[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM: STATUS AND ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-122
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-270 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 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 ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
LAURA RICHARDSON, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VACANCY
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
C O N T E N T S
September 11, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 21
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 21
Prepared Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 22
Prepared Statement by Representative Laura Richardson, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 23
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 23
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 24
Witnesses:
Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Biography.................................................... 32
Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Biography.................................................... 44
Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Biography.................................................... 56
Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, Chairman and CEO, Technovation, Inc.; AIA
Member of NextGen Institute Management Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Biography.................................................... 78
Dr. Ian A. Waitz, PARTNER Director; Jerome C. Hunsaker Professor
of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Head, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 79
Written Statement............................................ 80
Biography.................................................... 90
Discussion
Recommendations to the Next President.......................... 98
FAA Reorganization............................................. 99
NextGen Funding................................................ 101
The Development of Alternative Jet Fuels....................... 102
General Comments on NextGen.................................... 102
NextGen Budget and Education Issues............................ 106
FAA Hiring..................................................... 108
Gap Analysis Findings.......................................... 108
Overcrowding of the Skies...................................... 110
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 114
Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office....................... 132
Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation................................... 139
Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, Chairman and CEO, Technovation, Inc.; AIA
Member of NextGen Institute Management Committee............... 144
Dr. Ian A. Waitz, PARTNER Director; Jerome C. Hunsaker Professor
of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Head, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology..................................................... 164
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of Systems
Acquisition and the Transition to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, Report to Congressional Requesters, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, September 2008............... 168
THE NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: STATUS AND ISSUES
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Next Generation Air Transportation
System: Status and Issues
thursday, september 11, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 10:00 am, the Committee on
Science & Technology will hold a hearing to examine the status of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System initiative known as NextGen
and explore key issues related to the initiative and the interagency
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), the organization
entrusted with NextGen planning and research coordination.
Witnesses:
Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for NextGen & Operations
Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration
Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office
Mr. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Dr. Paul G. Kaminski, Chairman and CEO, Technovation Inc.
Professor Ian A. Waitz, PARTNER Director, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
BACKGROUND
Issues
The following issues are expected to be raised at the hearing:
Have the specific and real improvements projected to
be gained through NextGen been well defined, are they
realistic, and is there a stakeholder consensus in support of
them?
What metrics should Congress use to evaluate the
progress of the NextGen initiative?
In light of the extremely complex systems engineering
challenge facing the NextGen initiative, what will the NextGen
interagency partnership and other stakeholders need to do to
maximize its chances for success?
Have the views of industry, active air traffic
controllers, and technicians who maintain the ATC system been
adequately incorporated in NextGen foundational planning
documents, such as the Concept of Operations, Enterprise
Architecture, and Integrated Work Plan?
Have the research and development (R&D) expectations
established by Vision 100--the legislation establishing the
framework for NextGen--been met by the JPDO and its
stakeholders?
What needs to be done to move the JPDO from a
position of proposing the R&D necessary for the success of
NextGen to one of articulating a clear R&D program with defined
and prioritized tasks for each of the partner agencies?
How confident should Congress be that progress in
meeting the research, development and testing activities set
out in the JPDO's Integrated Work Plan will provide a
sufficient basis for achieving the NextGen's goals and
timetable for quieter, cleaner, and more efficient air traffic
operations?
Does the current form of the Integrated Work Plan
have sufficient detail and priorities to allow it to be
effectively used to oversee and manage the NextGen-related R&D
efforts of multiple agencies?
What major omissions did the JPDO find when it
performed its recent research gap analysis, and how are they
being addressed? Did the gap analysis indicate areas in which
partners, other than the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), need
to play a greater role in furthering the NextGen initiative?
What has to happen for FAA to be able to successfully
carry out its intent to accelerate the transition from the
JPDO's system concepts and R&D activities to the implementation
of operational systems without sacrificing the focus needed to
ensure that NextGen's long-term benefits of increased system
capacity, lower energy consumption, and reduced environmental
impacts will be achieved?
Given the impact of aviation on the environment,
including climate, what steps should the NextGen initiative
take to mitigate that impact?
What assumptions regarding the maturity of near-term
and long-term research and technologies were made as part of
the decision to reorganize NextGen and JPDO in FAA?
Can the JPDO continue to be viewed as an ``honest
broker'' by the other participating agencies in light of the
recent restructuring action by FAA?
How will FAA and its federal partners ensure that the
JPDO and NextGen program adhere to budget and schedule
milestones during the upcoming Presidential transition? Will
momentum and program focus be impacted by transition
activities?
Overview
While the health of the National Airspace System (NAS) is critical
to America's economy, the current approach to managing air
transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally
obsolete. Today's NAS is near capacity, with delays growing to record
levels, yet a threefold increase in air traffic is expected by 2025.
Current processes and procedures do not provide the flexibility nor the
scalability needed to meet the growing demand.
In 2003, Congress created the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) as part of P.L. 108-176, Vision 100: Century of Flight
Reauthorization Act. The JPDO is to plan for and coordinate, with
federal and non-federal stakeholders, a transformation from the current
air traffic control system to the NextGen by 2025. NextGen is
envisioned as a major redesign of the air transportation system that
will entail precision satellite navigation; digital, networked
communications; an integrated aviation weather system; layered,
adaptive security; and more.
Seven organizations are participating in the JPDO: the Departments
of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security; FAA; NASA;
and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The JPDO
is housed within FAA, and FAA's FY 2009 budget request includes $19.5
million to support JPDO. While the JPDO has the planning and
development responsibility and can define R&D requirements that it
would like the participating agencies to carry out, it has neither
budgetary nor management authority over the agencies' activities in
support of NextGen. Although the JPDO is responsible for planning the
transformation to NextGen and coordinating the related research and
development efforts of its partner agencies, FAA is largely responsible
for implementing the policies and systems necessary for NextGen, while
continuing to safely operate the current air traffic control system 24
hours a day, seven days a week.
The JPDO envisions that NextGen will be an evolutionary
transformation of the Nation's air transportation system that
integrates a combination of new procedures and advances in technology
to improve delivery of services to both civil and military users. The
goal of NextGen, as stated by the JPDO, is to ``significantly increase
the safety, security, capacity, efficiency, and environmental
compatibility of air transportation operations, and by doing so, to
improve the overall economic well-being of the country.'' The JPDO's
role is to establish how the air transportation system should be
transformed. Part of this transformation involves integrating and
reshaping capabilities across all aspects of air transportation so that
the entire system operates as an interconnected structure.
The JPDO sees the investments in NextGen resulting in increased
system capacity and flexibility to accommodate growing demand for air
transportation services and diversity of flight profiles. In its
planning documents, the JPDO describes building NextGen in three
phases, which it characterizes as Epochs.
In Epoch 1 [Foundational Capabilities (2007-2011)],
focus will be on developing and implementing mature
foundational technologies and capabilities such as Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) which is the
surveillance and navigation technology that will serve as the
core of the NextGen system by delivering more timely and
precise information to the cockpit while giving pilots and
controllers a common operational picture.
In Epoch 2 [Hybrid System (2012-2018)], the required
automation and procedures are implemented to allow pilots a
more active role in the system through self-separation,
merging, and passing. According to the JPDO, by the completion
of Epoch 2, operational improvements and fleet evolution will
provide a number of environmental benefits such as increased
fuel efficiency at 34 FAA-designated airports within the
continental United States. For example, in the terminal
airspace operations area, NextGen capabilities and improvements
in aircraft engine technologies will, according to the JPDO,
produce an overall improvement in fuel efficiency estimated at
six percent compared to the baseline. This will have a
commensurate positive effect on reducing the level of emissions
generated.
The JPDO views Epoch 3 [NextGen Operations (2019-
2025)] as the expansion of NextGen into a nationwide system
which also allows for more complex, high-density operations
across the system to take full advantage of the airspace and
the precision provided by satellite-based technologies that
will be fully deployed by then.
NextGen Funding
Preliminary benefits analyses by the JPDO indicate that NextGen
capacity increases could yield significant economic growth. As stated
in its Business Case released in August 2007,\1\ using data derived
from the joint FAA/NASA 2004 Socioeconomic Demand Forecast (SEDF) study
on aviation demand, the JPDO estimated ``a rough-order-of-magnitude
annual economic value of $3,000 per flight. Every additional flight
accommodated by expected NextGen capacity gains represented an economic
benefit, whereas every additional flight that cannot be accommodated
represented an economic loss.'' The JPDO found that ``preliminary
results from the SEDF study indicate that the cumulative positive
impact to consumer surplus resulting from estimated NextGen capacity
gains is expected to be up to $80 billion by the end of Epoch 2 (2018)
and as much as $176 billion by the end of Epoch 3 (2025).'' The JPDO
notes that these benefits are not achievable without investments by the
government and industry: Initial estimates of the FAA investment
required to achieve the NextGen benefits are projected at $15 billion
to $22 billion through 2025 and preliminary investment estimates by the
aviation industry are projected to be in the range of $14 billion to
$20 billion during this same time frame.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ JPDO, Business Case for the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, Version 1.0 (Aug. 24, 2007).
\2\ JPDO, Making the NextGen Vision a Reality: 2006 Progress Report
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan (Mar.
14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NextGen investment over the next five years (from FY09 to FY13)
including Research and Development is currently projected by the JPDO
to total over $7.2 billion. Requested budgets by partner agencies for
FY09 total $978.5 million. NextGen investments for FY08 through FY13
are shown in Table 1.
It should be noted that to date, the Department of Defense (DOD)
and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have not identified specific
NextGen-related investments in their out-year budgets.
Uniquely establishing NextGen Research and Development costs\4\
requires adding FAA's System Development activities funded in the
agency's Capital Account to agencies' activities characterized as RE&D
or R&D. Doing so shows that NextGen's projected Research and
Development costs in the next five years are projected to total over
$2.2 billion; requested budgets for NextGen Research and Development
activities by partner agencies for FY09 total $384.3 million. The
NextGen R&D activities from FY09 through FY13 are shown below in Table
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The R&D costs in this table are components already included in
the Table 1.
Realignment of NextGen Activities and Responsibilities in FAA
FAA recently realigned its NextGen activities and modified JPDO's
position and status within the FAA. Organizationally, the agency added
a Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning to the Air
Traffic Organization (ATO). Arguing that the change would give FAA ``a
clear decision-maker and a distinct line of authority on issues
relating to NextGen,'' the FAA Acting Administrator designated Ms.
Victoria Cox as the Senior Vice President responsible for NextGen and
Operations Planning. [Ms. Cox, one of the hearing witnesses, will be
able to provide an update on the status of this realignment.]
Prior to the recent realignment, the JPDO, which has always been
housed in the FAA, reported to FAA's Administrator and the Chief
Operating Officer of ATO. Today, the JPDO reports to the Senior Vice
President for NextGen and Operations Planning, one of four Senior Vice
Presidents in the ATO structure headed by the Chief Operating Officer
and no longer reports directly to the FAA Administrator. This
restructuring is contrary to the intent of the House-passed FAA
Reauthorization bill [H.R. 2881], which envisions having the head of
the JPDO report directly to the FAA Administrator and be a voting
member of FAA's Joint Resources Council. The new ATO structure is shown
on the following chart.
In addition to the JPDO, the Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning has purview over Operations Planning as well as the
newly established NextGen Integration and Implementation Office.
According to FAA, the JPDO will maintain/revise the Integrated Work
Plan; ``maintain the vision of the future'' and produce ``a long-term
R&D Plan/Roadmap that demonstrates alignment across partner agencies
performing long-term research''; and facilitate interagency
cooperation. For its part, the newly formed Integration and
Implementation Office has been tasked to ``ensure effective and
efficient application, planning, programming, budgeting and execution
of FAA's NextGen portfolio and manage NextGen portfolio across FAA
lines of business.'' Responsibility for the execution of individual
acquisitions, such as Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-
B), and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) would remain in
operational units. The ATO organization and the units reporting to the
Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning are shown on
the next page.
Aviation and the Environment
The NextGen initiative has, from the onset, recognized the need to
consider aviation's impact on the environment. This is because
environmental effects, such as noise level near airports and effects of
aircraft emissions on local air quality, are known capacity limiters.
Furthermore, aviation's contribution to climate change is becoming a
major topic.
In his prepared statement presented at a hearing before the Space
and Aeronautics Subcommittee in March 2007 on FAA's R&D Budget
Priorities for Fiscal Year 2008, Dr. Donald Wuebbles, Chair of a
workshop on the impacts of aviation on climate change (jointly
sponsored by the JPDO's Environmental Integrated Product Team and the
Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Center
of Excellence) summarized the findings and conclusions of his workshop
as follows:
``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.''
In addition, GAO testified before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation in March
2008 [GAO-08-706T] and said:
``Aviation contributes a modest but growing proportion of
total U.S. emissions, and these emissions contribute to adverse
health and environmental effects. Aircraft and airport
operations, including those of service and passenger vehicles,
emit ozone and other substances that contribute to local air
pollution, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
that contribute to climate change. EPA estimates that aviation
emissions account for less than one percent of local air
pollution nationwide and about 2.7 percent of U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, but these emissions are expected to grow as air
traffic increases.''
The JDPO and its partners believe that there are uncertainties in
our present understanding of the magnitude of climate impacts due to
aviation emissions. In its most recent assessment, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific
intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has
estimated that aviation in 2005 accounted for about three percent of
worldwide anthropogenic radiative forcing. Because growth in demand is
expected over the next few decades, the JPDO has identified the urgent
need to understand and quantify the potential impacts of aviation
emissions in its research program.
Such urgency is also needed in light of steps by the European Union
(EU) to include both domestic and international aviation in an
emissions trading scheme. The congressionally-directed report Aviation
and the Environment, A National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals
and Recommended Actions that was prepared by the Partnership for Air
Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) in 2004
[Professor Ian Waitz, one of the hearing witnesses, participated in the
study and may be able to provide additional details] said:
``The concerns extend well beyond American shores. For
example, within the European Union (EU) the climate impacts of
aviation are identified as the most significant adverse impact
of aviation, in contrast to the United States and many other
nations where air quality and noise are the current focus of
attention. As a result, there are increasing EU calls for
regulation-trading, taxes and charges, demand management and
reduced reliance on aviation-even though there is large
uncertainty in the understanding of the climate effects of
aircraft and appropriate means to mitigate these effects.
Despite the importance of this issue, the United States does
not have a significant research program to assess the potential
impacts of aviation on climate. This may put the United States
at a disadvantage in evaluating technological, operational and
policy options, and in negotiating appropriate regulations and
standards with other nations. The international concerns will
continue to grow with the strong increase in air transportation
demand anticipated for Asia.''
According to GAO, the emissions trading scheme involves a ``cap and
trade'' system that sets allowances for greenhouse gas emissions for
industries and other sources.\5\ Parties that pollute below their
allowance receive emissions credits, which they can trade in a market
to other parties that have exceeded their allowance. As proposed, the
EU's scheme would apply to air carriers flying within the EU and to
carriers, including U.S. carriers, flying into and out of EU airports
in 2012. For example, under the EU proposal, a U.S. airline's emissions
in domestic airspace as well as over the high seas would require
permits if a flight landed or departed from an EU airport. Airlines
whose aircraft emit carbon dioxide at levels exceeding prescribed
allowances would be required to reduce their emissions or to purchase
additional allowances. According to GAO, although the EU's proposal
seeks to include U.S. airlines within the emissions trading scheme, FAA
and industry stakeholders have argued that U.S. carriers would not
legally be subject to the legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and
Development Are Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health
and Climate (May 2008).
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics' March 2007 Hearing On Status and
Issues Related to the JPDO and NextGen
During the March 29, 2007 hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics on the status and issues associated with JPDO and
NextGen, Mr. Charles Leader, Director of the JPDO, testified that two
fundamental NextGen technologies were just beginning implementation:
Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), and System Wide
Information Management (SWIM) and mentioned the near-term release of
three important NextGen documents: the Concept of Operations, the
Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan. Dr. Gerald
Dillingham from GAO discussed the JPDO's organizational structure,
technical planning, and research funding. He urged the JPDO to involve
all stakeholders, including active traffic controllers and technicians.
Mr. John Douglass, then the President and CEO of the Aerospace
Industries Association, noted that industry was an essential partner in
NextGen and that it is important for industry to have confidence in the
government's commitment to NextGen. Dr. Bruce Carmichael, Director,
Aviation Applications Program, Research Applications Laboratory,
National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that seventy percent of
delays in today's system are attributable to weather and that NextGen
will integrate the weather programs of the FAA, DOD and NOAA.
Progress in Completing Key Foundational Documents
At the March 2007 hearing, the JPDO acknowledged that it had been
working to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between its
participating agencies since at least August 2005 but indicated that
only two signatures on a draft MOU had been secured to date. Witnesses
at that hearing supported the need for a signed MOU, one witness saying
that the document needed to be in place to span likely changes in
senior management and another witness characterizing the MOU as
fundamental, in that without one, the delayed dialogue among entities
``is almost impossible to put into any rational context.'' It was not
until June 9, 2008 that the MOU was finally signed by all five
agencies.
Three key planning documents were released by the JPDO subsequent
to last year's hearing. These documents form the NextGen baseline plan:
the Concept of Operations (Version 2.0), released June 13, 2007; the
Enterprise Architecture (Version 2.0), released June 22, 2007; and the
Integrated Work Plan (Version 0.2), released February 15, 2008. The
Research Plan, released August 31, 2007, has since been incorporated
into the Integrated Work Plan.
The Concept of Operations document is the most fundamental and
explains how the system will work and what it will look like. The JPDO
states that this is important in developing the structure, policy, and
procedures, and the changes needed to make the system a reality. The
Enterprise Architecture document is a highly technical description of
the NextGen system. According to the JPDO, it is meant to provide a
common tool for planning and understanding the interrelated systems
that make up NextGen. As such, the Enterprise Architecture serves as a
guide in coordinating R&D activities and developing JPDO's future needs
for research and capital investment. The Integrated Work Plan provides
the research, policy and regulation, and acquisition timelines
necessary to achieve NextGen by 2025.
External Reviews of NextGen and JPDO
There have been several recent independent reviews on the progress
of NextGen and JPDO's activities subsequent to the March 2007 hearing
held by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Some of the key
findings and recommendations of those reviews are as follows:
Government Accountability Office
Dr. Gerald Dillingham of the GAO testified on May 9, 2007 before
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee
on Aviation [GAO-07-784T] on the status of the NextGen initiative [Dr.
Dillingham, one of the hearing witnesses, participated in the study and
will be able to provide an update]. Some of the main points made by Dr.
Dillingham were as follows:
``JPDO has continued to make progress in furthering
its key planning documents. JPDO has experienced delays in the
release of key documents, but currently plans to have initial
versions of these documents released by July 2007. JPDO has
been working since 2005 to establish a memorandum of
understanding between its partner agencies, although as of May
4, 2007, the memorandum had been signed by the Departments of
Transportation and Commerce and NASA, but was not yet signed by
the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.''
``FAA and JPDO continue to face a number of
challenges in moving toward NextGen, including questions about
FAA's technical and contract management expertise; FAA's
ability to maintain a number of existing systems, including
monitoring and addressing equipment outages to ensure the
safety of these existing systems as it transitions to NextGen;
and conducting necessary human factors research.''
``In addition, while JPDO recently estimated that the
total federal cost for NextGen infrastructure through 2025 will
range between $15 billion and $22 billion, questions remain
about which entities will fund and conduct the necessary
research, development, and demonstration projects that will be
key to achieving certain NextGen capabilities.''
``Also, JPDO faces a continuing challenge in ensuring
the involvement of all key stakeholders, such as active air
traffic controllers and system technicians, in its NextGen
planning efforts.''
In providing answers for the record for that same hearing, GAO
responded [GAO-07-928R] to a question from Chairman Costello on the
extent to which moving the JPDO out of the FAA's Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) would give the JPDO greater visibility and
authority, and the potential pluses and minuses of such a move. GAO
said:
``Currently, JPDO is located within FAA and reports
to both the FAA Administrator and the Chief Operating Officer
of ATO. In GAO's view, JPDO should not be moved out of FAA.''
``However, JPDO's dual reporting status hinders its
ability to interact on an equal footing with ATO and the other
partner agencies. On one hand, JPDO must counter the perception
that it is a proxy for the ATO and, as such, is not able to act
as an ``honest broker.'' On the other hand, JPDO must continue
to work with ATO and its partner agencies in a partnership in
which ATO is the lead implementer of NextGen. Therefore, it is
important for JPDO to have some independence from ATO. One
change that could begin to address this issue would be to have
the JPDO Director report directly to the FAA Administrator.
