace are modest and do not
reflect the priority indicated by industry and the Department of
Defense.
Q4b. By what date does FAA anticipate UAVs having routine and
convenient access into the national airspace system?
A4b. For small scale UAVs operating in visual line of sight of a ground
observer, approval for routine access is expected in the next 18 to 24
months. For larger scale UAVs the time frame is longer. The technical
standards process for ``sense and avoid'' avionics is not expected to
be complete before 2009 and may not be finished until later. If the FAA
retains the requirement for ``sense and avoid'' capability, routine
access would not be expected before 2010-2012. In the interim period,
it is likely that the demand for access will spur more efficient
processes for limited access through expedited Certificates of
Authorization (COA) or other processes.
Future Aeronautics Workforce
Q5. With respect to developing the next generation of aeronautics
engineers, you state that uncertainties in federal aeronautics research
funding is having an adverse impact on university programs and the
pipeline for young talent. Please elaborate: what is the impact and its
severity? What are FAA and NASA doing to address this challenge?
A5. The NASA Aeronautics Program has been a core supporter of U.S.
academic research in aeronautics over the past 30 years. The
significant reduction in the NASA Aeronautics research budget over the
past few years has reduced the opportunity space and made it difficulty
to attract young faculty and students to the aeronautical engineering
field just at the time when the demographics indicate we should be
building in this area. The FAA and NASA are aware of this problem, but
it is unclear if they have the resources or focus to turn this tide. It
should be noted that NASA is attempting to increase academic
participation in it's National Research Announcements program but this
is limited to specific topic areas.
Weather Research
Q6. How does FAA coordinate its weather research programs (FY08
request is $16.8M; five year request totals $84M) with those of other
federal agencies (e.g., National Weather Service) to ensure that
research efforts aren't being duplicated, and that research products
are being widely disseminated?
A6. There is some coordination between the FAA weather research
programs and the NWS through the JPDO weather focused activities. There
is also significant information exchange on research programs through
the aviation weather research community.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Donald J. Wuebbles, Chair, Workshop on the Impacts of
Aviation on Climate Change; Department Head and Professor,
Department of Atmospheric Sciences; Executive Coordinator,
School of Earth, Society, and Environment, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. The 2002 National Research Council report, For Greener Skies:
Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation, stated that research to
reduce oxides of nitrogen and improve engine efficiency had been
significantly reduced at NASA and that the research that is supported
does not carry the work far enough so that results can be readily
adopted by industry. And in general, the report found that even though
large uncertainties remain regarding aviation's effects on the
atmosphere, research budgets for examining the issue had been cut by
two-thirds in recent years.
Q1a. Do you know whether the research outlook has improved at NASA
since the 2002 report?
A1a. The research support at NASA for evaluating the environmental
effects of aviation emissions has not improved at all; in fact, as far
as I know, there is currently no support within NASA for aviation
impact's studies. NASA had a significant research program in the 1990s
called the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP) that focused
on some of the global environmental issues associated with aviation,
but that program ended by 2001. A much smaller program then developed
out of NASA Glenn Research Center that continued some support for a few
special observations (primarily of aerosol emissions on the ground) and
some atmospheric modeling, but that program ended in 2005. There has
been no support since then for research to study the potential impacts
of aviation on climate change. The Workshop I coordinated last June was
the first attempt to pull the international science community together
to examine where the science stands since the IPCC special assessment
on aviation was completed in 1999. Our conclusion was that there was a
definite need for a new research program in the U.S. on the impacts of
aviation on climate change.
Q1b. In your opinion, does FAA have the right level of investment in
this research? What about other government agencies?
A1b. The FAA is currently not spending any money, as far as I know, on
basic research to understand the environmental impacts of aviation
(however, they may be working with the engine manufacturers on
technology to reduce emissions). Nor is there any support for aviation
emissions effects coming from other agencies.
Q1c. What should NASA's role in assessing and mitigating the impact of
aviation on the environment be? What should FAA's role be?
A1c. I personally think that both NASA and FAA should have a major role
in further assessing and in mitigating the impact of aviation on the
environment. NASA has played a major role in past assessments of human
activities on the global atmosphere, both in terms of global
atmospheric chemistry (e.g., the ozone layer) and in climate analyses.
As mentioned above, NASA sponsored the research on aviation emissions
effects throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. The scientists in that
program, including myself, were lead authors on many of the chapters of
the IPCC assessment on aviation impacts on the environment in 1999.