This change may also lessen what some stakeholders now perceive
as unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape associated with
decision-making and other JPDO and NextGen processes.''
``As a part of any change in the dual reporting
status of JPDO's Director, consideration could be given to the
possibility of creating the position of Associate Administrator
of NextGen and elevating the JPDO Director to that post.''
``One plus or advantage of moving JPDO out of ATO is
that it could raise JPDO's authority and visibility in
interagency deliberations by putting JPDO on an equal footing
with ATO and other FAA lines of business. For example, moving
JPDO out of ATO might strengthen its linkages to the Department
of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
In addition, JPDO may be able to work more effectively with
other FAA lines of business, such as Airports, for which JPDO
has planning responsibilities. For example, JPDO is responsible
for developing plans to increase airport capacity. A minus or
disadvantage of moving JPDO out of ATO is that because much of
the work related to implementing NextGen must occur under ATO,
this work could be harder to accomplish.''
GAO also reported to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
earlier this year on noise and other environmental impacts of aviation
that may fundamentally constrain air transportation in the 21st century
[GAO-08-384]. GAO said that FAA and NASA have aligned their aviation
noise R&D plans through a number of planning and coordinating
mechanisms in order to ensure that these plans are complementary and
contribute to goals for addressing the environmental impacts of
aviation, particularly as these impacts relate to the implementation of
NextGen.
Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General
On April 14, 2008, the DOT's Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
released a report [AV-2008-049] on how FAA's air traffic control
projects are impacted by plans for NextGen [Mr. Calvin Scovel, DOT's
Inspector General and one of the hearing witnesses, participated in the
study and will be able to provide additional details]. Some of the main
findings and recommendations of the OIG study were as follows:
Findings
``Much work remains to determine NextGen's impact on
existing projects. FAA is currently exploring ways to
accelerate elements of NextGen. FAA faces complex integration
issues (linking new and legacy systems) and must manage
interdependency among diverse projects. The pace of introducing
new automation, more flexible airspace, and data-link
communications will be governed by the pace of existing
projects.''
``Over the next two years, over 23 critical decisions
must be made about ongoing programs. These decisions affect
major lines of the modernization effort with respect to
automation (modernizing terminal and en route capabilities),
communications (moving forward with data-link programs),
navigation (deciding whether to retain or discontinue certain
ground-based systems), and surveillance (using satellite-based
and radar information with existing ATC systems).''
``These decisions and many others will depend heavily
on the development of a comprehensive Enterprise Architecture
(a technical roadmap) that lays out the vision of how the
system will work and what changes will be required. The
Enterprise Architecture must establish a transition path that
identifies the role and evolution of current systems and how
they will transition to NextGen.''
``FAA has made progress in developing the NextGen
Enterprise Architecture, but planning documents lack details on
requirements, particularly for automation, that could be used
to develop reliable cost estimates. FAA must revise these
documents to prioritize NextGen operational improvements and
systems and ensure that these priorities are reflected in
NextGen planning documents and budget requests.''
``Along with refining the Enterprise Architecture,
FAA must chart a clear transition course from the current NAS
architecture to the vastly different NextGen environment. Our
work shows that FAA needs to conduct a gap analysis between the
current system and the NextGen architecture planned for the
2025 timeframe. This will help establish budget priorities,
better define requirements, and refine transition plans. In
addition, FAA needs to develop an interim architecture or
``way-point'' that is manageable and executable for what is
expected of the NAS by 2015. Until these steps are taken, it
will not be possible to determine technical requirements that
translate into reliable cost and schedule estimates for
existing or future acquisitions.''
Recommendations
``Develop and report on a new set of metrics for
measuring progress with NextGen initiatives that focus on the
delivery of a new capability with respect to enhancing
capacity, boosting productivity, or reducing Agency operating
costs.''
``Complete a gap analysis of the NAS enterprise
architecture that closely examines current systems (the ``as
is'') and the planned NextGen enterprise architecture (the ``to
be'') and develop and establish priorities.''
``Once the gap analysis is completed, develop an
interim architecture that details what can be accomplished in
the 2015 timeframe that will allow FAA to more accurately
determine costs and other factors required for NextGen.''
``Use the interim architecture as the basis for an
integrated program plan that establishes an executable program
for the NextGen capabilities. This effort should include
detailed cost, schedule, requirements, acquisition strategies,
risk management, and the supporting organizational structures
to execute the integrated program.''
At an exit conference with FAA officials from ATO and JPDO, those
officials generally concurred with all of the OIG's recommendations,
including the need to establish metrics for measuring progress with
NextGen initiatives and develop an interim architecture for NextGen.
National Academies Workshop on Assessing the Research and Development
Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System
On April 1 and 2, 2008, a workshop was led by the National
Academies' National Research Council to gather reactions to the
research and development aspects of JPDO's baseline Integrated Work
Plan (IWP). The workshop was composed of experts from JPDO, session
moderators, members of the workshop organizing committee, and invited
guests from government, industry, and academia who were familiar with
air traffic management. Although the workshop was not a consensus
activity, a number of issues were raised by the participants in the
workshop. As indicated in the pre-publication copy of a summary of the
workshop, these included:
``The issue of a sensed lack of urgency on the part
of the JPDO was mentioned most often by workshop participants.
There clearly are economic pressures to move quickly and the
rest of the international aviation world is moving forward,
particularly in Europe. However, the JPDO is still proposing
R&D that needs to be done rather than articulating a clear
program. ``
``A second issue raised by many of the participants
was the JPDO's inability to articulate the goals of the NextGen
program. The JPDO outlined a large number of excellent research
tasks in its presentations, most of which will likely be
required to support future U.S. airspace system needs. However,
many participants felt that there was a lack of focus on the
most important future needs: airspace and airport capacity.''
``Tied to the concern about the lack of clearly
stated goals is the concern that prioritization of the
individual pieces of the program has not been done. It is
important to consider how best to spend limited research
dollars and to determine the likely payoff for particular
investments.''
``During the workshop, several participants expressed
concern with the narrow boundaries and inward focus (at FAA and
NASA) of the NextGen R&D program. Participants suggested that a
number of connections needed to be made or strengthened with
other constituents, such as airport authorities, controllers,
local communities, industry, DOD, and international
organizations.''
``Most participants also felt that the IWP
[Integrated Work Plan] was not well-structured from the
research perspective and stressed that the document should make
research priorities clear. However, these and other
participants felt that the current draft IWP contains too much
unprioritized detail and is not properly detailed to plan what
research needs to be done. Further, other participants felt the
IWP does not appear to be the most effective way to oversee or
manage the research.''
``Concerns were raised by many participants that
there may not be sufficient resources to enable development of
these transition paths. First, it was not clear how the
activity is being financed. That is, it was not clear to the
participants who is ultimately responsible for paying for the
R&D needed to get to implementation of the program.''
``The last key issue centered on political
difficulties. Foremost among the workshop participants was the
concern about the challenge of making difficult (politically
charged) decisions. Government agencies tend to be risk-averse,
and some participants feel that the lack of decision-making is
holding up the JPDO's ability to move forward on NextGen's
research needs. A number of specific issues were identified
that are difficult, but which participants felt will need to be
addressed. For example, some participants raised the question
of how to deal with the issue that although manufacturers are
willing to invest in changes desired for environmental
improvements, airlines are not willing to pay the additional
costs; that is, there is an issue of the trade-off between
outcome and cost constraints.''
FAA's Proposed Rule on ADS-B
Last October, FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-making (NPRM)
regarding the agency's transition plan to the Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system, a key foundation for NextGen.
FAA's planned implementation would require installing ADS-B on all
aircraft operating in U.S. airspace by 2020. According to media
reports, the proposed rule garnered more than 300 comments, some
centering on the fact that mandated equipment on board aircraft would
provide only the ADS-B ``out'' service, where signals transmitted out
(identification, GPS position, altitude, heading, speed and other data
once per second) would be used primarily by the air traffic control
system. Pilots would not be provided with information about other
traffic around them, a capability available only with ADS-B ``in''
equipment, the addition of which was not mandated by the proposed rule.
Aircraft equipage of ADS-B ``in'' and cockpit displays was optional. It
has been reported that some operators view the mandated equipage as
providing them little or no benefit, although they acknowledge
improvement to controller provided information.
According to media reports, FAA has asked the Aviation Rule-making
Committee (ARC) to perform an NPRM review. Subsequent to the ARC's
report and recommendations, FAA will have different options to
consider, namely deciding that the NPRM will remain unchanged,
modifying it to incorporate some of the committee's recommendations or
performing a complete revision of the proposed rule and producing a
supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to replace it. No date has been established
for when FAA will announce its choice of option. It is likely that the
mandated equipage date for ADS-B will be delayed.
European Air Traffic Modernization and Associated Research and
Development Efforts
Last year, the FAA Administrator signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with her European counterpart that formalizes cooperation
between the NextGen initiative and the ``Single European Sky Air
Traffic Management Research Programme'' or SESAR program, the European
equivalent of NextGen. FAA has said that the agency and the European
Commission are identifying opportunities and establishing timelines to
implement, where appropriate, common, inter-operable, performance-based
air traffic management systems and technologies. This coordination, FAA
said, will address policy issues and facilitate global agreement within
international standards organizations.
Compatibility of the NextGen system with SESAR and the air traffic
modernization efforts being planned elsewhere in the world is very
important to U.S. and international air carriers. That is because
failure to ensure compatibility could lead to air carriers having to
equip their fleets with two sets of communications, navigation, and
surveillance systems.
According to FAA, SESAR is conceived as a system that, while
smaller in scope and size, has similar air traffic management goals as
NextGen. However, FAA has pointed out an important difference in scope
between SESAR and NextGen. The agency says that while SESAR focuses
almost exclusively on air traffic management, NextGen takes what is
called a ``curb-to-curb'' approach, and includes not only air traffic
control, but also airports, airport operations, security and passenger
management, and Department of Defense and Department of Homeland
Security requirements.
The JPDO recently completed a comparative assessment of the NextGen
and SESAR operational concepts. In this paper, JPDO found that:
``The vision and ``philosophical'' perspectives of
both concepts are closely aligned. This is to be expected based
on the existence of formal cooperative arrangements between the
U.S. and Europe. Further, the participation of a wide variety
of stakeholders in both the JPDO and SESAR initiatives allowed
for significant information sharing and the identification of
best practices to be incorporated.''
``Probably the most easily recognized difference in
the two concepts is the breadth of scope. The NextGen ConOps
[Concept of Operations] includes a full ``curb-to-curb''
approach that includes passenger and inter-modal security
considerations. These build on the traditional ``block-to-
block'' concepts that are centered on the airspace operations
(including environmental considerations). The SESAR ATM Target
Concept remains focused on the more traditional airspace
elements and recognizes the need to include airport operations
for a complete gate-to-gate process description.''
``Another area of difference, although not as
dramatic, is how weather is considered in the two concepts. In
the U.S. National Airspace System, summer convective weather
causes a majority of system-wide delays and therefore has been
included as a core element of the proposed concept. Weather is
recognized in the SESAR ATM Target Concept, but there does not
appear to be the same level of focus on infrastructure,
prediction, modeling, and planning as appears to be included in
the NextGen concept.''
The European Union is also focusing its aeronautics R&D on
environmental effects. Under the aegis of its Seventh Framework
Programme, the EU's main instrument for funding research over the
period 2007 to 2013, the Union will be conducting research on
developing technologies to reduce the environmental impact of aviation
with the aim of halving the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by air
transport, cutting specific emissions of nitrogen oxides by 80 percent
and halving perceived noise. The research will address green engine
technologies, alternative fuels, novel aircraft/engine configurations,
intelligent low-weight structures, improved aerodynamic efficiency,
airport operations and air traffic management as well as manufacturing
and recycling processes. The ``Clean Sky'' Joint Technology Initiative
will bring together European R&D stakeholders to develop `green' air
vehicle design, engines and systems aimed at minimizing the
environmental impact of future air transport systems. This initiative
establishes a Europe-wide partnership between industry, universities
and research centers, with a total public/private funding of 1.6
billion Euros.
Chairman Gordon. Let me welcome everyone. This is a bit of
an unusual day in that we have the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial
Service going on right now, and I understand at 3:00 last night
they closed that interstate down over there, so we have I am
sure lots of staff and friends that were Members that were
taking alternate routes, will take a little bit longer, and but
I know that we have a variety of staff and Members also that
are watching this hearing on TV. And so we want to proceed.
Before we get going today, I want to take care of a few
housekeeping details since this will be our last Full Committee
hearing for the session. As you may know, this year marks the
50th anniversary of the Science and Technology Committee. In
honor of that milestone we have collaborated with the House
Historian's Office to produce a history of the Committee, and
it is on our desk and will be getting around to our different
stakeholders and friends soon. The Historian's Office has been
working to standardize the format to best help future
researchers and historians, and our history will be the model
for the Committees going forward. And so we have provided these
copies today.
Secondly, since many Members have expressed interest in
attending a Shuttle launch, I want to let you know that the
next launch is currently scheduled for Friday, October the
10th, at 12:30 a.m., so coffee will be provided. There is a
possibility that Mr. Mollohan at the Appropriations Committee
will be taking a CODEL for that launch and that our Members
have been asked to join. And if not, if we have enough Members,
we will put together a CODEL of our own.
There is also a launch that is currently scheduled for
November the 12th that might be a better option for some
Members.
Third, I would like to, again, congratulate all the Members
of the Committee for the good and constructive work that we
have done this year in a very bipartisan way. Today marks the
122nd hearing, and I am sure the, we hear groans going up from
the staff because of that, but we have had 122 hearings. We
have moved 78 bills and resolutions through the House, 24 of
which have become law, and we have several more pending in the
Senate that we hope that will become law before this session is
over. This is a record that we should all be proud of, and I
hope that we can do even better next year.
And I am also very pleased that all of those bills and
resolutions came out of this committee on a bipartisan basis.
We are in the process now of trying to close the books on this
year. We will soon start to look at our agenda for next year,
and we want to do it in a collaborative way. We find that if
you take good ideas and work together with Democrats and
Republicans to build a coalition that you get a much better
bill, and we are going to continue that.
Also, for Members' attention I will let you know that we
postponed a trip or CODEL to look at some of the nuclear
reprocessing that is done in France and that we will try to get
that back up again in the spring.
And so that is--oh, I guess the final point I should make
is that our Committee volunteered to be the model for the new
energy-efficient rooms here on the Capitol Complex. We have
finished many of those. As soon as our last Subcommittee
hearing is over with they will come in and finish up this
hearing room, and then hopefully by maybe next January or so we
want to invite the family and friends, particularly of our
staff, to come and see where they spend all their time and to
show the rest of Congress how you really can save energy with
an energy-efficient office.
And so, finally, in light of the commemorative ceremony
that will be taking place on the Capitol steps later this
morning, I intend to keep the hearing moving so that we have an
adequate opportunity to hear from our witnesses and examine the
important issues facing the NextGen Program before Members have
to depart for the ceremony at 11:30.
I, therefore, will be brief in my opening remarks, and I
will begin by welcoming our witnesses to today's hearing on a
very important topic. America's air transportation has long
been the envy of the world, and it is an important contributor
to the Nation's economic vitality and quality of life.
Yet it is clear that it is a system under stress and needs
to change. Congress recognized that fact when it established
the Next Generation Air Traffic Transportation System
Initiative now known as NextGen in its Vision 100 FAA
Reauthorization that was enacted in late 2003. We sought to
harness the resources and expertise of FAA, NASA, DOD,
Commerce, DHS, and OSTP in a joint effort to transform the
Nation's ATC system so that it will be able to handle the
anticipated dramatic future increase in travel demand without
compromising safety or the environment.
Today's hearing will provide the Committee with the
opportunity to review the progress that has been made to date
as well as examine the challenges that need to be addressed. We
should have no illusions about the magnitude of the task.
NextGen is a systems, engineering, management, and regulatory
challenge as complex as any the Nation has ever faced. And
success is not guaranteed.
Last year we recognized that NextGen has to succeed,
recognized that NextGen needs to succeed. This committee and
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked together
to frame provisions in the House FAA Reauthorization Bill, H.R.
2881, that sought to strengthen the interagency NextGen
planning and development effort and to move NextGen R&D into
new operational capacities as soon as practicable.
In that regard, I want to salute Chairman Costello of the
T&I Aviation Subcommittee for his strong leadership in
developing the overall FAA Reauthorization Bill and for the
spirit of cooperation he showed to us.
In addition to his T&I responsibility, he is a valued
senior Member of this committee, and I look forward to
continuing to work collaboratively with him and his staff on
these important issues in the next Congress.
Yet we also need for the FAA to work cooperatively with us
if we are to fulfill our oversight responsibility with respect
to the NextGen initiative. Therefore, it was troubling to find
out that the restructuring of the FAA's NextGen Program this
summer from news accounts and not from the FAA itself. It was
also very troubling to find out that the status of the NextGen
Joint Planning and Development Office, JPDO, had been
downgraded in the FAA and restructuring in a move directly
counter to the intent of provisions of H.R. 2881.
We need to hear why FAA decided to take such a step in the
waning days of the current Administration. And finally, it is
troubling that the FAA did not deliver this testimony for
today's hearing to the Committee until yesterday afternoon at
3:00, giving us little time to review it. I find that
unacceptable, and I hope that we will not see a repeat of any
of these practices when it comes to meetings in the 111th
Congress.
As my friend Mr. Hall remembers, former Chairman
Sensenbrenner dismissed a hearing like this a few years ago
because of late testimony. We are not going to do that this
time because this is our last hearing, but this is going to be
important. This committee is going to do its oversight. We can
do it the easy way, or we can do it the hard way, and hopefully
we are going to be able to work together next year.
Well, we have a great deal of issues to cover today, so I
will close by simply expressing my strong belief that the next
President needs to make the NextGen Initiative a national
priority and ensure that it is given the resources, management
attention, and sense of urgency that it warrants. It is
important.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward
to their testimony, and I now recognize Mr. Hall for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
America's air transportation system has long been the envy of the
world, and it is an important contributor to the Nation's economic
vitality and quality of life.
Yet it is clear that it is a system under stress, and it needs to
change.
Congress recognized that fact when it established the Next
Generation Air Transportation System initiative--now known as NextGen--
in its Vision 100 FAA Reauthorization that was enacted in late 2003.
We sought to harness the resources and expertise of FAA, NASA, DOD,
Commerce, DHS, and OSTP in a joint effort to transform the Nation's ATC
system so that it will be able to handle the anticipated dramatic
future increases in travel demand without compromising safety or the
environment.
Today's hearing will provide this committee with the opportunity to
review the progress that has been made to date as well as examine the
challenges that need to be addressed.
We should have no illusions about the magnitude of the task--
NextGen is a systems engineering, management, and regulatory challenge
as complex as any the Nation has ever faced--and success is not
guaranteed.
Last year, recognizing that NextGen has to succeed, this committee
and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked together to
frame provisions in the House's FAA Reauthorization bill--H.R. 2881--
that sought to strengthen the interagency NextGen planning and
development effort and to move NextGen R&D into new operational
capabilities as soon as practicable.
In that regard, I want to salute Chairman Costello of T&I's
Aviation Subcommittee for his strong leadership in developing the
overall FAA Reauthorization bill and for the spirit of cooperation he
showed to us.
In addition to his T&I responsibilities, he is a valued senior
Member of this committee, and I look forward to continuing to work
collaboratively with him and his staff on these important issues in the
next Congress.
Yet we also need for the FAA to work cooperatively with us if we
are to fulfill our oversight responsibilities with respect to the
NextGen initiative.
Thus, it was troubling to find out about the restructuring of the
FAA's NextGen program this summer from news accounts--and not from the
FAA itself.
And it was even more troubling to find out that the status of the
NextGen Joint Planning and Development Office--JPDO--had been
downgraded in the FAA in the restructuring . . . a move directly
counter to the intent of the provisions in H.R. 2881.
We need to hear why the FAA decided to take such a step in the
waning days of the current Administration.
And finally, it is troubling that the FAA did not deliver its
testimony for today's hearing to the Committee until yesterday
afternoon, giving us little time to review it.
I find that unacceptable, and I hope we will not see a repeat of
any of these practices when we meet again in the 111th Congress.
Well, we have a great many issues to consider today, so I will
close by simply expressing my strong belief that the next President
needs to make the NextGen initiative a national priority and ensure
that it is given the resources, management attention, and sense of
urgency that it warrants.
It is that important.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and before I go into
my opening statement let me agree wholeheartedly with your
opening statement and your outlining the accomplishments of
this committee. More than any other committee under the Capitol
Dome we have been successful, and we have been successful
because we have had good leadership. And I would say this. If
all Chairmen have operated like our Chairman has operated, both
professional leadership and personal friendship and
cooperation, we would have less acrimony and less anxiety every
two years as to who is going to have the gavel. He has rendered
a very fair gavel, extended friendship, and cooperation, and I
think we really ought to give him a good round of applause.
So now I will read my statement. And I thank you for
calling today's hearing to review the Federal Aviation
Administration's development of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. I also want to extend a sincere thank
you to our panel of expert witnesses for taking your time from
your busy schedule to appear before the Committee.
The information and advice you provide this committee and
Congress will help us better deal with the challenges of
modernizing our nation's critically important air traffic
management system. Congress passed legislation not quite five
years ago calling for the creation of the Joint Planning and
Development Office and charged it with planning for and
coordinating the research and development of a Next Generation
Air Transportation System.
The rationale for Congress' action was clear. Congestion in
and around our nation's airports was reaching gridlock,
resulting in significant economic losses to carriers, severely
inconveniencing large numbers of passengers, and threatening
the vitality of our economy. It was estimated that demand for
airline services would triple by the year 2025, and absent a
more comprehensive and clearly-defined research, development,
and implementation program future economic growth would be
jeopardized.
Therefore, Congress responded by creating the JPDO to
address this serious challenge. Congress clearly recognized
that integrating new, automated features into a nationwide
network of communications, navigation, and surveillance systems
is a huge challenge, and it will take clear and persistent
management to achieve NextGen's goals.
We also recognize that the future system must allow for
more efficient routings and minimize delays in order to
conserve fuel, the cost of which has risen dramatically in the
last several months. Congress was confident then, as we are
today, that through the focused leadership of the Federal
Aviation Administration, the JPDO, its federal partners, and
industry, these challenges will be met.
This is the second oversight hearing in as many years held
by this committee regarding NextGen. I also note that during
the first session of this Congress our committee produced
legislation strengthening the role and visibility of the Joint
Planning and Development Office. Sadly, the legislation has
been hung up in the Senate.
The Nation's Air Traffic Management System is fundamental
to our economy and our quality of life. NextGen absolutely must
not be allowed to falter, and it is vitally important that
there is accountability both at the FAA and among federal
partners, and that roles and responsibilities are clearly
articulated. So long as there is clarity in the management of
NextGen and a well-understood and sustainable research,
development, and implementation program, I am confident that we
will succeed.
And Mr. Chairman, I thank you and again, my thanks to the
witnesses. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing to review the
Federal Aviation Administration's development of the Next Generation
Air Transportation System. I also want to extend a sincere thank you to
our panel of expert witnesses for taking time from their busy schedules
to appear before our committee. The information and advice you provide
this committee and Congress will help us better deal with the
challenges of modernizing our nation's critically important air traffic
management system.
Congress passed legislation not quite five years ago calling for
the creation of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) and
charged it with planning for, and coordinating the research and
development of, a next generation air transportation system. The
rationale for Congress' action was clear--congestion in and around our
nations' airports was reaching gridlock, resulting in significant
economic losses to carriers, severely inconveniencing large numbers of
passengers, and threatening the vitality of our economy. It was
estimated that demand for airline services would triple by the year
2025, and absent a comprehensive and clearly-defined research,
development and implementation program, future economic growth would be
jeopardized. Therefore Congress responded by creating the JPDO to
address this serious challenge.
Congress clearly recognized that integrating new, automated
features into a nationwide network of communications, navigation and
surveillance systems, is a huge challenge, and it will take clear and
persistent management to achieve NextGen's goals. We also recognize
that the future system must allow for more efficient routings and
minimize delays in order to conserve fuel, the cost of which has risen
dramatically in the last several months. Congress was confident then,
as we are today, that through the focused leadership of the Federal
Aviation Administration, the JPDO, its federal partners, and industry,
these challenges will be met.
This is the second oversight hearing in as many years held by this
committee regarding NextGen. I also note that during the First Session
of this Congress, our committee produced legislation strengthening the
role and visibility of the Joint Planning and Development Office. Sadly
the legislation has been hung up in the Senate.
The Nation's air traffic management system is fundamental to our
economy and our quality of life. NextGen must not be allowed to falter.
It is vitally important that there is accountability both at the FAA
and among federal partners, and that roles and responsibilities are
clearly articulated. So long as there is clarity in the management of
NextGen, and a well-understood and sustainable research, development
and implementation program, I am confident we will succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again my thanks to our witnesses for
being here today.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. If there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statement will be added to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. As the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, the NextGen system is one
that I have worked on for some time.
The goal of this program, when implemented, is to significantly
increase the safety, efficiency, and environmental compatibility of air
transportation operations. NextGen will move the air transportation
system away from the costly ground-based systems that have defined air
traffic control for the past fifty years to satellite based technology.
The FAA forecasts that airlines are expected to carry more than one
billion passengers by 2015, increasing from approximately 740 million
in 2006. The Department of Transportation (DOT) predicts up to a
tripling of passengers, operations, and cargo by 2025. While these
predictions may be affected by the high cost of fuel, nevertheless this
modernization is very much needed, and we must ensure its effective and
efficient implementation.
The NextGen plan that is under development will consist of new
concepts that rely on satellite-based capabilities; data
communications; information and weather capabilities that will support
strategic decisions; and enhanced automation. As Chairman of the
Aviation Subcommittee and after spending a considerable amount of time
on this project, we have learned that the NextGen system must evolve
incrementally through sound contract management by the FAA coupled with
vigorous Congressional oversight. To that end, today's hearing and the
Science Committee's involvement with NextGen can contribute its
success.
I have concerns that FAA's restructuring related to NextGen lowers
the status of the Joint Planning Development Office (JDPO) and does the
complete opposite of what the House directed in H.R. 2881, the FAA
Reauthorization bill, which we passed in September 2007. I have also
been concerned that under this restructuring, the roles of the JPDO and
the Air Traffic Organization are blurred.
I believe we all must work together to ensure we have the resources
needed for NextGen to be a success and so that our aviation system
continues to be the best in the world.
I want to thank the Chairman for his attention to this issue. I
would also like to thank all of our witnesses today for coming and I
look forward to the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because of my service on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, I am particularly interested in the
subject of today's Full Committee hearing.
Our air traffic control system is of critical importance to our
safety and also to our national security.
In June of 2008, the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport alone
moved more than five million passengers. That is in one month, at one
airport.
Our skies are crowded with commercial and private aircraft. As air
traffic becomes heavier, the technology that manages the load will be
under greater pressure to perform without error.
The Federal Aviation Administration must work with the federal
science agencies to ensure that the next generation of air traffic
control technologies--called NextGen--will be able to accommodate the
needs of tomorrow's air traffic.
This wide-ranging transformation of the national air transportation
system will move away from long-relied-upon technologies.
It will use more satellite based technology, and it will enable
better weather imaging across the entire national airspace system.
The transformation will enable will improve airport surface
movements at busy airports such as the one in Dallas. It will reduce
spacing and separation requirements of aircraft.
The system will also better manage the overall flows into and out
of busy metropolitan airspace to provide maximum use of high demand
airports.
NextGen represents the collaborative effort of seven federal
organizations, and the planning and implementation of it will be
carried out by a unique public/private partnership called the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO).
This committee will be interested to know about recent FAA
realignment of NextGen activities and changes in the Joint Planning and
Development Office.
We want to understand that the reorganization of the project
represents a step toward clarity, rather than a tangle of bureaucracy.
The American public deserves to know how and why these decisions
are made.
The reorganization of our national air traffic control system
technology is no small ordeal. We as Members of this committee are
tasked to be stewards of the public's investments.
I want to thank the witnesses who are here today to illuminate
matters for us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Mark Udall
I want to thank Chairman Gordon for holding this very timely
hearing. It is important that this committee continue to pay close
attention to the progress and challenges of the interagency Next
Generation Air Transportation System [NextGen] initiative--the national
effort to transform the Nation's aging air traffic control system so
that it can accommodate the large increases in travel demand forecast
to occur over the next two decades. As I have often stated, America's
aviation system is vital to the continued health of our economy and our
competitiveness in the wider world beyond our shores, as well as being
important to our quality of life. We need to ensure that we do all that
is necessary to maintain its health.
Last year I chaired a Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearing on
the Joint Planning and Development Office's progress in planning and
coordinating the research necessary to implement NextGen. I opened last
year's hearing by saying that I was troubled by indications that all
may not be going as well as hoped with the NextGen effort and that we
had not yet seen a clear plan from FAA and the JPDO for implementing
agreed-upon NextGen technologies and procedures into the National
Airspace System expeditiously. As it turns out, we found out during
that hearing that long-promised planning documents and a critical
interagency Memorandum of Understanding were not yet completed. I am
keenly interested in seeing what progress has been made since that
hearing.
Today, the need for NextGen is greater than ever. Passengers are
faced with incessant delays, many caused by an aging air traffic
control system's inability to cope with the capacity-reducing effects
of bad weather. Over the short-term, soaring fuel prices have put some
airlines on the brink of economic collapse. Over the longer-term, with
reduced capital on hand to pay for higher fuel costs, other airlines
have postponed purchases of quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft.
And just last month, a shutdown of a critical computer system stranded
hundreds of aircraft and delayed thousands of passengers. As I said
after the incident, the outage demonstrated just how vulnerable our air
traffic control system is--and how critical it is to our economic well-
being, competitiveness and our quality of life.
Now I want to note that this committee and this House of
Representatives have not been standing still. Last September the House
passed an FAA reauthorization bill--which included provisions I
authored to improve our air traffic control system--by a healthy
margin. Unfortunately, that legislation has not yet cleared the Senate.
H.R. 2881 addresses critical needs related to NextGen. The R&D
provisions in the House-passed bill will help ensure that the Nation's
air transportation system is able to handle the expected significant
growth in future air travel demand over the next twenty years safely,
efficiently, and in an environmentally friendly manner.
It is imperative that the Congress help ensure that FAA has the
tools it needs to keep the Nation's air transportation system safe,
efficient, and environmentally friendly. With a projected cost to
taxpayers as much as $22 billion and to airspace users as much as $20
billion, it is important that we get NextGen right and that those asked
to make sizable investments get a viable return. FAA needs to move
smartly and in a focused manner, making sure that announced near-term
accelerations of regional demonstrations do not detract from the long-
term benefits promised nationwide.
I recognize that developing and implementing NextGen are enormous
challenges. However, we need to look both at where progress is being
made and where improvement is needed. I look forward to reviewing the
testimony of today's distinguished panel of witnesses and to getting
their constructive suggestions on how we can help make the transition
to NextGen a reality.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Laura Richardson
I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for holding
this important hearing today, and our witnesses for their appearance.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the status of the NextGen
system and to discuss any issues surrounding the full implementation of
this new technology.
At the end of every legislative week I fly home to my district, and
I land at LAX, one of the Nation's busiest airports. However, what many
travelers are not aware of, are the numerous runway incursions that
have occurred this past decade at LAX, 55 since 2001. This number is so
alarming that the LA City Council called on us, the Federal Government,
to hire more air traffic controllers. Now assigning blame will not
reduce the number of incursions, but the implementation of the NextGen
system will, so the status of NextGen is important to me. In fact I was
commenting yesterday in relation to legislation that we passed in the
House Tuesday night, that as Members of Congress our most important
duty is to ensure the safety of the American people. We need to
maintain the confidence of the American people in our air traffic
system.
Aside from the obvious safety issues, the stability of our national
economy depends upon a safe, reliable air traffic system. According to
the FAA, independent economic studies have estimated that if indirect
and secondary impacts are included (such as visitor expenditures and
other economic activity generated by aviation) the industry contributes
$640 billion to the U.S. economy--or 5.4 percent of U.S. GDP--and over
nine million jobs.
More importantly, the simple fact that air travel is expected to
increase significantly in the coming years demands that we implement
the NextGen system as soon as possible. Based on FAA reports in 2005,
738 million passengers flew on U.S. commercial carriers, compared with
579 million in 1995 and 395 million in 1985. Furthermore the FAA
expects this figure to reach one billion passengers by 2015--less than
a decade from now. Last summer was a grim reminder of the pain that
travelers endure when the air traffic system is pushed to its limits.
It is my understanding that NextGen, which utilizes GPS technology,
has been used quite successfully for oceanic operations. Therefore I
would like to hear from our witnesses what we can learn from that
experience. Likewise I also understand that funding of the NextGen
system is still in question. I would like to hear from our witnesses as
to how we can achieve a balanced and adequate approach to fund this
critical piece of technology.
I look forward to a productive discussion, Mr. Chairman I yield
back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing to examine the
status of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
initiative and the role of the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) in charge of planning NextGen.
A century ago the Wright brothers revolutionized America by marking
the first successful human flight. From the small beginnings of the
Wright brothers flying machine, to the Boeing 747s that rule our great
skies today, the aviation industry has made leaps and bounds in
progress. NextGen offers the next stride in the growing success of
aviations effort to become safer and more efficient. As a Member of the
Science and Technology Committee, and the Subcommittee on Aviation at
the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, I have a vested interest
in this issue.
NextGen offers many exciting possibilities for aviation. The
National Airspace System (NAS) has become operationally obsolete,
reached increased capacity levels and been affected by high oil prices.
NextGen could offer the possibility of capacity relief, a curb in
carbon dioxide emissions, and a significant economic growth in the
industry. I am looking forward to learning more about the progress
being made by JPDO, and hope the promise that NextGen offers to the
aviation field and the Nation can become a reality.
I would like to thank today's witnesses; Ms. Cox, Dr. Dillingham,
Mr. Scovel, Dr. Kaminski, and Professor Waitz for taking the time to
appear before us. I look forward to hearing your testimonies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will examine the status of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) initiative.
As demand for air travel continues to grow, and we search for ways
to expand capacity, the deployment of new technology like NextGen is
going to play an important part.
The need for additional capacity is especially acute in the Phoenix
metropolitan area. Sky Harbor Airport is already the Nation's eighth
busiest, and the Federal Aviation Administration has already warned the
Valley that it will need additional capacity to meet the expected
increase in demand.
Fortunately, the City Of Phoenix is joining other Valley
communities to develop Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport on the site of the
former Williams Air Force Base in Mesa.
Just this week we learned that Gateway, while still in its infancy
as a potential reliever for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
has an estimated economic impact that has grown to $500 million a year
and supports more than 4,500 local jobs, according to a study by
Arizona State University.
I look forward to today's hearing. At this time I yield back.
Chairman Gordon. At this time I would like to introduce our
panel of witnesses today. First, we have Ms. Victoria Cox, the
Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning in
the Air Traffic Organization of the Federal Aviation
Administration, Dr. Gerald Dillingham, who is a Director of
Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability
Office, the Honorable Calvin Scovel, III, who is the Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dr. Paul
Kaminski, who is the Chairman and CEO of----
Dr. Kaminski. Technovation.
Chairman Gordon. Technovation, and Dr. Ian Waitz, who is
the Director of the FAA- and NASA-sponsored Center of
Excellence PARTNER and the Head of the Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Welcome all. And as our witnesses should know, spoken
testimony is limited to five minutes each, after which the
Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask
questions, and we will start with you, Ms. Cox.
STATEMENT OF MS. VICTORIA COX, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
NEXTGEN AND OPERATIONS PLANNING, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Cox. Good morning, Chairman Gordon. Thank you. It is a
pleasure to address you and Congressman Hall and Members of
this committee. I am Victoria Cox, the FAA's Senior Vice
President for NextGen and Operations Planning.
Congress has been direct in its charge to the FAA; improve
the level of safety, security, efficiency, quality, and
affordability of the Air Transportation System and reduce the
production of noise and emissions.
We are following that guidance as we develop and deploy the
Next Generation Air Transportation System. NextGen will apply
the same precision, automation, and access to information to
aviation that already exists in other industries and in our
daily lives. We can deliver it, and we intend to deliver first
in the places that need it most. We are accelerating our
efforts with focused deployment of NextGen precision aviation
capabilities around our most congested airports. We are
fostering partnerships with operators equipped to perform
precision navigation procedures.
These efforts are yielding big benefits and lessons
learned, but the real punch comes in the form of immediate
reductions to delays, fuel use, and emissions. We are still not
where we want to be, but we are making progress.
One of the early successes is the Atlantic Inter-
operability Initiative to Reduce Emissions or AIRE. It is a
research and technology development venture among the FAA, the
European Commission, and industry partners. It upgrades air
traffic control standards and procedures in trans-Atlantic
flights.
When you make even small changes in fuel use on flights
that are typically several hours long and cover thousands of
miles, the results are dramatic. We have already seen a fuel
savings of one percent in oceanic airspace. A typical oceanic
flight might burn 13,000 gallons. Multiply that by the number
of flights over the course of a year, and one percent is a lot
of fuel saved and a lot of emissions reduced.
We are planning similar demonstrations in the South
Pacific. In fact, the first of three demonstration flights will
occur tomorrow from New Zealand to San Francisco.
We are using NextGen technology to make things more
efficient on the ground as well. We are introducing state-of-
the-art surface management tools at JFK. These are based on
Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X or ASDE-X. Last
summer at JFK a plane that had been holding on a ramp for hours
might not have had an option to turn back to the gate readily
because no one, not the airline and not air traffic control,
had a common picture of where all other aircraft were located
on the ramps and at the gates. As of last month much-needed
information about aircraft location is available to airlines,
controllers, and to FAA's command center in Herndon, Virginia.
Service operations are no longer a black hole at JFK. Delta
Airlines is already using this capability. This JFK initiative
stems from a joint FAA, NASA research and development project
in Memphis with Fed Ex and Northwest Airlines. With this
capability Northwest has significantly improved their
operations, lowered fuel consumption, and cut emissions.
Progress is being made, but we know that NextGen
implementation is a difficult and complex undertaking. And
while it cannot be accomplished without cooperation across the
entire FAA and the NextGen partner agencies, we understand that
there must be a single point of accountability. To that end the
FAA established the position of Senior Vice President for
NextGen and Operations Planning. In that position I am directly
responsible and accountable for all elements of NextGen and
have decision authority over all matters related to NextGen
integration and implementation in the FAA.
The establishment of this office places the Joint Planning
and Development Office, the Legacy Operations planning
function, and the new office of NextGen Integration and
Implementation under a common reporting structure. This
restructuring is an indication of the changing focus of NextGen
from purely planning and research to actual integration and
implementation capabilities that will transform the National
Airspace System. And it is also a recognition of the fact that
implementation must occur in the operational environment.
We are not losing sight of the future NextGen vision. Our
Joint Planning and Development Office will continue to focus on
long-term R&D and on cross agency cooperation. The FAA is
placing its emphasis on near-term implementation and mid-term
planning over a rolling 10-year timeframe.
Given the impact on aviation, of aviation on the U.S.
economy and the long-standing support from this committee, this
Congress, and most of the aviation community, I sincerely
believe that the impetus for NextGen and its program focus will
continue and not suffer as transitions occur.
In closing, I want to thank both this Administration and
this Congress for supporting the FAA's NextGen budget request.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy
to answer any questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victoria Cox
Good morning, Chairman Gordon, Congressman Hall, and Members of the
Committee. I am Victoria Cox, Senior Vice-President for NextGen and
Operations Planning in the Air Traffic Organization at the Federal
Aviation Administration. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today about the status of the work we are doing to develop and deploy
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and to discuss
how we are providing operational, environmental, and safety
enhancements that deliver benefits to our customers today and into the
future.
As you know, NextGen is not a single capability or program to be
delivered at some date in the future; it is a portfolio of capabilities
and programs that we are beginning to deliver now--and will continue to
provide in an evolutionary manner. It is also important to remember
that NextGen is not simply about air traffic capabilities, but
fostering improvements in ground infrastructure, aircraft technology,
and alternative fuels.
Much progress has been made during the past year. We have moved to
accelerate initiatives that yield benefits to stakeholders in the near-
and mid-term. We have also taken steps to ensure a more holistic
approach to managing NextGen and related legacy programs. Last spring,
the Secretary of Transportation and the NextGen Senior Policy
Committee, which was established by Public Law 108-176 (Vision 100) and
is chaired by Secretary Peters, asked us to take immediate action to
accelerate the deployment of NextGen. In response to this call, the FAA
and the other NextGen agencies have focused on accelerating deployment
of operational improvements to address the greatest need and on
developing the capabilities that will provide the greatest benefit. FAA
has leveraged its research and development investments to accelerate
targeted implementations and development of critical capabilities.