NASA has also played a strong role in sponsoring technology development
towards reducing emissions from aviation. As part of its mission, the
FAA has an obligation to determine mitigation strategies and help
develop aviation policy. Therefore, a joint program with new money
aimed at supporting a research program towards fully understanding the
potential impacts of aviation on climate change, that at the same time
brings in the concerns of the FAA regarding tradeoff studies to help
them consider appropriate policies, would likely be best. The funding
request from the FAA to get some efforts going in 2008 would certainly
help, but the overall program needs to be much larger.
Q2. In your testimony you noted the importance of data from satellites
and airborne platforms for better understanding of the impact of
aviation on climate change. That sounds like there is a role for both
NOAA and NASA's Earth Science program in the effort. Do NASA and NOAA
have programs established to conduct research in the impact of aviation
on climate change? If so, are they adequate? If not, what else is
needed?
A2. Both NOAA and NASA are taking important observations and doing
important analyses to contribute to the basic understanding of the
effects of human activities on our climate system. Neither, however, is
currently involved in any research to understand the impact of aviation
on climate change. The new research program I have proposed should
definitely coordinate with other climate related studies at NASA, NOAA
and other agencies. However, this new research program is necessary to
meeting the needs of the Federal Government and industry to fully
resolve key uncertainties in our understanding of the impacts of
aviation on climate change. Improved understanding will be necessary to
negotiations with other members in ICAO towards future international
policy affecting aviation.
Q3. In your testimony you state that ``Decisions with broad policy
implications, such as the European Emissions Trading Scheme are being
made without a firm understanding of the underlying science.'' Would
you please elaborate on what the Europeans are doing relative to
aviation emissions, and what underlying research is needed to properly
support an emissions trading scheme related to aviation?
A3. There are a number of different messages coming out of Europe that
complicates answering this, but I think the key element is that there
is an indication they want to include a multiplying factor on the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted from aircraft that would account for
all of the other effects on climate. Thus, the two percent effect of
aviation on total human emissions of carbon dioxide would be treated as
anywhere from four to nine percent of the total problem. The multiplier
depends on how well we understand the effects of aviation emissions on
climate resulting from nitrogen oxide emissions, contrail formation,
and from effects on cirrus clouds. These effects all have large
uncertainties, and would bring an arbitrariness to any policy developed
unless these uncertainties are greatly reduced. Various organizations
in Europe have all talked about policies to reduce contrail formation
by forcing aircraft to fly at lower altitudes, but this would result in
increased carbon dioxide emissions. We need improved metrics for the
climate effects from aviation to put the tradeoffs from different
emissions on a level playing field--those analyses have not been done
yet, and really can't be done effectively until the scientific
uncertainties are reduced.
Q4. Your workshop concluded that more research is required to
understand aircraft emissions issues and to suggest policy responses.
In your testimony you suggest it should be a focus for the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program. Have you made this suggestion to the Program?
If so, what was the response? Are you confident that results could be
available in time to influence the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, which is going to be developed and implemented between now and
2025?
A4. I have not talked with CCSP myself, but that is only because I knew
that the FAA has already had that discussion with them. CCSP
understands the importance of the issues and is interested in the
science, but of course has no money itself for supporting the research.
With the right size program set in place within the next few years, I
am quite confident we, the science community, can have a sizable
influence on NextGen. The right size for the research program is to be
determined (e.g., through discussions with leaders at NASA and other
agencies that are knowledgeable on the resources needed for the
measurement campaigns and modeling studies required to meet the program
objectives), but my guess is we need $7-15M per year for 5-10 years to
largely resolve the major science issues. Interim findings would likely
have a significant impact on NextGen.
Q5. How would you characterize FAA's cooperative research with
academia? Do you have any recommendations to improve the effectiveness
of the cooperative activities?
A5. As far as I understand, FAA has very little cooperative research
with academia that is outside of very specific operations related tool
development and associated studies. I personally think it would be very
useful and highly productive for FAA to develop much stronger
interactions with the academic community. Perhaps a new research effort
could be developed within FAA that would be aimed at such interactions,
particularly at addressing questions and issues of interest to FAA but
at a more basic level.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Stephen A. Alterman, President, Cargo Airline Association;
Chairman, Environment Subcommittee, FAA Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee
Questions submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
Q1. In your testimony you are emphatic that ``there must be a strong
commitment from both industry and government to both the necessary
research and the transition from the research mode to one of
implementation. If either side breaks down, useful projects may be
doomed.''