The introduction and wide-spread use of precision navigation tools
that deliver increased precision to our operations represent the first
step in our transition to NextGen. We are focusing deployment of Area
Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) around our
most congested airports, using these tools to increase capacity and
operational efficiency. Partnerships with operators equipped to perform
these procedures are yielding the biggest benefits from increases in
operational efficiency and reductions in fuel use and emissions. Today,
87 percent of commercial operators are equipped to fly RNAV routes and
procedures; and 39 percent are equipped to fly the RNP Special Aircraft
and Aircrew Authorization Required (SAAAR) approaches that allow design
of flight paths to achieve more optimal use of airspace. FAA has
approved these types of approaches at Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth,
Newark, Washington Dulles, LaGuardia, Chicago Midway, Miami, and San
Francisco. To date this year, we have published 20 RNP SAAAR approach
procedures at eight airports, including San Jose, Washington Reagan
National, Indianapolis and Los Angeles. We have also published 63 RNAV
Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival
(STAR) procedures at 45 airports, including Atlanta, Charlotte,
Cincinnati, Newark, Orlando, Phoenix, Portland (OR), Santa Monica and
Tucson.
We are also seeing benefits today from the introduction of
Optimized Profile Descents or OPD. The OPD lets pilots use the
Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA) technique to fly a continuous descent
path, rather than the traditional ``step downs'' typically flown today.
Airplanes initiate descent from a high altitude with engines at low
power and, ideally, maintain a continuous descent until cleared to
land. Flight demonstrations at Louisville's Standiford Airport and
testing at Atlanta Hartsfield have shown fuel savings averaging about
50-60 gallons of fuel for the arrival portion of flights and a
reduction of as much as 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide per arrival.
Significant noise reduction is also achieved through the later
deployment of flaps and landing gear allowed by the CDA's gradual
reduction in speed. Under its NextGen Demonstration program, FAA is
continuing with targeted implementations of Optimized Profile Descent
procedures at San Diego in addition to Atlanta and is cooperating with
the United States Air Force Air Mobility Command to introduce OPD
procedures with its C17 fleet in Charleston, SC. OPD procedures have
been instituted in Los Angeles on a permanent basis and are delivering
major benefits in terms of operational efficiency and the environment.
Another NextGen-related demonstration program is the Atlantic
Inter-operability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE), a research and
technology development venture between FAA, the European Commission and
industry partners. AIRE focuses on up-grading air traffic control
standards and procedures for trans-Atlantic flights. A similar
initiative in the Asia-Pacific region, the Asia and South Pacific
Initiative to Reduce Emissions (ASPIRE) has also been initiated. In
fact, tomorrow Air New Zealand is operating a flight, nicknamed ASPIRE
I, from Auckland to San Francisco that will demonstrate some of the
potential efficiencies. Our Vice President for Enroute and Oceanic
Services will be on-board. Both of these initiatives will enhance fuel
efficiency while reducing environmental impacts. Our first AIRE
demonstrations showed one percent fuel savings in oceanic airspace--a
significant amount of fuel and carbon emissions for these very long
flights.
Other near-term benefits stemming from targeted implementations of
the NextGen acceleration initiative include the introduction of surface
management tools at JFK with the accelerated introduction of the
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X (ASDE-X). FAA, in
partnership with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and
airlines, is providing information about surface traffic in both
movement and ramp areas on the airport to Airline Operation Centers,
air traffic controllers and the FAA Command Center. This information
gives common situational awareness that will allow airlines to better
manage movement of their aircraft in crowded ramp areas. The inability
for airlines to know the exact location of their aircraft on the
surface relative to other traffic contributes to surface gridlock and
difficulty moving aircraft back to gates when required. As of last
month, this much-needed information is available.
This capability stems from a joint FAA/NASA research and
development project at Memphis with FedEx and Northwest Airlines. The
Memphis project is developing a surface traffic management system that
employs a two-way, collaborative environment between the FAA and
airlines to significantly improve the efficiency of ground operations
and will be integrated with arrival and departure traffic to enable the
most efficient use of airport and terminal facilities and reduce
emissions that impact air quality.
These and other demonstrations are providing valuable information
that will assist FAA in developing standards and procedures for
operations in the NextGen environment while providing immediate
benefits to targeted areas. FAA plans to continue these activities in
an integrated test bed approach that focuses on Florida, the east
coast, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico and takes advantage of early
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) deployment. Upcoming
demonstrations include tailored arrivals in Miami starting later this
month with American Airlines and with Air France. We will also begin
integrating predictive weather information as part of the Traffic
Management Advisor (TMA) at Daytona Beach with Embry Riddle and a
consortium of companies in November. We have over 20 partners from the
airlines, industry, academia, and other government agencies that are
involved in demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of integrated
NextGen capabilities. We will model these and another demonstration in
ways that enable more rapid, widespread deployment of these
capabilities in the future.
NextGen will bring major changes to the roles and responsibilities
of all the participants in the NAS, especially the controller, as the
NAS becomes more automated and some tasks are delegated to the pilots
flying more sophisticated aircraft. A strategic job analysis has been
initiated to examine how changes to technology, roles, responsibilities
and procedures will impact the aptitudes, knowledge, skills and
abilities that we will expect from controllers as NextGen matures. This
will enable the NAS to go from a ``controlled'' airspace environment to
a ``managed'' airspace environment, allowing automation to assist with
decision-making.
The human factors research program has also delivered products that
enable the use of data communications in the en route domain and is now
focused on the increased use of RNAV, limited self spacing, and novel
modes of grouping aircraft to enable an increase in capacity while
reducing controller workload and error potential.
Another key NextGen transformation is the move from Forensic Safety
Systems to Prognostic Safety Systems, as evidenced by the development
of the Aviation Safety and Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS)
system. The ASIAS program integrates a large number of previously
unrelated data sources from both government and industry into a
comprehensive safety picture that can assist in identifying emerging
risks and enabling earlier interventions against these risks before
they can lead to accidents.
Research and development in the weather arena is providing advanced
weather capabilities to improve NAS operations during adverse
conditions. This requires improvements in weather forecasting and
observation network capabilities as well as integration of weather into
decision support tools. Improvements in forecasts and observations
quality developed by the Aviation Weather Research Program (AWRP) are
aimed at providing more accurate aviation weather forecasts for
phenomena such as turbulence, convective activity, icing, and
restrictions to visibility. The Weather Technology in the Cockpit
(WTIC) program will facilitate the development of technologies
necessary to integrate weather information into aircraft-based decision
support systems. WTIC will enable pilots to access weather information
similar to that being utilized by air traffic controllers and
dispatchers on the ground.
In Fiscal Year 2008, the wake turbulence research program completed
prototype evaluations of the Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures
tool, a product of NASA and FAA research and development, that permits
increased departure capacity from airports with closely spaced parallel
runways. Prototype evaluations of the system were conducted at Houston
Intercontinental and Lambert St. Louis airports. Another application of
research and development has been wake turbulence data collection and
analysis in support of a National Rule Change which would allow the use
of ILS procedures to Closely Spaced Runways for specific aircraft
types, thus increasing capacity at five specific airports.
The wake program, along with global partners, has evaluated
separation standards for new aircraft (B-747-8, A380) and has re-
evaluated the B757 family of aircraft. We have also developed a
methodology and optimization tools for the re-evaluation of wake
turbulence categories and separation standards for today's aircraft
fleet mix, which has changed significantly since the early 1990's.
Working jointly with European Air Navigation Service Providers and
aircraft manufacturers, FAA is seeking a harmonized set of wake
categories and wake separation minima for the NAS and International
fleet mixes.
In an example of concept validation that shows great promise, FAA
researchers are developing the concept for an Integrated Arrival/
Departure Control Service that we are calling ``Big Airspace.''
Employing modeling and simulation, including human-in-the-loop
simulations, researchers used scenarios that incorporated a generic
large metropolitan area, a major airport and three small airports into
the same Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility. The ``Big
Airspace'' concept extends terminal procedures to a portion of en route
transition airspace, increasing the number of RNAV routes, and
incorporating dynamic resectorization (a fundamental NextGen concept)
to allow airspace boundaries to be more flexible. A key element of
``Big Airspace'' is the incorporation of all operations into one
facility to reduce the amount of cross-facility coordination needed to
safely manage traffic into and out of busy areas. Human-in-the-Loop
simulations employed both terminal and en route controllers as well as
pilots who flew simulated aircraft linked to the simulation. Results of
the modeling and these simulations showed that controllers could handle
up to 50 percent more traffic. With the introduction of data
communications, controllers may handle up to 150 percent more traffic
before performance degraded, all without a significant change in the
number of operational errors and with a significant decrease in the
number of conflicts.
With 2012 projected traffic, ``Big Airspace'' simulations showed
increased operational efficiencies of about a minute of flight time and
five nautical miles in scenarios with weather present. To provide
context for these savings, Southwest Airlines has indicated that for
its operations a single minute of time saved on each flight contributes
an annual savings of up to $25 million in fuel per year. Extend this to
the number of flights operated by all carriers in major metropolitan
areas and you can see that ``Big Airspace'' adds up to tremendous
savings for all our airlines. FAA is building towards implementing
``Big Airspace'' as its mid-term concept in high density metropolitan
areas.
Accelerating air traffic management improvements is leading to
efficiencies and reducing fuel burn, but we are also pursuing other R&D
strategies to mitigate NextGen environmental impacts. We are hastening
the development of promising environmental improvements in aircraft
technology. The President's budget funds a research consortium called
Continuous Low Emissions, Energy and Noise (CLEEN) which will allow us
to work with industry to accelerate the maturation of technology that
will lower energy, emissions and noise. CLEEN offers a good example of
FAA and NASA partnership in advancing the NextGen plan as we worked
together closely in developing this initiative to mature technology
with NASA's foundational research efforts.
We are also exploring the potential of alternative fuels for
aviation. Fuels that improve emissions performance at both the local
and global level not only help the environment, but also enhance energy
security and supplies. Issues of fuel supply and costs are having an
increasing impact on the shape of the U.S. aviation system--as fuel
costs now approach up to 40 percent of airline operating costs. To this
end, the FAA helped form--and is an active participant in--the
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, or CAAFI. We have
already seen coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid fuels in jets, and most
recently completed a bio-fuel flight demonstration. Alternative fuels
will be the ``game changer'' technology that gets us closer to carbon
neutrality. Alternative fuels are a part of the CLEEN effort.
Activities like these that consist of concept validation employing
modeling and simulation, prototyping and field demonstrations in an
operational environment can accelerate the transition from concepts and
research and development to implementation of operational systems. FAA
is employing this approach in an effort to accelerate NextGen
implementation. Not only will this approach speed the development of
NextGen operational improvements, it is also aimed at speeding their
acquisition by accomplishing, in parallel, required steps in FAA's
Acquisition Management System.
Another way that FAA is accelerating transition from research to
implementation is through Research Transition Teams (RTT) between NASA
and FAA, facilitated by the JPDO. The goal of the RTTs is to ensure
that R&D needed for NextGen implementation is identified, conducted,
and effectively transitioned to the implementing agency. Four teams are
successfully underway with NASA and FAA engagement.
The approaches described above are mechanisms we have established
to ensure that we retain the focus on the goals of NextGen while moving
expeditiously to incorporate changes into the National Airspace System
which support those goals and begin to achieve the benefits of a
transformed system in a timely manner.
This year has seen a shift in focus for NextGen from planning to
action. The realignment of responsibilities for NextGen under a Senior
Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning is an indication of
that changing focus of NextGen from purely planning and research to
actual implementation and integration of technologies that will
transform the National Airspace System. As we enter this new phase, the
Agency decided to place accountability for all aspects of NextGen,
including management of the NextGen investment portfolio, under one
senior official.
This realignment also responds to stakeholder requests for a single
point of accountability for NextGen and addresses the suggestion raised
by Industry, including members of JPDO Working Groups, that more
focused oversight by FAA of JPDO deliverables would be desirable.
With the establishment of the NextGen and Operations Planning
organization under the leadership of a Senior Vice President, the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO), the Operations Planning
function, and the new Office of NextGen Integration and Implementation
have a common reporting structure. For the FAA this ensures that the
Agency acts promptly to achieve the JPDO vision by accomplishing the
right kind of R&D and that a steady stream of improvements taking us
along the road to NextGen are delivered for implementation and
coordination with legacy systems operations. This arrangement increases
FAA support for JPDO Working Groups as well as cross-agency initiatives
by closer linking of FAA to JPDO.
The Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning is
responsible for implementation of all elements of NextGen, most of
which are executed by other service units in the Air Traffic
Organization and other lines of business in the FAA, and has decision
authority over all matters related to NextGen integration and
implementation including allocation within the Agency of the $688
million NextGen budget request for fiscal year 2009.
NextGen implementation is a difficult and complex undertaking that
cannot be accomplished without cooperation across the industry, the FAA
and the NextGen partner agencies. The Senior Vice President for NextGen
and Operations Planning has a direct and immediate path to the FAA
Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation should their
assistance be required.
The highly successful FAA-wide Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)
process is the basis for guiding NextGen integration and implementation
and ensuring the cooperation of all elements within the FAA with
NextGen responsibilities. This process includes all FAA organizations,
within and outside of the ATO including the JPDO. The process tracks
specific capability improvements through R&D, field demonstration,
investment decision, acquisition and implementation, with clear
objectives that result in specific commitments to the operating
community outside FAA. An executive oversight board (NextGen Management
Board) at the Associate Administrator level, chaired by the Deputy
Administrator, oversees the process. A review board (NextGen Review
Board) manages the flow of improvements from concept, through R&D, to
investment decision, to implementation. Aviation community
participation will be improved through a formal advisory process,
Industry Days, and stepping up stakeholder participation at the SPC,
which encourage feedback from users, operators, and developers.
An important product of the process described above is the NextGen
Implementation Plan, the latest version of which was published on June
30, 2008. The plan details implementation commitments for the near-term
(between 2009-2011), and describes more than 30 additional improvements
targeted for introduction between 2012 and 2018. This version shows how
FY09 research and development projects move us toward specific
outcomes. The entire plan can be accessed on line at www.faa.gov/
nextgen.
As directed by the Secretary of Transportation, who is Chair of the
NextGen SPC, JPDO will continue to focus on long-term (beyond 10 years)
research and development and cross-agency coordination with FAA placing
emphasis on near-term implementation and mid-term planning over a
rolling 10 year timeframe. FAA will ensure that the Agency's
implementation plans and Integrated Work Plan are aligned for the near
and mid-term, while keeping an eye to the future that JPDO is defining
through the long-term R&D plan. The JPDO Integrated Work Plan (IWP),
will also be published this month, is still a work in progress, and the
elements in it have not yet been prioritized. That said, it represents
a great amount of work across the NextGen agencies and industry to
document their initial development work and planning.
An overarching goal, and a clear responsibility of JPDO, is a long-
term R&D program, with well-defined and prioritized research goals and
supporting activities and that responsibility will be clearly assigned
to the Partner agencies. Success will depend on assuring that agency
R&D budgets are linked. Research must be aligned to leverage cross-
agency investments and deliver products that will transition to
implementation.
We are confident that planned investments lead to the capabilities
described out to 2018. These are investments in the five
transformational programs discussed later, as well as to seven solution
sets. In total, they fund research, engineering, analysis,
demonstrations, concept validation and ATC infrastructure enhancements.
The far-term, beyond 2018, is dependent on research that is ongoing or
planned in coordination with the JPDO. The results of that research
will be used to guide the far-term development. JPDO will continue to
maintain the vision of NextGen and will update the Concept of
Operations in accordance with results of the long-term research that it
is charting.
JPDO will also continue to produce a yearly Progress Report. This
year's progress has been noteworthy. The Senior Policy Committee (SPC),
chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, provides directed focus on
important efforts including a government-wide Safety Management System;
a collaborative weather initiative involving the Department of Commerce
(DOC), FAA and the Department of Defense (DOD); an initiative for net-
centric aviation information sharing; and planning for integrated
aviation surveillance with the DOD, Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and FAA.
JPDO has formalized organizational relationships with partners to
facilitate transfer of technology for NextGen application by
establishing the previously described Research Transition Teams to
facilitate smooth transition of research products from NASA to FAA.
Additionally, the DOD has established a NextGen Joint Planning Office
with the U.S. Air Force leading to coordinated DOD contributions and
technology transfer. The DOD, DHS and FAA also jointly invested in a
demonstration of Network Enabled Operations technology.
JPDO completed a gap analysis of NextGen partner agency programs
against the Integrated Work Plan. The gap analysis identified seven
critical interagency focus areas, including various ATM research
topics, research to mitigate environmental constraints, security risk
management, and the verification and validation of complex systems. FAA
was identified as the lead for three of the focus areas, NASA for two,
DHS for one, and JPDO for one. Working with the partner agencies, the
JPDO will incorporate operational improvements that address these gaps
into the Integrated Work Plan and through the governance process,
including the JPDO Board and SPC, will encourage partner agencies to
include activities that support these operational improvements in their
implementation plans and future year budgets.
As we move forward with NextGen it is important for us to measure
our progress by defining our near-term, mid-term, and long-term goals
with suitable performance metrics. The right metrics will allow us to
determine not only how well we are doing but also the impacts of events
that reduce or delay progress. FAA plans to employ three methods of
measurement. First, we will track progress against milestones
established in the NextGen Implementation Plan. These are linked
directly to the National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture
decision points. We will also track investments, measuring whether
specified products are delivered on time and on budget. We are also
developing methods to measure and report on benefits accrued with the
implementation of NextGen capabilities in an integrated fashion rather
than the case by case approach that we take today.
The FAA's National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) published in
February 2008 identifies $740 Million for NextGen R&D in the
President's Fiscal Year 2009-2013 budget with $83.5 Million requested
in Fiscal Year 2009. Much of the other R&D work contained in the 2009
request is NextGen enabling.
My testimony has focused on R&D, Advanced Technology Development
and Prototyping and Demonstration investments. Major NextGen
transformational programs are making progress as well. ADS-B has
continued to meet all the program milestones. Since the national
contract was awarded last summer, the program has deployed the ground
infrastructure in the Southern Florida key site area. The system has
for the first time equipped pilots to receive traffic and weather in
the cockpit for enhanced situational awareness. The system will reach
an In Service Decision (ISD) for essential services for commissioning
into the National Airspace System (NAS) in November 2008. Critical
services IOC and ISD is planned for 2010.
While the agency has been busy with deploying the ground equipment,
we are also simultaneously working on the rule-making for ADS-B. The
Notice of Proposed Rule-making (NPRM) was published in October 2007.
The comment period closed in March 2008 and the agency is taking into
account every single comment that was received. We have been working
closely with all facets of the aviation community through the ADS-B
Aviation Rule-making Committee (ARC). We will consider all the
recommendations from the aviation community in developing the final
rule, which we estimate will be published in spring 2010.
The System-Wide Information (SWIM) Program recently awarded a $37M
contract for commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) software to Iona
Technologies of Waltham, Massachusetts. This software will help FAA
develop interfaces between systems more quickly and cheaply, and will
help establish new connections between systems and with new users--just
what's needed for NextGen.
The Data Communications program and the NAS Voice Switch program
have both completed development of initial program requirements, and
the NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) program has begun analysis
to develop standards for universal access to a weather data base, which
will contain forecast information of interest to all national airspace
participants including FAA, Department of Defense, National Weather
Service and our European partners.
I thank both this Administration and this Congress for supporting
the FAA's NextGen budget requests and hope that issues surrounding the
FAA's reauthorization are quickly resolved. Be assured that we will
identify NextGen as a key programmatic and budgetary issue requiring
decisions from policy-makers in the incoming Administration.
Given the impact of aviation on the U.S. economy and the
longstanding support from this committee, this Congress, and most of
the aviation community, I sincerely believe that the impetus for
NextGen and its program focus will continue and not suffer due to
transition activities.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
Biography for Victoria Cox
Vicki Cox was named the Air Traffic Organization's Senior Vice
President for NextGen and Operations Planning in May 2008. She will
serve as the FAA's focal point for the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen), working across all lines of business
to lead the transformation of the national airspace system using state
of the art technologies to meet changing aviation demands.
Cox previously served as the ATO's Vice President for Operations
Planning since 2006, focusing on moving NextGen forward. She joined the
FAA in 2003 as Program Director of the Aviation Research Division,
where she made an immediate impact working on the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) that the Office of Management and Budget requires to
assess and improve program performance. Cox then moved to Director of
Flight Services Finance and Planning before heading the ATO's
International Office.
Prior to joining the FAA, Cox worked for the Department of Defense
where she served as Director of International Technology Programs in
the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. She has
an extensive research and development and program management
background, having supported the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Science and Technology as the DOD Laboratory Liaison to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. She also worked as a Program Manager for a
number of ballistic missile defense technology programs for the U.S.
Air Force.
A physicist, Cox served as Chief of Physics and Scientific Director
of the European Office of Aerospace Research and Development in London.
She also worked as a scientist responsible for thermal vacuum
conditioning and testing of the Hubble Telescope for NASA.
Cox graduated from Converse College and received a Master's degree
from East Carolina University. She has a certificate in U.S. National
Security Policy from Georgetown University and is a DOD Level III
Certified Acquisition Professional in Systems Planning, Research,
Development and Engineering. She also earned her private pilot's
license in 1985.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Dr. Dillingham.
STATEMENT OF DR. GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Costello,
Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the findings of the study that we undertook at your
request [see Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record]
and respond to your questions about NextGen planning, research
and development activities. I will also identify some
challenges that I believe must be overcome to implement
NextGen.
The stakeholders I refer to in my statement are the 25
aviation industry representatives we interviewed for our study
before the ATO was reorganized this past June. They include
avionics, aircraft, and ATC equipment manufacturers, ATC system
users, and ATC system operators.
I want to note that in contrast to last year when we
testified before this committee, active air traffic controllers
are now beginning to be participants in the NextGen activities.
However, the safety technicians who will be involved in
installing and maintaining NextGen systems have yet to become
active stakeholders.
You asked us about the status and usefulness of three key
NextGen planning documents. A majority of the stakeholders told
us that these documents were of limited usefulness. They said
the documents provide high-level views of NextGen benefits but
do not include specific details or a structured plan for
achieving tangible results.
However, our review of the JPDO's next version of the Work
Plan shows progress in providing this kind of information and
could make it more useful for monitoring and the oversight of
NextGen.
You asked us about the availability of R&D for NextGen
planning and implementation. We found that steps have been
taken to address some of the initial concerns about the so-
called R&D gap that resulted from changes in NASA's research
emphasis and the expanding requirements of NextGen.
As you know, the budget request for FAA has increased,
which will provide the needed R&D funding for NextGen. JPDO,
FAA, and NASA have also begun to move from proposing research
to articulating a defined and prioritized R&D program using
mechanisms such as the research transition teams.
However, even if FAA's funding increases, some stakeholders
question whether the agency has the R&D infrastructure,
including the facilities and personnel, to adequately address
NextGen's developmental research needs.
Another of your questions related to the JPDO's capacity to
coordinate the efforts of partner agencies and act as an honest
broker. Since the recent reorganization, JPDO is no longer a
separate, independent office within FAA and no longer reports
directly to FAA's top management. Instead, JPDO is a part of
ATO, reports to the Senior Vice President of NextGen, who in
turn reports to the ATO Chief Operation Officer. It is still
too soon to know if this governance structure will sufficiently
address stakeholders' concerns about NextGen's leadership.
Under an alternative governance structure that is included
in the House FAA Reauthorization Bill, the Director of JPDO
would be elevated to the Associate Administrator of NextGen,
reporting directly to the Administrator. We believe this
proposal comes closer to addressing concerns raised by
stakeholders than ATO's action and could result in another
reorganization and governance structure with the passage of a
reauthorization bill.
However, according to an FAA senior executive, the internal
FAA stakeholders are knowledgeable about and supportive of the
new governance structure. We have suggested that FAA consider a
focused outreach and education initiatives to ensure that
external stakeholders also buy in and support the
reorganization and new governance structure.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, in closing I
would like to briefly turn to what I consider the other key
challenges to NextGen implementation. First, to fully realize
NextGen capabilities, a new configuration of ATC infrastructure
will be needed. This means that FAA needs to give priority to
developing a comprehensive facility consolidation and
realignment plan.
In addition, airports will need to have increased capacity.
NextGen technologies and procedures will enhance capacity, but
additions to currently-planned runway construction will be
necessary to handle the expected increase in traffic. Runway
construction can be a very long and contentious process.
The final challenge remains for Congress. Strong
Congressional support will be needed to advance a facility
realignment proposal that may include closing or consolidating
some individual facilities to streamline the entire system. And
Congress will be challenged to quickly pass a reauthorization
bill for FAA, confirm an FAA Administrator and a new Secretary
of Transportation. Stable leadership at the top and adequate
funding are necessary for the success of NextGen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dillingham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing to
discuss the status of issues associated with the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen)--the planned air traffic management
system intended to address current and anticipated aviation congestion.
Today, the Nation's air traffic control (ATC) system is experiencing
some of the worst delays in recent times, with one in four flights
delayed. Currently, the U.S. air transportation system handles roughly
50,000 flights over a 24-hour period. By 2025, air traffic is projected
to double or triple, increasing to 100,000 to 150,000 flights every 24
hours. Stakeholders acknowledge that the current air transportation
system will not be able to meet these air traffic demands.
Recognizing the need to transform the current system and to prepare
for the forecasted growth in air traffic, Congress in 2003 mandated the
creation of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)\1\ to
conceptualize and plan for NextGen. JPDO works in partnership with the
Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense (DOD), and Homeland
Security (DHS); the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy; and the private sector. Housed within
FAA--first as an independent office and now, following restructuring,
as a component of FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO)--JPDO is
responsible for coordinating the related efforts of these partners to
plan the transformation to NextGen. JPDO initially prepared three basic
planning documents for NextGen--the Concept of Operations, Enterprise
Architecture, and Integrated Work Plan (IWP)--which, collectively, form
the basis of the joint planning environment for NextGen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vision 100--The Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Pub.L.
No. 108-176, 709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today responds to the six questions you raised about
NextGen and JPDO and addresses two related challenges that we have
identified in the course of our work--infrastructure issues associated
with the configuration of ATC facilities and the capacity of airport
runways and staffing issues related to FAA's in-house technical
expertise. Your six questions are as follows:
1. Have the views of industry and active air traffic
controllers been adequately incorporated in NextGen plans, such
as those embodied in the Concept of Operations, Enterprise
Architecture, and IWP?
2. Is the current version of IWP sufficiently detailed and
prioritized for effective use in overseeing and managing the
NextGen-related research of multiple agencies?
3. How confident should Congress be that progress in meeting
the research, development, and testing activities set out in
IWP will provide a sufficient basis for achieving NextGen's
goals and timetable for quieter, cleaner, and more efficient
air traffic operations?
4. Can the other partner agencies continue to view JPDO as an
``honest broker'' in light of FAA's recent restructuring
action?
5. What needs to be done to move JPDO from proposing research
and development (R&D) for NextGen to articulating a clear R&D
program with defined and prioritized tasks?
6. What metrics should Congress use to evaluate the progress
of the NextGen initiative?
This statement is based on recent related GAO reports and
testimonies, including a report to this committee and other
congressional requesters we are issuing today.\2\ Our work on this most
recent report included interviewing 25 key NextGen stakeholders about
the progress of and challenges to planning for and achieving the
transition to NextGen. We conducted this work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the work to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of Systems
Acquisition and the Transition to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, GAO-08-1078 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2008);
Aviation and the Environment: NextGen and Research and Development Are
Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and Climate, GAO-
08-706T (Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008); Aviation and the Environment:
FAA's and NASA's Research and Development Plans for Noise Reduction Are
Aligned but the Prospects of Achieving Noise Reduction Goals Are
Uncertain, GAO-08-384 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2008); Next
Generation Air Transportation System: Status of the Transition to the
Future Air Traffic Control System, GAO-07-784T (Washington, D.C.: May
9, 2007); Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key
Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, GAO-07-693T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2007);
and Federal Aviation Administration: Key Issues in Ensuring the
Efficient Development and Safe Operation of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, GAO-07-636T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2007).
Background
NextGen is a multi-decade, multi-agency effort to transform the
current ATC system to the next generation air transportation system by
moving from relying largely on ground-based radars to using precision
satellites; digital, networked communications; and an integrated
weather system. Often characterized as ``curb to curb,'' NextGen
involves every aspect of air transportation, from arrival at the
airport to departure from the destination airport, and it is expected
to increase the safety and enhance the capacity of the air transport
system. JPDO was charged with coordinating the research activities of
the federal partner agencies with the goal of developing a 20-year R&D
agenda for NextGen. FAA will play the central role in implementing
NextGen, since it will be responsible for acquiring, integrating, and
operating the new ATC systems. Industry stakeholders will also play a
key role in implementing NextGen because they are expected to develop,
finance, and operate many of the new NextGen systems that will need to
be installed in aircraft. FAA plans to spend roughly $5.4 billion from
fiscal years 2009 through 2013 on NextGen development and capital
costs. JPDO estimated that total federal spending for NextGen may range
from $15 billion to $22 billion through 2025. The agency also noted
that it expects system users to incur $14 billion to $20 billion in
costs to equip themselves with the advanced avionics necessary to
realize the full benefits of some NextGen technologies.
JPDO's authorizing legislation requires the office to create an R&D
plan for the transition to NextGen. This requirement led JPDO to
develop initial versions of the Concept of Operations, Enterprise
Architecture, and IWP. The Concept of Operations is the fundamental
planning document from which the other two documents flow. Version 2 of
the Concept of Operations, issued in June 2007, describes how the
NextGen system is envisioned to operate in 2025. Version 2 of the
Enterprise Architecture, issued in July 2007, is a technical
description of the NextGen system, akin to blueprints for a building.
The Enterprise Architecture provides a means for coordinating among the
partner agencies and private sector manufacturers, aligning relevant
R&D activities, and integrating equipment. Version 0.2 of IWP describes
the integrated framework needed to transition to NextGen from the
current system to the end state and will continually be refined and
enhanced to reflect current priorities, budgets, and programs. It is
JPDO's plan for achieving NextGen. Version 1.0 of IWP is scheduled to
be released at the end of this month.
Have the Views of Industry and Air Traffic Controllers Been Adequately
Incorporated in NextGen Planning Documents?
JPDO, FAA, and industry stakeholders have different perspectives on
whether the views of industry and air traffic controllers have been
adequately incorporated in NextGen planning. JPDO's organizational
structure and processes provide for industry representatives and, to a
lesser extent, air traffic controllers to participate in NextGen
planning, but nearly all the industry stakeholders we spoke with
questioned both the meaningfulness of their involvement and the
usefulness of the NextGen planning documents. Furthermore, active air
traffic controllers maintain that they have not participated in NextGen
development activities. According to FAA, however, their involvement
will increase as NextGen efforts shift from planning to implementation.
JPDO includes several organizations with industry participants, and
industry representatives have reviewed and provided input to key JPDO
planning documents. For example, JPDO's NextGen Institute serves as a
vehicle for incorporating the expertise of industry, State and local
governments, and academia into the NextGen planning process.
Additionally, the Institute Management Council, composed of top
officials and representatives from the aviation community, including
air traffic controllers, oversees the policies, recommendations, and
products of the Institute and provides a means for advancing consensus
positions on critical NextGen issues. JPDO also includes nine working
groups,\3\ through which federal and private sector stakeholders come
together to plan for and coordinate the development of NextGen
technologies. JDPO created the working groups in early 2007 to replace
its integrated product teams and, in part, to address concerns
expressed by stakeholders about their participation. Unlike the
previous teams, which were chaired by a representative from a federal
agency, the working groups, which have the same members as the previous
teams, are jointly led by government and industry officials. (See Table
1.) JPDO expected the working groups to be more efficient and output-
or product-focused than the integrated product teams. Currently, 265
industry representatives participate in JPDO. In addition, JPDO
provided a draft of the Concept of Operations and IWP to industry
representatives for review and comment. For example, version 0.2 ofIWP
was circulated to stakeholders and, according to a senior JPDO
official, the office received about 1,100 stakeholder comments, which
were addressed and incorporated in version 1.0 of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The nine working groups are Airport, Security, Air Navigation
Services, Aircraft, Net-centric Operations, Safety, Environment,
Weather, and Global Harmonization.
With these efforts, JPDO has sought to obtain participation from
industry stakeholders and air traffic controllers in its planning
activities, and we have reported that many stakeholders felt they did
have an opportunity to participate.\4\ In fact, one industry
stakeholder group told us that it worked closely with JPDO to help
revise an early version of the Concept of Operations. However, other
stakeholders said they frequently attended meetings, but were
frustrated by a lack of tangible products being developed and a lack of
progress being made during these meetings. Furthermore, 13 of 15
stakeholders who discussed the issue stated that they did not feel that
their level of participation in either JPDO's planning for or FAA's
implementation of NextGen allowed for sufficient or meaningful input
toward decision-making. Some stakeholders expressed concern that JPDO
and FAA did not include their input in planning documents and other
products. In their view, critical issues they raised are not being
addressed or incorporated in NextGen plans. In particular, some
stakeholders noted that planning documents were drafted by JPDO staff
and then provided to them for review and comment. This approach, one
industry stakeholder noted, did not take full advantage of
stakeholders' capabilities. Others were critical of FAA's decision-
making structure for implementing NextGen and indicated they felt that
FAA and JPDO should lay out the broad plans and schedules for NextGen
and then obtain industry input on the best ways to accomplish the
technical changes for NextGen. Another stakeholder indicated it had the
opportunity to provide input to FAA on decisions such as the deployment
of ADS-B technology, but did not feel its input was considered by the
agency. Still others felt that FAA provided sufficient briefings on
NextGen activities, but allowed no opportunity for their input or
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-08-1078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of stakeholders also expressed concerns about the
usefulness of JPDO's three planning documents and of FAA's
implementation plan for NextGen (a document previously known as the
Operational Evolution Partnership and now called the NextGen
Implementation Plan). Nineteen of 21 industry stakeholders who
discussed the issue said that these planning documents lack the
information that industry participants need for successful planning.
Many of the stakeholders we interviewed said that while the planning
documents provide a high-level view of NextGen benefits, they do not
provide specific details such as a catalog of critical needs, clearly
defined and prioritized intermediate objectives, and a structured plan
for achieving tangible results. According to stakeholders who
manufacture aviation equipment, the plans lack specific details to
inform them about the types of technology they need to design for
NextGen or to provide insights to market, build, and install systems
that support NextGen. Some industry stakeholders further noted that the
current planning does not identify all of the key research for NextGen,
establish priorities for R&D, or show how to obtain those results. In
addition, several stakeholders characterized the documents as long and
confusing--qualities that detracted from their usefulness. We agree
that the latest publicly available versions of these documents lack
information that various stakeholders need. For example, the documents
do not include key elements such as scenarios illustrating NextGen
operations; a summary of NextGen's operational impact on users and
other stakeholders; and an analysis of the benefits, alternatives, and
trade-offs that were considered for NextGen. Our review of the upcoming
version of IWP confirmed that it is to have information that is lacking
in the current document. According to JPDO and FAA officials, it
includes schedule information that has been updated to reflect newly
available information, coordination with FAA's schedule and plans, and
revisions in response to public comments received on the previous
version. In addition, a senior JPDO official noted and we agree that
these documents are not the appropriate place for some of the detailed
information stakeholders would like and need, such as specific
information on the types of technology stakeholders need to design or
install.
Active air traffic controllers are represented on JPDO's Institute
Management Council, and other controllers and aviation technicians
participate in certain JPDO efforts. However, stakeholders from the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association--an FAA employee union--
have indicated that although the union participates in FAA meetings and
briefings related to NextGen, it does so as a recipient of information
rather than an equal party in the development of NextGen. Technicians
in another FAA employee union--the Professional Aviation Safety
Specialists--have indicated that they do not participate in NextGen
planning or development activities. Although air traffic controllers
and technicians will be responsible for a major part of the
installation, operations, and maintenance of the systems that NextGen
will comprise, our work has shown that these stakeholders have not
fully participated in the development of NextGen. Insufficient
participation on the part of these employees could delay the
certification and integration of new systems and result in increased
costs, as we have seen in previous ATC modernization efforts.
FAA officials, however, note that both unions are represented on
its NextGen Management Board, a decision-making body for resolving
emerging NextGen implementation issues. Furthermore, FAA has indicated
that air traffic controllers, pilots, and airline operations center
personnel will be a part of the extended team that is directly involved
in the planning and execution of a gradual roll-out of NextGen
technologies and procedures in a Florida demonstration. In addition,
according to FAA, these stakeholders will continue to be heavily
involved in NextGen throughout its life cycle through their
participation on advisory committees such as RTCA,\5\ the Air Traffic
Management Advisory Committee,\6\ the Performance-Based Operations
Aviation Rule-making Committee,\7\ and the Research, Engineering and
Development Advisory Committee.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Once called the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics,
RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-
based performance standards for ATC systems.
\6\ The Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee, a component of
RTCA, provides FAA with consensus-based, recommended investment
priorities that are expected to improve the safety, capacity, and
efficiency of the air transportation system.
\7\ The Performance-Based Operations Aviation Rule-making Committee
was established by FAA to provide a forum for the U.S. aviation
community to discuss, prioritize, and resolve issues; provide direction
for U.S. flight operations criteria; and produce U.S. consensus
positions for global harmonization.
\8\ The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee
advises the FAA Administrator on R&D issues and coordinates FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities with industry and
other government agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA and JPDO have established mechanisms for obtaining stakeholder
views. However, given the large number of NextGen stakeholders and the
evolution of opportunities for participation in NextGen, we believe
that stakeholders will continue to differ on how adequately their views
have been incorporated in NextGen planning.
Is the Current Version of IWP Sufficiently Detailed for Effective Use
in Overseeing and Managing NextGen?
Our work indicates that the current version of the IWP lacks
critical information and is not sufficiently ``user friendly'' to be
effectively used to oversee and manage NextGen activities. For
instance, 19 of the 21 stakeholders who discussed the issue said that
the planning documents did not provide specific details such as a
catalog of critical needs, clearly defined and prioritized intermediate
objectives, and a structured plan for achieving tangible results.
However, the next version of the plan, to be released at the end of
September, is to have further details and research priorities that
should be useful for NextGen oversight. According to senior JPDO
officials, this next version will identify the specific operational
improvements and capabilities that NextGen will incorporate and will
show what policies, research, and other activities are needed to enable
those improvements and capabilities, when they are needed, and what
entities are responsible for them. Moreover, this version includes
schedule information that has been updated to reflect newly available
information, coordination with FAA schedules and plans, and public
comments received on the previous version, according to JPDO and FAA
officials. Our review of the upcoming version--which is an automated,
searchable, user-friendly database--verified that it will have the
capability to track dates and identify programs that are behind
schedule, making it useful, but not sufficient, for oversight.
Senior JPDO officials expect subsequent versions of IWP to include
cost information and more detail on which programs are responsible for
completing particular actions. We believe that JPDO's upcoming version
of the work plan shows progress in providing needed details and making
the document more useful than earlier versions. With cost information,
subsequent versions of the plan should be even more useful for NextGen
oversight.
How Confident Should Congress Be that IWP Will Provide a Sufficient
Basis for Achieving NextGen's Goals?
The research, development, and testing activities set out in the
current IWP do not provide a sufficient basis for Congress to be
confident that the goals of NextGen will be achieved. However, the
enhanced information that is planned for inclusion in the upcoming
version will provide a firmer basis for congressional confidence. The
current plan can best be viewed as a necessary but not a sufficient
step in the planning and early implementation of NextGen. However,
additional issues that are not part of the current plan will have to be
addressed to achieve NextGen goals, such as obtaining the necessary
funding, establishing the infrastructure to support the scope of needed
R&D, and filling the gap that may exist between basic research and the
research needed to bring technologies far enough along for transfer to
industry for further development.
JPDO and FAA have determined that research gaps now exist because
of cuts in NASA's aeronautical research funding and NextGen's expanded
research requirements. In the past, NASA performed a significant
portion of aeronautics R&D. However, NASA's aeronautic research budget
declined from about $959 million in fiscal year 2004 to $511 million in
fiscal year 2008. While NASA still plans to focus some of its research
on NextGen needs, the agency has moved toward a focus on fundamental
research and away from developmental work and demonstration projects.
As a result, in some cases, NASA's research focuses on developing
technologies to a lower--and therefore less readily adopted--maturity
level than in the past.