Q1a. What specifically needs to be done to ensure that the commitment
exists by both industry and government?
A1a. While it is difficult to mandate ``commitment,'' if the government
adequately defines the precise technology to be implemented and
provides a detailed, credible description of both the costs and
benefits, industry buy-in becomes easier. On the industry side, while
difficult in an uncertain economic environment, technological
improvements must be analyzed for their long-term implications, not in
terms of short-term dollars that must be spent. In the end, I expect
that the FAA will have to mandate the necessary equipage, with industry
input coming during the rule-making process.
In addition, if possible in the current political climate, industry
acceptance could help be ensured if incentives for early equipage were
given by the Federal Government. Such incentives might include
accelerated depreciation, tax credits or other forms of financial
assistance.
Q1b. Who should be in charge of making sure the transition from
research mode to implementation takes place?
A1b. With primary responsibility for the National Airspace System, the
FAA should be in charge of transitioning from research to
implementation. In doing so, it might be helpful to establish a
specific position within the agency to work with the Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) in such transitioning.
Under no circumstances should the JPDO be put in charge of
implementation. As a practical matter, the JPDO has become a massive
bureaucracy in itself, with a focus on planning and development. As a
multi-agency organization, it cannot focus on the details of air
traffic technology implementation and placing any implementation
function within the JPDO will only delay necessary improvements.
Q2. In your testimony you discuss the importance of ADS-B
demonstrations. In general, how valuable are technology demonstrations
or pilot projects to industry acceptance of new technologies? Should
the FAA be doing more technology demonstrations, and if so, what kinds?
A2. Technology demonstrations and pilot projects are extremely
important in obtaining industry acceptance of new technologies. Such
projects provide a ``real world'' analysis of the technology being
advanced and permit industry to experience the benefits first hand.
Such pilot programs should be undertaken whenever possible.
In the context of FAA Reauthorization, programs dealing with
environmental issues are particularly susceptible to the pilot program
process. For example, sections 604 (Environmental Mitigation
Demonstration Pilot Program) and 605 (Grant Eligibility for Assessment
of Flight Procedures) of the FAA's proposed Next Generation Air
Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 are extremely
important and should be enacted by Congress. We urge that they be
included in the House version of any reauthorization bill. (We also
strongly urge adoption of section 606 of the FAA proposal (Research
Consortium for Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise Technology
Partnership) ).
Q3. How would you characterize FAA's cooperative research with
industry? Do you have any recommendations to improve the effectiveness
of the cooperative activities?
A3. While speaking only from personal experience, I would say that the
FAA and industry cooperate very well in the research area. For example,
the industry's ongoing efforts in the ADS-B area began over 11 years
ago and have included a constant dialogue with the FAA (specifically
the Safe Flight 21 Office). By working cooperatively with the agency,
we have been able to reach common understandings on the research to be
done to mature the technology. Similarly, the Environmental
Subcommittee of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee (REDAC) has been especially effective in targeting research
to address significant environmental issues. This subcommittee is made
up of a broad cross-section of the aviation industry and federal
agencies and interfaces well with the FAA's Office of Environment and
Energy.
If we have learned anything from these activities, it is that
honest and continual communication between the government and industry
is essential to mature and implement necessary technologies. Therefore,
it is important that the FAA REDAC continue to provide the vehicle for
industry input into the research process.
Question submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
FAA/NASA Collaboration
Q1. Traditionally NASA has developed promising technologies to a high
maturity level enabling FAA to incorporate them into its air traffic
control system without too much additional development. Now that NASA
is confining its development work to a basic level of technical
maturity, does FAA have the resources and capability to fill this void?
Where will it get the personnel?
A1. The FAA, by itself, probably does not currently have the resources
to fill the NASA void. To enable the agency to obtain these
capabilities, Congress will have to provide the resources necessary to
expand the FAA research programs. However, it may not be necessary to
directly expand the FAA employee base to accomplish this objective.
Rather, it may be possible to leverage the experience of existing
research organizations such as MITRE and, in the environmental area,
the PARTNER Center of Excellence, by increasing the funding for these
organizations and specifying what projects they will address.