Budget requests for FAA have increased to help provide the needed
R&D funding for NextGen. According to FAA, the agency will spend an
estimated $740 million on NextGen-related R&D during fiscal years 2009
through 2013. The administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009
requests $56.5 million for FAA R&D to support the integration and
implementation of NextGen programs, a substantial increase over the
$24.3 million authorized for fiscal year 2008. The actual and projected
increase in FAA's overall R&D funding reflects the expected increases
in NextGen research funding. (See Fig. 1.) In addition, increased
funding for NextGen R&D is contained in proposed legislation to
reauthorize FAA, although that legislation has not been enacted.
If FAA is authorized to receive increased R&D funding for NextGen,
some observers believe that the agency lacks the R&D infrastructure to
adequately address the developmental research needed for NextGen.
According to a draft report by the Research, Engineering and
Development Advisory Committee, establishing the infrastructure within
FAA to conduct the necessary R&D could delay the implementation of
NextGen by five years. Unless an adequate R&D infrastructure is in
place as funds become available, the implementation of NextGen could be
delayed.
One critical area in which an R&D gap has been identified is the
environmental impact of aviation. According to a JPDO analysis,
environmental impacts will be the primary constraint on the capacity
and flexibility of the national airspace system unless these impacts
are managed and mitigated. FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions,
and Noise (CLEEN) initiative, in which NASA would participate as an
adviser, is intended to address the gap between NASA's fundamental
research in noise reduction and the need for near-term demonstrations
of technology. This program would establish a research consortium of
government, industry, and academic participants that would allow for
the maturation of these technologies via demonstration projects.\9\ In
proposed legislation reauthorizing FAA, $111 million for fiscal years
2008 through 2011 may be used for a new FAA program to reduce aviation
noise and emissions.\10\ This program would, over the next 10 years,
facilitate the development, maturation, and certification of improved
airframe technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-08-384.
\10\ H.R. 2881, 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CLEEN program would be a step toward further maturing emissions
and noise reduction technologies, but experts agree that the proposed
funding is insufficient to achieve needed emissions reductions. While
acknowledging that CLEEN would help bridge the gap between NASA's R&D
and manufacturers' eventual incorporation of technologies into aircraft
designs, aeronautics industry representatives and experts we consulted
said that the program's funding levels may not be sufficient to attain
the goals specified in the proposal. According to these experts, the
proposed funding levels would allow for the further development of one
or possibly two projects. Moreover, in one expert's view, the funding
for these projects may be sufficient to develop the technology only to
the level that achieves an emissions-reduction goal in testing, not to
the level required for the technology to be incorporated into a new
engine design. Although we believe that this level of funding is a step
in the right direction, additional funds would permit the agency to
``buy down'' R&D risks--that is, the more projects that can be funded,
the greater the chance that at least one of the projects will yield a
product for the next stage of development. FAA recognizes the
implications of the proposed funding structure for CLEEN and
characterizes the program as a ``pilot.''
We are guardedly optimistic that the NextGen goals and timetable
for quieter, cleaner, and more efficient air traffic operations can be
achieved.
The administration has requested increased funding for NextGen R&D
and FAA and JPDO recognize the need to establish an R&D infrastructure
and fill any gaps that may exist between basic research and the
transfer to industry for further development.
Can JPDO Continue to Be Viewed as an ``Honest Broker'' in Light of
FAA's Recent Restructuring?
Prior to May 2008, when FAA restructured ATO, JPDO reported
directly to both the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of ATO and the FAA
Administrator. Figure 2 shows FAA's management structure as of November
2007, with the shaded boxes showing offices with responsibilities for
NextGen activities. We expressed concerns about this dual reporting
status, suggesting that it might keep JPDO from interacting on an equal
footing with ATO and the other partner federal agencies.\11\ We
recognized that JPDO needed to counter the perception that it was a
proxy for ATO and, as such, was not able to act as an ``honest broker''
between ATO and the partner federal agencies, but we also understood
that JPDO must continue to work with ATO and its partner agencies in a
partnership in which ATO is the lead implementer of NextGen. Therefore,
we reported that it was important for JPDO to have some independence
from ATO and pointed out that, to address this issue, the JPDO Director
could report directly to the FAA Administrator. We observed that such a
change could also lessen what some stakeholders perceived as
unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape associated with decision-making
and other JPDO and NextGen processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO, Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on the
Future of Air Traffic Control Modernization, GAO-07-928R (Washington,
D.C.: May 30, 2007).
Since ATO was reorganized in May 2008, JPDO has been housed within
the new NextGen and Operations Planning Office and reports through the
Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning only to ATO's
COO. (See Fig. 3.) Now that JPDO is no longer a separate, independent
office within FAA and no longer reports directly to the FAA
Administrator, its organizational position within FAA has declined.
Nonetheless, we believe that it is too early to tell whether JPDO will
be able to act as an ``honest broker'' between FAA and the other
federal partner agencies. Currently, according to a senior JPDO
official, JPDO's partner agencies are cooperating with JPDO, indicating
that the office is apparently maintaining its status as an honest
broker.
However, it is also too early to tell if ATO's reorganization
sufficiently addresses concerns that many industry stakeholders
expressed about the adequacy of the previous organizational
relationship between FAA and JPDO--when JPDO reported directly to both
the COO and the Administrator--for the transition to NextGen. Proposed
legislation reauthorizing FAA would address the earlier concern of
stakeholders by designating the Director of JPDO as the Associate
Administrator for the Next Generation Air Transportation System,
appointed by and reporting directly to the Administrator.\12\ The
proposed legislation would also address observations we have made about
JPDO's organizational placement within FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ H.R. 2881, 202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is too early to tell if the reorganization of FAA's
management structure addresses concerns that stakeholders have
expressed about the fragmentation of management responsibility for
NextGen activities. Specifically, some industry stakeholders expressed
frustration that a program as large and important as NextGen does not
follow the industry practice of having one person authorized to make
key decisions. They pointed out that although FAA's COO is nominally in
charge of FAA's NextGen efforts, the COO must also manage the agency's
day-to-day air traffic operations and may therefore be unable to devote
enough time and attention to managing NextGen. In addition, these
stakeholders noted that many of NextGen's capabilities span FAA
operational units both within and outside ATO. The reorganization does
not address concerns about this fragmentation, since other offices in
ATO and FAA continue to have responsibility for parts of NextGen and
the division of responsibility for NextGen efforts among them is not
clear. A senior FAA official noted that ATO executives are
knowledgeable and supportive of the reorganization, but that the agency
could better communicate the changes to stakeholders outside of FAA. A
focused outreach to industry stakeholders would help to get their buy-
in and support of FAA's efforts.
What Needs to Be Done to Move JPDO from Proposing R&D to Articulating a
Clear R&D Program with Defined and Prioritized
Tasks?
To articulate a clear R&D program with defined and prioritized
tasks, JPDO must continue to collaborate with its partner agencies--
FAA, NASA, DOD, DHS, and Commerce--to identify and prioritize the R&D
needed for NextGen. As it issues new versions of IWP, JPDO continues to
update the R&D plans of the partner agencies. However, JPDO has not yet
determined what NextGen R&D needs to be done first and at what cost to
demonstrate and integrate NextGen technologies into the national
airspace system. The next version of IWP, scheduled to be released
later this month, is to identify the sequence of research activities
that the partner agencies must complete before specific NextGen
capabilities can be implemented. The plan should serve as a useful tool
in prioritizing and tracking NextGen research. In addition, JPDO has
worked with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a
process that allows OMB to identify NextGen-related research and
acquisition projects across the partner agencies and consider NextGen
as a unified, cross-agency program. Under this process, JPDO and its
partner agencies can jointly present OMB with business cases for the
partner agencies' NextGen-related efforts, and these business cases can
be used as inputs to funding decisions for NextGen research and
acquisitions across the agencies.
In addition, JPDO needs to continue to leverage the R&D programs of
the partner agencies, which will conduct and define the research. For
example, JPDO monitors NASA's and FAA's efforts to coordinate their
research. NASA and FAA have developed a strategy to identify, conduct,
and transfer to FAA the R&D needed for NextGen. The strategy
establishes four ``research transition teams'' \13\ that align with
JPDO's planning framework and outlines how the two agencies will
jointly develop research requirements--FAA will provide user
requirements and NASA will conduct the research and provide an
understanding of the engineering rationale for design decisions. In
addition, the strategy calls for clearly defining metrics for
evaluating the research. According to JPDO, as of August 2008, four
teams had been established and have conducted initial meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The four teams are organized along the framework for near-,
mid-, and long-term research goals established in JPDO's IWP. The teams
are Separation Management, Trajectory Management, Flow Contingency
Management, and Capacity Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPDO has begun to move from proposing research to articulating a
defined and prioritized R&D program. In addition, JPDO, FAA, and NASA
have established mechanisms, such as research transition teams, to
define and prioritize R&D. We believe, however, that it is still too
early to assess the adequacy of these efforts.
What Metrics Should Congress Use to Evaluate the Progress of NextGen?
Version 1.0 of IWP, scheduled to be released later this month, will
provide a baseline for measuring NextGen progress. Congress can use the
information contained in the plan to help evaluate whether the actions
needed to achieve NextGen are on schedule and whether the specific
operational improvements and capabilities that will make up NextGen are
being accomplished. Specifically, subsequent versions of the plan will
allow the development of metrics to show progress, by agency, in (1)
achieving key activities and deploying technology, (2) issuing policies
and guidance, and (3) prioritizing resources.
Furthermore, subsequent versions of IWP are expected to include
cost information that decision-makers can use to help understand the
rationale for budget requests, monitor costs, and improve future cost
estimates for acquisitions. This information will be helpful to
decision-makers when budget constraints do not allow all system
acquisitions to be fully funded at planned and approved levels and they
must decide which programs to fund and which to cut or delay according
to their priorities.
Two Related Challenges
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly discuss two
additional issues that present challenges to realizing the full
potential of NextGen. The first, an infrastructure challenge, is to
implement NextGen plans for a new configuration of ATC facilities and
enhanced runway capacity. The second, a human capital challenge, is to
ensure that FAA staff have the knowledge and skills needed to implement
NextGen.
To fully realize NextGen's capabilities, a new configuration of ATC
facilities and enhanced runway capacity will be required to go along
with new technologies and procedures. According to a senior ATO
official, the agency plans to report on the cost implications of
reconfiguring its facilities in 2009. However, FAA has no comprehensive
plan for reconfiguring its facilities. Until the cost analysis is
completed and a plan for facilities reconfiguration has been developed,
the configurations needed for NextGen cannot be implemented and
potential savings that could help offset the cost of NextGen will not
be realized. Some FAA officials have said that planned facility
maintenance and construction based on the current ATC system are
significant cost drivers that could, without reconfiguration,
significantly increase the cost of NextGen. Additionally, some of the
capacity and efficiency enhancements expected from the implementation
of NextGen maybe curtailed if the system's infrastructure needs are not
fully addressed.
In the meantime, FAA faces an immediate task to maintain and repair
existing facilities so that the current ATC system continues to operate
safely and reliably. The agency is currently responsible for
maintaining over 400 terminal facilities. While FAA has not assessed
the physical condition of all of these facilities, the agency rated the
average condition of 89 of them as ``fair.'' Based on its assessment of
these 89 facilities, FAA estimated that a one-time cost to repair all
400 terminal facilities would range from $250 million to $350 million.
Two FAA employee unions (NATCA and PASS) contend that many of the 400
facilities are deteriorating for lack of maintenance and that working
conditions are unsafe because of leaking roofs, deteriorating walls and
ceilings, and obsolete air-conditioning systems. According to FAA
officials, while some of these facilities can accommodate NextGen's new
technologies and systems, many of them are not consistent with the
configurations that will be needed under NextGen. Once FAA develops and
implements a facility consolidation plan, the costs of facility repairs
and maintenance may be reduced. In the meantime, FAA will have to
manage its budgetary resources so that it can maintain legacy systems
and legacy infrastructure while configuring the national airspace
system to accommodate NextGen technologies and operations.
The transformation to NextGen will also depend on the ability of
airports to handle greater capacity. While NextGen technologies and
procedures will enhance this ability, new or expanded runways will
likely be needed also to handle the expected increases in traffic. FAA
has developed a rolling 10-year plan for capacity improvements at the
Nation's 35 busiest airports, and some airports are building new
runways. However, even with these planned runway improvements, FAA
analyses indicate that 14 more airports will still need additional
capacity. Moreover, without significant reductions in emissions and
noise around some of the Nation's airports, efforts to expand their
capacity could be stalled or the implementation of NextGen delayed. We
believe that this is a significant issue that FAA and JPDO will have to
address.
To manage the implementation of NextGen, FAA will need staff with
technical skills, such as systems engineering and contract management
expertise. Because of the scope and complexity of the NextGen effort,
the agency may not currently have the in-house expertise to manage the
transition to NextGen without assistance. In November 2006, we
recommended that FAA assess the technical and contract management
skills FAA staff will need to define, implement, and integrate the
numerous complex programs that will be involved in the transition to
NextGen.\14\ In response to our recommendation, FAA contracted with the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to determine the mix
of skills and number of skilled persons, such as technical personnel
and program managers, needed to implement NextGen and to compare those
requirements with FAA's current staff resources. NAPA expects to
complete its assessment in September 2008. We believe this is a
reasonable approach that should help FAA begin to address this issue,
recognizing that once the right skills have been identified, it may
take considerable time to select, hire, and integrate what FAA
estimates could be 150 to 200 more staff. This situation could
contribute to delaying the integration of new technologies and the
transformation of the national airspace system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and
Challenges Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace
System, GAO-07-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2006.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Committee may have.
Biography for Gerald L. Dillingham
Dr. Dillingham is currently serving as the Director of Civil
Aviation Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in
Washington, D.C. GAO is the investigative and research arm of the U.S.
Congress. He is responsible for directing program evaluations and
policy analyses related to all aspects of civilian aviation, including
safety, finance, environment, air traffic control, airport development,
and international aviation issues.
Dr. Dillingham received his Master's and doctorate from the
University of Chicago and was a postdoctoral scholar in program
evaluation at the University of California-Los Angeles. He is a
recognized expert in program evaluation, policy analyses, and aviation
issues. He has managed research teams, conducted national and
international evaluation studies, and published studies in a wide
variety of subject areas. He served on the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission)--Aviation
and Transportation Security Team. He has testified as an expert witness
before numerous committees of the U.S. Congress.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you for that view. Mr. Scovel.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Members
of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
status of FAA's efforts to develop NextGen. This is a high-risk
effort involving billion dollar investments from the government
and air space users who will be expected to equip with new
avionics. Today we will address four points.
First, FAA is at a crossroads with modernizing the National
Airspace System. The agency faces challenges to keep existing
systems on track, maintain aging facilities, and develop and
implement NextGen initiatives. As we reported in April, 30
existing projects form platforms for NextGen, and over 20
critical decisions need to be made over the next two years that
have enormous budgetary implications.
To help bridge the transition from today's system to a
vastly different NextGen, we recommended that FAA conduct a gap
analysis of the current NextGen Systems and develop an interim
architecture for the 2015 timeframe. FAA is taking steps to
address our recommendations.
Second, significant issues related to resource alignment,
research priority, and policy questions that will materially
affect the cost and schedule for NextGen need to be addressed.
A key issue focuses on NASA's work to develop advanced NextGen
software for boosting controller productivity.
NASA R&D is fairly well aligned with JPDO plans but falls
short with respect to validating new software and linking
airport arrival and departures. We found that FAA, DOD, and DHS
need to reach an agreement on NextGen security and surveillance
issues. Work is also needed to reconcile differences on new
weather systems including the new 4-D Weather Cube, a simple
database for weather observations.
In addition, attention is needed to make sure human factors
research for controllers and pilots is effectively linked to
ensure that NextGen capabilities can be safely implemented.
Third, how FAA is organized to manage and execute NextGen
is an important matter. FAA's decision to place the JPDO within
the ATO could help in implementing NextGen. It has the benefit
of placing developmental efforts much closer to the people who
will use new systems.
However, it gives the appearance that JPDO has been reduced
in status and importance. We think it's premature to judge the
change, but we found that FAA needs to clarify roles and
responsibilities among offices, the JPDO and the new ATO
NextGen Office for implementation and integration.
Further, budget authority for NextGen efforts remains
fragmented among FAA lines of business. How to best organize
FAA is a policy call for Congress. We think FAA will have to
revisit the governance of NextGen once it has a clearer picture
of what it will take to deliver NextGen.
Finally, a number of actions are needed from FAA going
forward to help NextGen efforts from research to
implementation. NextGen will be a front and center issue for
the next Congress and a top management challenge for the new
Administration. We have made numerous recommendations to FAA
aimed at reducing risks with NextGen. They focused on funding
targeted human factors research and acquiring the skill sets
needed to execute NextGen.
At this juncture a number of additional actions are needed,
and I will highlight five. Action item number one. Establish
priorities and reflect them in budgets and plans. Decision-
makers do not have a clear understanding of what to invest in
first. FAA should provide this committee with its priorities
for NextGen R&D, how research gaps will be addressed, and how
priorities will be updated as they evolve.
Action item two. Develop a strategy for technology
transfer. This is critical to the JPDO's mission. FAA has
established research transition teams for NASA work but not for
other areas. Our work shows that this needs more attention.
Clearly-defined exit criteria and hand-off points would help
transition new technologies into day-to-day use.
Action item three. Focus attention on airport issues and
how NextGen technologies can unlock already congested airports.
This should be a top priority, and an important metric for
NextGen must be the extent to which FAA can improve airport
arrival rates under all weather conditions. FAA recognizes the
importance and is shifting resources to this issue, however,
much work remains, and stakeholders need to know how NextGen
elements, new satellite-based systems, new automation, data
link communications can boost airport capacity.
Action item four. Develop a realistic plan for ADS-B, a
centerpiece of NextGen. FAA has a $1.8 billion contract in
place for this ground system and has published a proposed rule
for the new satellite-based surveillance system. FAA plans call
for users to equip with ADS-B OUT in the 2020 timeframe, but it
is unclear when ADS-B IN and the related capacity related
benefits can be realized. Concerns have been raised about
requirements, the cost to equip, and the lack of clear
benefits, all legitimate issues that need to be addressed.
Action item five. Assess implementation band width and
develop transition benchmarks. FAA's ability to implement
multiple capabilities in a given time period needs to be
assessed. FAA and industry need realistic transition benchmarks
that point to when new training for controllers and pilots,
equipment, and procedures need to be in place at specific
locations.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer your questions, you or other Members of the Committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Calvin L. Scovel III
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status of the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) efforts to develop the Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen), which is targeted for the 2025
timeframe. In response to congressional direction, FAA created the
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to develop a vision for
NextGen and leverage research at other federal agencies.
As the Committee is aware, there are a number of compelling reasons
for moving forward with NextGen. The current air transportation system
has served the Nation well over the years, but ``business as usual''
will not be sufficient to meet the anticipated demand for air travel or
significantly reduce delays at already congested airports.
Currently, the U.S. airline industry is facing considerable
financial uncertainty due to a softening economy and skyrocketing fuel
prices. In response, airlines are reducing schedules and taking
aircraft out of service. Notwithstanding the state of the industry, it
is important to move forward with NextGen. FAA is revising its forecast
but still projects that the demand for air travel will grow to more
than one billion passengers by 2016.
NextGen goals are ambitious but important to the health of the U.S.
air transportation system and the Nation's economy. NextGen is expected
to triple capacity, boost controller productivity, reduce FAA operating
costs, lessen impact of high energy costs, and reduce the environmental
impact of aviation.
Developing NextGen is one the biggest challenges facing FAA. It is
a high-risk effort involving billion-dollar investments from both the
Government (for new ground systems) and airspace users (for new
avionics). FAA plans to spend $18 billion for its capital programs
between fiscal years (FY) 2008 and 2013, including $5.6 billion
specifically for NextGen. The challenges are multi-dimensional and
involve complex software development and integration, adjustments to
existing air traffic systems, technology transfer, workforce changes,
and policy questions about aircraft equipage.
This past year, some stakeholders expressed concern that NextGen
efforts lacked a sense of urgency and a clear plan for what could be
done in the near-, mid-, and long-term. The Secretary of Transportation
is working to clarify NextGen benefits, accelerate efforts, and focus
resources.
To its credit, FAA is working on what can be done in the near-term.
As part of these efforts, FAA is planning to use new routes that rely
on existing avionics on-board aircraft and various demonstration
projects. FAA has also made some organizational changes, which included
establishing a new Senior Vice President for NextGen Implementation and
Operations Planning.
Costs for NextGen remain uncertain, however, and much work remains
to set research agendas and priorities for a multi-agency approach,
establish requirements for software-intensive acquisitions, determine
steps to deliver NextGen capabilities, and develop realistic transition
plans. The development and execution of NextGen will require sustained
oversight and will therefore be a key issue for the next Congress and a
top management challenge for the next administration.
My remarks today will focus on four points:
First, FAA is at a crossroads with modernizing the
National Airspace System (NAS) and faces considerable
challenges in keeping existing systems on track, maintaining
aging facilities, and developing and implementing NextGen
initiatives. As we reported in April,\1\ approximately 30
existing projects form ``platforms'' for NextGen, and FAA must
make more than 20 critical decisions over the next two years
that will have significant budgetary implications. For example,
FAA will have to address what changes are needed to modernize
its terminal facilities and whether it will pursue a ``common
automation platform'' for terminal and en route environments in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OIG Report Number AV-2008-049, ``Air Traffic Control
Modernization: FAA Faces Challenges in Managing Ongoing Projects,
Sustaining Existing Facilities, and Introducing New Capabilities,''
April 14, 2008. OIG reports and testimonies are available on our
website: www.oig.dot.gov
FAA faces complex integration issues (e.g., linking legacy
and new systems) as it must manage interdependencies among
diverse programs. To reduce risk and help bridge the transition
from today's system to a vastly different NextGen environment,
we recommended that FAA conduct a ``gap analysis'' of the
current and NextGen systems and develop an interim architecture
(i.e., technical blueprint) for the 2015 timeframe. FAA is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
taking steps to address our recommendations.
Second, progress has been made in coordinating
budgets and plans among JPDO partner agencies. However, FAA and
its partner agencies need to address significant issues related
to resource alignment, research priorities, and policy
questions that will materially affect the cost and schedule for
NextGen. These issues focus on developing advanced NextGen
software for boosting controller productivity; reaching
agreement between FAA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on NextGen security and
surveillance issues; reconciling differences on new weather
systems; and effectively linking human factors research for
controllers and pilots to ensure that NextGen capabilities can
be safely implemented.
Third, how FAA is organized to manage and execute
NextGen is an important matter given the high-risk nature of
the effort and FAA's past problems with developing new
technologies. While FAA's decision to place the JPDO within the
Air Traffic Organization (ATO) could help in implementing
NextGen capabilities, it also appears to reduce the JPDO in
stature and importance. It is premature to judge the
effectiveness of this change, but we found that FAA needs to
clarify roles and responsibilities among offices (the JPDO and
the new NextGen Office for Implementation and Integration). We
also note that budget authority for NextGen efforts remains
fragmented among FAA lines of business.
How best to organize FAA is a policy call, but we believe
that clear lines of accountability and authority will be
critical for managing NextGen. FAA will have to revisit the
overall governance of NextGen once it has a better picture of
what it will ultimately take to deliver NextGen capabilities.
Finally, a number of actions are needed from FAA
going forward to help shift NextGen efforts from research to
implementation. To focus budgetary resources and set
expectations for NextGen, FAA must (1) establish priorities and
include them in budget and planning documents, (2) focus much
needed attention on technology transfer issues, (3) clearly
define the roles of the ATO and JPDO and effectively use in-
house resources, (4) place a high priority on relieving already
congested airports, and (5) examine what can reasonably be
implemented in given time increments.
I would now like to discuss these four areas in further detail.
CHALLENGES FACING FAA IN MODERNIZING THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
FAA is at a crossroads with its efforts to modernize the National
Airspace System. The Agency will be challenged to keep ongoing projects
on track, maintain aging facilities, and develop and implement NextGen
initiatives. For FY 2009, FAA is requesting $2.7 billion for capital
funding--an increase of eight percent over last year's enacted level.
FAA is starting a new chapter in modernization with NextGen, and
the Agency's capital account is now being shaped by these initiatives.
Between FY 2008 and FY 2013, FAA plans to spend $18 billion for capital
efforts, including $5.6 billion specifically for NextGen. We note that
much of the projected funding for NextGen will focus on developmental
efforts, which are funded through the Engineering, Development, Test,
and Evaluation portion of the capital account. These efforts are
projected to amount to $3.4 billion through FY 2013--a significant
portion of the amount dedicated to NextGen spending.
In FY 2009, more than $630 million will be dedicated to NextGen-
related programs, which include Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS-B) and System-Wide Information Management (SWIM). Of
this amount, $203 million is dedicated to eight new developmental
initiatives, including NextGen system development, trajectory-based
operations, and flexible terminals and airports. The figure below
illustrates FAA's planned investments in ongoing projects and NextGen
initiatives from FY 2008 to FY 2013.
In addition to capital spending, FAA also plans to spend $374
million in research, engineering, and development funds through FY 2013
for NextGen. These include air-ground integration, wake turbulence, and
environmental research.
Progress and Problems With FAA Acquisitions
In our April 2008 report, we examined progress and problems with 18
major acquisitions valued at $17.5 billion. Overall, we are not seeing
the significant cost growth and schedule slips with FAA major
acquisitions that occurred in the past. This is because FAA has taken a
more incremental approach to managing major acquisitions. When
comparing revised baselines, only two of the eighteen projects we
reviewed have experienced additional cost growth ($53 million) and
delays (five years) since our last report in 2005.\2\ However, from
program inception, six programs have experienced cost growth of nearly
$4.7 billion and schedule delays of one to twelve years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OIG Report Number AV-2005-061, ``Status of FAA's Major
Acquisitions: Cost Growth and Schedule Delays Continue To Stall Air
Traffic Modernization,'' May 26, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FAA's incremental approach may reduce risk in the near-term,
it has left several programs with no clear end-state and less
visibility into how much they will ultimately cost. A case in point
involves modernizing facilities that manage traffic in the vicinity of
airports, which is commonly referred to as ``terminal modernization.''
In 2004, faced with cost growth of over $2 billion for the Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement (STARS) program, FAA rethought its
terminal modernization approach and shifted to a phased process,
committing STARS to just 50 sites at an estimated cost of $1.46
billion. FAA's original plan was to deploy the system to 172 sites for
$940 million. FAA renamed this modernization effort the Terminal
Automation Modernization-Replacement (TAMR) initiative.
In 2005, FAA approved modernizing displays through the TAMR program
(referred to as TAMR Phase 2) by replacing legacy equipment at five
additional small sites and replacing the aging displays at four large,
complex facilities. However, this leaves over 100 sites still in need
of modernization. FAA has not decided how it will modernize these
sites, and costs remain uncertain. For FY 2009, FAA is requesting $31.2
million for terminal modernization efforts.
There is no defined end-state for terminal modernization, and past
problems with developing and deploying STARS leave FAA in a difficult
position to begin introducing NextGen capabilities. Future terminal
modernization costs will be shaped by (1) NextGen requirements, (2) the
extent of FAA's terminal facilities consolidation, and (3) the need to
replace or sustain existing (legacy) systems that have not been
modernized.
Challenges With Key NextGen Programs
FAA has established initial cost and schedule baselines for the
first segments of two key NextGen initiatives: ADS-B and SWIM. Both
programs face considerable risks and require significant oversight as
FAA begins integrating them with existing systems.
ADS-B: This program provides satellite-based technology that allows
aircraft to broadcast their position to other aircraft and ground
systems. For FY 2009, FAA is requesting $300 million for ADS-B. In
August 2007, FAA awarded a service-based contract for the ADS-B ground
infrastructure worth $1.8 billion (if all options are exercised). FAA
estimates that ADS-B will cost about $1.6 billion in capital costs for
initial implementation segments through 2014. These include completing
a nationwide ground system for receiving and broadcasting ADS-B
signals.
A key challenge facing FAA--and NextGen implementation--is
realizing the full benefits of ADS-B. FAA plans to implement ``ADS-B--
Out'' in the 2020 timeframe, which will require aircraft to broadcast
their position to ground systems. However, most capacity and safety
benefits from the new system will come from ``ADS-B--In,'' which will
display information in the cockpit for pilots. The requirements for
ADS-B--In are still evolving and have not been finalized.
FAA must address several risks to realize the benefits of ADS-B.
These include: (1) gaining stakeholder acceptance and aircraft
equipage, (2) addressing broadcast frequency congestion concerns, (3)
integrating with existing systems, (4) implementing procedures for
separating aircraft, and (5) assessing potential security
vulnerabilities in managing air traffic.
ADS-B implementation is a long-term effort that will require
significant investment from the government and industry. Given FAA's
history with developing new technologies and its approach to ADS-B, in
which the government will not own the ground infrastructure, we believe
this program will require a significant level of oversight. We will
report on ADS-B later this year.
SWIM: This program provides FAA with a web-based architecture that
allows information sharing among airspace users. For FY 2009, FAA is
requesting $41 million for SWIM. In June 2007, FAA baselined the first
two years of segment 1 (planned to occur between FY 2009 and 2010) for
$104 million. FAA's latest Capital Investment Plan cost estimate for
SWIM is $285 million.
Current challenges include the work to determine requirements and
interfaces with other FAA systems, including the En Route Automation
Modernization (ERAM) and Air Traffic Management programs. Moreover, FAA
must integrate SWIM with other federal agencies' operations to realize
NextGen benefits and develop a robust cyber security strategy and
design. While FAA has begun initial efforts, it still needs to
establish the architecture, strategy, and design. Additional SWIM
segments have yet to be determined, and the cost to fully implement
SWIM is unknown. Last month, we began a review of SWIM, which will
focus on the strengths and weaknesses of FAA's approach for developing
the new system and assess risks that could affect nationwide
deployment.
Much Work Remains To Determine How To Transition Existing Projects to
NextGen
In February 2007, we recommended that FAA examine existing projects
to determine if they were still needed and, if so, what adjustments
would be required. FAA concurred with our recommendation and stated
that it has begun this assessment. To date, however, FAA has not made
major adjustments to modernization projects to accelerate NextGen.
According to FAA, approximately 30 existing capital programs will
serve as ``platforms'' for NextGen. For example, the $2.1 billion ERAM
program, which provides new hardware and software for facilities that
manage high-altitude traffic, is a lynchpin for the NextGen system.
Because ERAM is expected to serve as a foundation for NextGen, any
program cost increases or schedule delays will affect the pace of
introducing new capabilities. Currently, ERAM software requirements
related to NextGen are still uncertain, but costs are expected to be in
the billions of dollars.
Over the next two years, FAA must make more than 25 critical
decisions about ongoing programs. These decisions have significant
budget implications and will affect all major lines of the
modernization effort with respect to automation, communications,
navigation, and surveillance. For example, FAA will have to address
what changes are needed to modernize its terminal facilities and
whether it will pursue a ``common automation platform'' for terminal
and en route environments in the future.
Sound investment decisions for NextGen can only be accomplished
through a comprehensive enterprise architecture (i.e., technical
blueprint) that outlines how the system will work and what changes to
existing programs will be required. The enterprise architecture must
establish a transition plan for existing NAS systems that identifies
how each system currently functions and it will transition to NextGen.
A central element will be outlining a path to develop both existing and
proposed automation systems.
FAA has made progress in developing the NextGen Enterprise
Architecture, which is planned to be implemented by 2025.\3\ FAA has
also progressed towards technical roadmaps for the automation,
communications, navigation, and surveillance lines of effort. However,
planning documents we reviewed, including the NextGen Enterprise
Architecture, lack detail with respect to requirements, particularly
for automation, that could be used to develop reliable cost estimates
and schedule. As we noted in our April report, in most cases,
information in the NextGen Enterprise Architecture remained at too high
a level to be effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NextGen Enterprise Architecture is a blueprint that links
FAA's core programs and systems to the Agency's mission. This includes
the transition from the ``as-is'' to the ``to-be'' environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help bridge the transition from the current NAS to NextGen, we
recommended several actions to FAA in April, including the following:
Conduct a gap analysis of the current NAS and
NextGen. FAA's NextGen architecture does not yet fully detail
how FAA will transition from the present NAS and the future
NextGen architectures, which are considerably different.
Understanding this gap is important because one industry
analysis we have seen suggests that FAA could face a $50
billion software development effort with NextGen. Until FAA
completes a gap analysis, it will not be possible to determine
technical requirements that translate into reliable cost and
schedule estimates for major acquisitions. The ATO has begun an
analysis of existing modernization efforts and expects to
complete it by February 2009.
Develop an interim architecture for what can be
accomplished by 2015. Because of the significant differences
between the current system and the NextGen architecture and
concept of operations, FAA should develop an interim
architecture or ``way-point'' for the 2015 timeframe that is
consistent with current NextGen plans. This would help to
bridge the gap between current systems and plans for the
future. It would also help FAA to determine reasonable goals,
establish priorities, fully identify adjustments to existing
projects, refine requirements for new systems, and understand
complex transition issues. FAA has a mid-term requirements team
that is due to report on its activities next summer.
FAA Needs To Address Significant Issues in Coordinating and Aligning
JPDO Partner Agencies' Budgets and Plans
The JPDO was mandated by law to coordinate research among diverse
federal agencies to develop NextGen in the 2025 timeframe. This is an
important mission given that FAA conducts very little long-term air
traffic management research. Central to making the JPDO an effective
multi-agency vehicle is alignment of resources. This is a complex task,
and the JPDO has no authority to adjust or redirect the research
budgets of other federal agencies.
We have seen some progress with the various ``mechanisms of
alignment,'' including the NextGen Concept of Operations, the NextGen
Enterprise Architecture, and the Integrated Work Plan\4\ since our
February 2007 report.\5\ In addition, the JPDO now has a signed
Memorandum of Agreement with all partner agencies and has published a
NextGen research and development plan. An exhibit to our statement
details the various mechanisms of alignment we reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The JPDO's Integrated Work Plan is akin to a project plan and
is meant to describe the capabilities needed to transition to NextGen
from the current system and provide the research, policy, regulation,
and acquisition timelines necessary to achieve NextGen by 2025.
\5\ OIG Report Number AV-2007-031, ``Joint Planning and Development
Office: Actions Needed To Reduce Risks With the Next Generation Air
Transportation System,'' February 12, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the NextGen Enterprise Architecture and Integrated Work
Plan continue to evolve and remain at a very high level. These
documents are not yet mature enough to drive investment decisions or
generate requirements for major NextGen acquisitions, particularly for
new software-intensive systems. As noted by the National Research
Council,\6\ these efforts still reflect a lack of top-level system
engineering and clearly established priorities. JPDO officials told us
that it will take a year or more for the documents to be effective
tools for driving agency budgets, setting priorities, and managing
research efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Research Council of the National Academies,
``Assessing the Research and Development Plan for the Next Generation
Air Transportation System,'' July 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA and its partner agencies need to address several fundamental
issues related to policy questions and research priorities to ensure
that research and development efforts are aligned and successfully
transferred to the NAS. An internal JPDO assessment identified 27
single agency and cross-agency disconnects or gaps that will materially
affect the cost and timeframes for developing NextGen. These include
the following areas.
Development of Advanced Software and Flexible Airspace: The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is taking the lead role in
developing new software algorithms that will help boost controller
productivity and provide more flexible airspace; these are key elements
and cost drivers for NextGen. As we noted in our February 2007 report,
NASA is spending less on aeronautics research than in the past and is
concentrating on ``fundamental research'' instead of prototype
development. This is in sharp contrast to NASA's support of FAA's Free
Flight Phase 1 initiative, which introduced new automated controller
tools at select locations in the 1998 to 2002 timeframe. FAA's Research
Engineering Development Advisory Committee\7\ suggested that $100
million would be needed by FAA annually to accommodate changes in NASA
investments and address this gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee
was established in 1989 and advises the Administrator on research and
development issues and coordinates the FAA's research, engineering, and
development activities with industry and other Government agencies. The
committee considers aviation research needs in air traffic services,
airport technology, aircraft safety, aviation security, human factors,
and environment and energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this concern, we recommended that FAA assess the
maturity of NASA research and develop a contingency plan for how to
conduct, manage, and pay for this research and development. FAA
concurred and has established ``research transition teams'' to
determine how best to advance NASA research.
The JPDO's internal assessment showed that NASA research is fairly
well-aligned. However, NASA research efforts fall short with respect to
integrating weather information into new systems, validating new
software algorithms, linking airport arrivals and departures, and
creating flexible airspace in the vicinity of airports. Further,
fundamental questions about how requirements should be allocated to
ground automation systems and the cockpit remain unresolved.
NASA officials told us that they will consider advancing some
NextGen research to a higher technology level on a case-by-case basis.
Notwithstanding these efforts, the transition from NASA research to
prototype development and ultimately implementation remains a key watch
item and cost driver. We are assisting the NASA Office of Inspector
General in examining NASA's contribution to NextGen, including the
management of research projects and contracting vehicles. The NASA
Office of Inspector General expects to complete its report later this
year.
Surveillance and Airspace Security: FAA is developing new systems, such
as ADS-B, that will decrease reliance on ground-based radar and instead
rely on on-board systems to broadcast aircraft positions. While the new
systems will be useful to DOD and DHS, they will not meet all of their
needs with respect to identifying and monitoring unlawful flights. DOD
is funding research and development for future radar and surveillance
sensors. The JPDO assessment cautioned that surveillance and security
efforts are not as synchronized as they should be and stated that the
best methods for meeting the needs and requirements of various agencies
have yet to be determined. Without networking and integration among
different agencies, there is potential for duplicative efforts, gaps in
airspace coverage, and inefficiency that could impede the integrated
surveillance and security capabilities envisioned for NextGen.
Net-Centric Operations and Sharing Information: A key element of
NextGen is sharing a wide range of information (weather information,
flight data, and aircraft position) securely and seamlessly. The JPDO
is seeking to leverage DOD's extensive experience in this area, and
demonstrations have shown the potential for linking various agency
systems--both old and new--for sharing data. However, several factors
are impeding progress. As the JPDO's internal assessment points out,
plans, standards, and execution paths for FAA, DOD, DHS, and the
Department of Commerce to connect various networks do not yet exist.
Further, no cross-agency plan exists for integrating agencies' net-
centric efforts to ensure seamless operations.
Development of New Weather Tools and Concepts: The Department of
Commerce has the lead role in developing the ``4-D Weather Cube,'' \8\
which is expected to provide a single authoritative source for weather
observations and analysis. This tool is also expected to provide a
common picture of weather for all airspace users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The 4-D Weather Cube is expected to be a distributed database
on weather observations for the continental United States. It is
expected to include observations with respect to latitude, longitude,
altitude, and time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The JPDO's assessment found that there is disagreement on
synchronizing weather observations, forecasts, and dissemination
efforts. This threatens current plans to implement the 4-D Weather Cube
in the 2013 timeframe. The assessment also noted that several policy
and funding issues need to be addressed; specifically, most of the
Department of Commerce efforts that JPDO expects to rely on are not
funded. In addition, there is disagreement on the legal
responsibilities for providing weather information and requirements for
new weather systems.
Human Factors for Controllers and Pilots: As we have noted in the past,
a focused human factors research effort for NextGen is needed to ensure
that new concepts and technologies can be safely implemented. This is
important because the NextGen concept of operations calls for
significant changes to the roles of controllers and pilots. We note
that insufficient attention to human factors with STARS resulted in
significant cost increases and schedule slips. Key issues for NextGen
human factors research focus on what can reasonably be expected from
new automation systems and cockpit displays.
This remains a major risk area for NextGen. The JPDO assessment
noted a lack of linkage between planned human factors research and key
issues that needs to be resolved. This includes the impact of highly
automated systems on controllers. We are concerned because there is no
cross-cutting, interagency plan for identifying and addressing NextGen
human factors issues that (1) establishes an agreed-upon set of initial
focus areas for research, (2) inventories existing facilities for
research, and (3) capitalizes on past and current research.
Observations on FAA's Recent Reorganization of NextGen Efforts
The question of whether or not FAA is properly organized to
implement NextGen is important because it will drive the success of the
effort. As we have previously noted, the development of NextGen cuts
across all lines of the ATO. It also involves FAA's airport and
certification offices. Further, NextGen efforts will need to be managed
as integrated ``portfolios'' to achieve expected benefits. We believe
that clear lines of accountability and budget authority will be
essential for managing NextGen.
The overall governance of the NextGen effort has been the subject
of debate, and stakeholders have raised concerns that FAA is not
properly organized to manage or execute a multi-billion-dollar effort.
Furthermore, there has been--and continues to be--friction between the
ATO and JPDO, which is due in part to vastly different planning
horizons. The ATO is an organization that operates constantly but has a
short planning horizon. The JPDO, on the other hand, is focused on
introducing cutting-edge technologies and transforming the NAS by the
2025 timeframe. It will be important to reconcile these differences to
successfully implement NextGen.
In May 2008, FAA announced a reorganization of its NextGen efforts,
which included establishing a Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning within the ATO; this individual reports to the FAA
Chief Operating Officer. FAA is also establishing an office for NextGen
Implementation and Integration to support the Senior Vice President.
Under this framework, the JPDO now reports to the Senior Vice
President for NextGen and Operations Planning. In the past, the JPDO
reported directly to the FAA Administrator and the Chief Operating
Officer. While FAA believes the change will help move NextGen concepts
closer to implementation, it could also give the appearance that the
JPDO has been reduced in stature and importance.
This recent reorganization is still undergoing changes, and it is
too early to determine its effectiveness; however, we do have the
following initial observations:
First, the roles and responsibilities of the JPDO and
the ATO office for NextGen Implementation and Integration are
not clearly defined. According to FAA, the JPDO will focus on
long-term planning and interagency cooperation while the ATO
will focus on more short-term efforts and other implementation
issues. However, it will be difficult to establish clear
demarcation lines because implementing NextGen capabilities
depends heavily on modifying existing modernization projects.
Both offices will have budget functions, considerable modeling
and simulation capabilities, and architecture staffs. Because
both offices will help to shape research and development plans,
it will be important to establish clearly defined roles and
responsibilities.
Second, while the ATO's Senior Vice President for
NextGen and Operations Planning will manage demonstration
projects, other ATO Vice Presidents will manage major
modernization projects considered to be essential platforms for
NextGen. For example, the Vice President for En Route Services
manages multi-billion-dollar efforts like ERAM and ADS-B. SWIM,
however, will be managed by the Vice President for Technical
Operations. Similarly, the Vice President for Terminal Services
manages efforts to modernize controller displays and computer
equipment located in the vicinity of airports. However,
airports--which play a key role in NextGen--are managed by a
different FAA office that is outside the ATO. Thus, budgetary
authority for FAA modernization efforts remains fragmented
across various offices.
The Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations
Planning stated that she will be responsible for the
integration and implementation of all NextGen elements even
though most elements will be managed and executed by other ATO
service units and lines of business. The NextGen and Operations
Planning Office will rely on coordination and a commitment
monitoring process across multiple areas. This approach,
however, has not been fully implemented or tested for linking
budgets and plans for diverse programs. Given the complex
nature of NextGen development, FAA's approach to determining
budget authority and managing interdependencies among legacy
and new programs will be important watch items for this
committee.
Third, the new structure will be challenged to deal
with complex, cross-cutting government issues. In our opinion,
it will be difficult for an office within the ATO to work out
agreements with DOD and DHS on major decisions affecting
surveillance and airspace security.
It remains to be seen how DOD, NASA, Commerce, and other JPDO
partner agencies will view the reorganization and how it will affect
participation in NextGen efforts. FAA must clearly demonstrate that
this change is neither a demotion for the JPDO nor a decrease in the
Agency's commitment to a multi-agency approach for developing NextGen.
FAA will likely have to revisit the question of NextGen governance
once it has a better picture of what will be required to develop and
implement NextGen. As we have noted in the past, FAA will have to
address other NextGen management issues, such as deciding whether a
``lead systems integrator'' will be needed to address the complex
system engineering challenges in linking legacy and new systems.
We note that the House Reauthorization proposal (H.R. 2881) would
establish an Associate Administrator for NextGen who would report
directly to the FAA Administrator. How to organize FAA is a policy call
for Congress, but we believe such an approach has merit as the cross-
cutting nature of the NextGen effort will require close coordination of
multi-billion-dollar investments from industry and other federal
agencies.
Several Actions Are Needed Going Forward To Help Focus NextGen Efforts
Moving forward with NextGen will be a central issue for the next
Congress and a top management challenge for the new administration. FAA
is at a critical juncture with its NextGen efforts and needs to set
expectations and budgetary priorities.
This chapter in air traffic modernization is different from
previous efforts because NextGen concepts rely heavily on airspace
users to invest billions of dollars in new avionics. The current state
of the airline industry requires FAA to determine where investments in
new technology can have the most benefit in reducing costs and
alleviating delays, the underlying causes of consumer dissatisfaction
with air travel.
We have made numerous recommendations to FAA and the JPDO to help
them move forward with NextGen. These include developing an interim
architecture, assessing the skill mix with respect to necessary systems
integration and contracting, and focusing human factors research to
ensure concepts can be safely implemented. FAA agreed with all of our
recommendations and has begun addressing our concerns. At this time, we
believe FAA needs to take the following actions.
Establish priorities and reflect them in budget
requests and plans. It remains difficult for decision-makers to
determine what to invest in first from the wide range of
operational improvements in NextGen planning documents. FAA has
taken some steps to begin shaping priorities, such as
integrating weather data into new systems. Nevertheless, more
work is required to set priorities and identify the proper
sequencing of efforts. FAA should provide this committee with a
clear understanding of how it will prioritize research and
development, how it is addressing various research gaps, and
how it will update priorities when research results become
available or when national priorities change.
Develop a strategy for transferring technology. As we
noted in our February 2007 report, the movement of technology
from one organization to another is critical given the JPDO's
mandate. However, the JPDO's internal assessment noted that
mechanisms and funding to transition research into the NAS may
be inadequate. To address technology transfer issues with NASA,
FAA has established ``research transition teams.'' FAA has not,
however, formed similar teams for other agencies, such as the
Departments of Commerce and Defense. JPDO officials pointed out
that ``entrance and exit'' criteria with clearly defined hand-
off points for research projects would aid in determining what
it will take to transition new concepts and technologies into
daily operations.
Clearly define the roles of the ATO and JPDO and
focus the considerable resources at the Agency's disposal.
Agency resources that are key to NextGen development include
the MITRE Corporation (FAA's federally funded Research and
Development Center), the NextGen Institute\9\ (a mechanism for
the private sector to cooperate with the JPDO on NextGen), and
RTCA (an industry/Government forum that functions as Federal
Advisory Committee for FAA). Because there is considerable
potential for duplicative efforts, FAA officials agree that it
is an appropriate time to re-examine work plans, assess
resources, and review roles of these various organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The NextGen Institute was established in March 2005 by joint
agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies (NCAT)
and the Federal Aviation Administration ``as the mechanism through
which the JPDO will access private sector expertise, tools, and
facilities for application to NextGen activities and tasks.''
All of these organizations can help validate NextGen
concepts and establish requirements. Understanding the impact
of many changes will require extensive analysis, modeling,
simulation, and work with airspace users to examine trade-offs
and assess benefits. Clearly defined roles for each of these
organizations would help better define investment decisions and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
foster consensus among stakeholders.
Focus attention on airport issues and the relief that
various NextGen technologies can provide to already congested
airports in major metropolitan areas, like New York and
Chicago. Reducing congestion at airports should be a top
priority for FAA. An important metric for NextGen is to what
extent FAA can improve airport arrival rates under various
weather conditions. FAA recognizes the importance of this and
is shifting resources to this issue. However, FAA's efforts to
examine ``high density operations'' are in the very early
stages, and planning documents and budget requests thus far do
not detail how individual NextGen systems can specifically
boost airport capacity and reduce delays. Decision-makers and
stakeholders need to know what elements--ADS-B, new routes, and
data link communications for controllers and pilots--are
essential for improving capacity at already congested airports.
Develop a realistic plan for implementing ADS-B and
realizing the air-to-air benefits of the new technology. This
is important because FAA has a contract in place and has
published a Notice of Proposed Rule-making (NPRM). The NPRM
calls for users to equip with ADS-B--Out in the 2020 timeframe.
FAA has received comments from 177 organizations or individuals
about the details of the NPRM. While most agree that ADS-B is
an important part of the future, some raised concerns about
requirements, the cost of equipage, and lack of clear
benefits--all legitimate issues that will need to be resolved.
FAA will likely have to make significant changes to its plans
for implementing ADS-B in the United States.
Assess ``implementation bandwidth'' and develop
transition benchmarks. FAA's ability to implement multiple
capabilities in a given time period needs to be assessed. There
are limits to what can be accomplished given the scope of
change envisioned and efforts currently underway. For example,
FAA has staggered key NextGen capabilities, such as data link
communications, to wait for the completion of ERAM in the 2012
timeframe. FAA must clearly identify how various efforts will
be sequenced. Further, FAA and industry need realistic
transition benchmarks that point to when new training (for
controllers and pilots), equipment (new avionics and ground
systems), and procedures need to be in place at specific
locations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee might
have.
Biography for Calvin L. Scovel III
Calvin L. Scovel III is the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
Mr. Scovel was nominated by President Bush on July 13, 2006,
confirmed by the Senate on September 29, 2006, and sworn in on October
27, 2006.
Scovel joined DOT after 29 years of active service in the U.S.
Marine Corps, from which he retired as a Brigadier General. His last
military assignment was as a senior judge on the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals. He previously served as Assistant Judge
Advocate General of the Navy for Military Justice, the principal
advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Judge Advocate General on
all criminal justice policy matters. Mr. Scovel also commanded a
military police battalion that provided all security and law
enforcement services for Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia.
Mr. Scovel served as senior legal advisor for the 4th Marine
Expeditionary Brigade, which included all Marine amphibious forces in
Operation Desert Storm, and later in a NATO exercise in Norway. He had
previously served as legal advisor for a Marine amphibious unit
deployed to the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, where it conducted
exercises in Japan, the Philippines, Kenya, and Australia.
He was prosecutor or defense counsel in 250 courts-martial that
included charges of murder, rape, child sexual assault, and drug
trafficking.
As an adjunct faculty member for the Defense Institute of
International Legal Studies, Mr. Scovel led instruction teams in the
rule of law and civilian control of the military for senior civilian
and military officials in Honduras, Mauritius, Albania, and Serbia. Mr.
Scovel, who was in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, has received
military awards including the Legion of Merit (four awards) and the
Combat Action Ribbon.
Mr. Scovel received his Bachelor's degree from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his Juris Doctor degree from Duke
University. He also received a Master's degree from the Naval War
College.
Mr. Scovel and his wife, Cathy, have two sons: Carey, a 2006
graduate of Elon University who is a police officer in Charlotte, North
Carolina, and Thomas, a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Mr. Scovel is the sixth person to serve as DOT Inspector General.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by law in 1978 to
provide the Secretary and Congress with objective and independent
reviews of the efficiency and effectiveness of DOT operations and
activities.
The OIG carries out its mission by issuing audit reports,
evaluations, and management advisories with findings and
recommendations to improve program delivery and performance. In Fiscal
Year 2007, OIG issued 81 audit reports, which identified more than $900
million in financial recommendations.
By statute, the Inspector General also conducts investigations into
whether federal laws and regulations were followed and must report
suspected civil and criminal violations to the Attorney General. In
Fiscal Year 2007, OIG investigations resulted in 112 indictments, 142
convictions and $183 million in fines, restitutions and recoveries.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Dr. Kaminski, you are next.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL G. KAMINSKI, CHAIRMAN AND CEO,
TECHNOVATION, INC.; AIA MEMBER OF NEXTGEN INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Dr. Kaminski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul
Kaminski. I am the Chairman and CEO of Technovation
Incorporated, but I am here today representing the Aerospace
Industries Association.
Since January of this year I have been representing AIA on
something called the Institute Management Council, which works
with the Next Generation Institute that oversees the industry
participation in the JPDO. Prior to that I had served on a
Senior Review Committee for the JPDO, having been appointed by
then Secretary Mineta.
I last testified before this committee in June of 2006,
when I chaired the National Research Council's first decadal
survey of civil aeronautics technology. In that testimony I
said that the U.S. Air Transportation System is a key
contributor to the economic vitality, public well-being, and
national security of the United States. I strongly endorsed the
need to improve our Air Transportation System then, and I
believe that need is even more important today considering
issues such as the high cost of fuel and our growing concerns
about the environment.
NextGen, with its capacity, efficiency, energy,
environmental, and safety benefits, must be a strong and urgent
priority for this nation. Marion Blakey, former FAA
Administrator and now President of the Aerospace Industries
Association, sought my assistance in the IMC in January of this
year because she knew of my strong commitment to improving and
actually executing on NextGen, and she also was aware of the
experience I had serving as Under Secretary of Defense dealing
with the development and acquisition of very large and complex
systems such as NextGen.
Working with AIA I have developed a proposal to deal with
many of the issues that have been raised in previous statements
and accelerate the development, acquisition, and integration of
the NextGen System. This approach is based on the techniques
that are used to accelerate the development and fielding of our
first stealth system, the F-117 in the Department of Defense.
I found this method to be very effective in dealing with
large, complex systems that depend upon the effective
integration of numerous enabling technologies and complex
procedures. I am prepared to address this in some more detail
in a briefing which follows if there is interest or in pursuing
that further because it deals with many of the questions that
you posed to me.
But before getting into that detail, I would like to
highlight a few other points briefly. One, system engineering
and integration is going to be critical to the success of
NextGen, and that is the lynchpin of the proposal that I have
developed. I expect our nation's efforts on NextGen to continue
for a long time as new technology enablers will continue to
appear, and we must continue to consider the costs and benefits
of continuing advancing technology.
We must also consider the cost and benefits of maintaining
legacy systems that will become obsolete over time. In a sense,
NextGen will be like painting the Golden Gate Bridge. When we
finish the north end, it will be time to come back around to
the south end and begin again. So we should prepare a
foundation with this extended process in mind. We are going to
be at this on a continuing basis.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't move with dispatch to
begin to implement this capability. The AIA proposal that I
have made allows us to begin now to do what I describe as build
a little and test a little, layering and linking capabilities.
It will help us to better define and prioritize the essential
NextGen R&D for both the FAA and for our JPDO partner agencies.
It will also provide critically-important domain experience to
key personnel in government and industry. We need this personal
experience base to be able to execute this kind of a system.
This domain experience in government industry is a
requisite for the system engineering and integration required
in such large-scale and complex programs. I recently chaired
another national research council review, this one on the
subject of system engineering, which clearly recognized the
importance of strengthening system engineering skills to avoid
the problems associated with the acquisition of large and
complex systems that we have seen in DOD and other agencies.
The good news here is that the FAA in an effort led by
Vicki Cox has initiated a program to begin to enhance our
system engineering education, a good first step, more yet is
required.
The third point, AIA believes that the JPDO role as an
honest broker with partner agencies can be enhanced by the
recent FAA restructuring. As planning melds into
implementation, the operating agency, with all responsibility
and at the end of the day all the accountability, will be the
FAA. And JPDO-participation agencies need to be engaged and
ensured that their work will be closely integrated and aligned
with key milestones and measured under a new structure.
And we have two recommendations for metrics for success.
The first is implementation of this incremental plan that I am
prepared to describe in more detail. The second is that FAA and
industry, possibly through our Institute Management Council,
develop NextGen measures of success and milestones. For NextGen
we believe the industry does have valuable process expertise as
well as subject matter expertise to offer.
We also note the recent developments in energy and its
impact on NextGen can't be ignored. But consideration of
NextGen benefits must be expanded beyond capacity improvements
to include NextGen's energy and environmental benefits.
AIA is encouraged at FAA's response in this arena, as they
have begun integrating modeling of energy and environmental
consequences such as fuel burn and noise, with the modeling of
aircraft operations.
We also have an idea for incentivising early NextGen
equipage. With the significant energy and environmental
benefits of NextGen we believe Congress should consider energy
tax credits for early NextGen equipage. We do it for cars, home
improvements, and appliances. Why not aviation, at least for
early equipage?
And finally, while FAA can speak more authoritatively about
this, we believe the lack of an FAA budget will seriously
hamper NextGen development and progress. And industry is on
record as strongly endorsing the integration of NextGen with
day-to-day air system operations and JPDO long-term planning.
Because AIA members populate all of the working groups and
co-chair seven of our nine groups, we are in a good position to
evaluate FAA restructuring. Our members uniformly support this
change, for it keeps the work plan where it belongs, closer to
the implementing agency, and keeps longer-term planning within
divisionary construct of JPDO.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kaminski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul G. Kaminski
Good afternoon Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Paul Kaminski. I am the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Technovation, Inc., and a senior partner in Global
Technology Partners--but I am here today representing the Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA). Since January, I have been representing
AIA on the Institute Management Council of the NextGen Institute that
oversees industry participation in the JPDO.
Representing nearly 300 manufacturing companies with more than
642,000 high-wage, highly skilled employees, AIA operates as the
largest aerospace trade association in the United States across three
sectors: civil aviation, space systems, and national defense. AIA
member companies export 48 percent of their total output and they
routinely post the Nation's largest manufacturing trade surplus, at a
level approaching $60 billion in 2007. The aerospace industry continues
to look to the future, investing heavily in R&D and spending more than
$50 billion over the last 15 years.
I last testified before you in June of 2006 when I chaired the
National Research Council's Committee on the Decadal Survey of Civil
Aeronautics. Then I said: ``The U.S. air transportation system is a key
contributor to the economic vitality, public wellbeing, and national
security of the United States.'' I endorsed the need to improve our air
transportation system then, and I believe that need is even more
important today with the high cost of fuel and the growing concerns
about the environment.
NextGen--with its capacity, efficiency, energy, environmental and
safety benefits--must be a strong and urgent priority for the Nation.
Marion Blakey, former FAA Administrator and now President of AIA,
sought my assistance with the IMC in January of this year because of my
commitment to improving NextGen, and my experience in the development
and acquisition of large, complex systems in the Department of Defense.
Working with AIA, I proposed a method to accelerate the
development, acquisition, integration and implementation of the NextGen
System based on the techniques that we used to accelerate development
and fielding of the F-117 program. This method is very effective in
dealing with large, complex systems that depend upon effective
integration of numerous enabling technologies and complex operating
procedures.
But before I get into detail about this AIA proposal for
development and acquisition, I want to highlight a few other important
points:
1. Systems engineering and integration will critical to the
success of NextGen--and that's the lynchpin to this proposal
I'll discuss shortly. I expect our nation's efforts on NextGen
to continue for a long time, as new technology enablers will
continue to appear and we must consider the cost and benefits
of advanced technology within our systems engineering
foundation. We must also continue to consider the cost and
benefits of maintaining legacy systems that will become
obsolete. In a sense, NextGen will be like painting the Golden
Gate bridge--when we finish the north end, it will be time to
come back and begin at the south end. So we should prepare the
foundation with that extended process in mind. But that doesn't
mean that we shouldn't move with dispatch.
2. This AIA proposal allows us to begin now to build a little
and test a little, layering and linking capabilities. It will
help to better define and prioritize the essential NextGen R&D
for both FAA and JPDO partner agencies. It will also provide
critically important ``domain experience'' to key personnel in
both government and industry. This domain experience in both
government and industry is a requisite for the systems
engineering and integration required in large scale, complex
programs such as NextGen. I recently chaired a National
Research Council review of systems engineering which recognized
the importance of strengthening systems engineering skills to
avoid problems associated with the acquisition of large and
complex systems. The FAA has recently initiated a program to
enhance systems engineering education--a good first step.
3. AIA believes that JPDO's role as an honest broker with
partner agencies can be enhanced by the recent FAA
restructuring. As planning melds into implementation, the
operating agency--with all the responsibility and, at the end
of the day, all the accountability--is the FAA. JPDO
participating agencies should be engaged and assured that their
work will be more closely integrated, aligned with key
milestones and measured under the new structure.
4. AIA has two recommendations for metrics of success--and
they are not exclusive. The first--as I will elaborate soon--is
implementation of NextGen incremental leave-behind capabilities
using a rigorous implementation schedule. Second, we suggest
that FAA and industry--possibly through the IMC--develop
NextGen measures of success and milestones. For NextGen,
industry has valuable process expertise, as well as subject
matter expertise, to offer.
5. Recent developments with energy and its impact on NextGen
cannot be ignored. The consideration of NextGen benefits must
be expanded beyond capacity improvement to include NextGen's
energy and environmental benefits. AIA is encouraged at FAA's
quick response, as they have begun integrating modeling of
energy and environmental consequences--such as fuel burn and
noise--with modeling of aircraft operations and systemwide
operations. This will help quantify energy and environmental
benefits of NextGen improvements to strengthen the NextGen
business case.
6. We also have an idea for incentivizing early NextGen
equipage. With the significant energy and environmental
benefits of NextGen, Congress should consider energy tax
credits for early NextGen equipage. We do it for cars, home
improvements and appliances, why not aviation--at least for
early equipage?
7. While FAA can speak more authoritatively about this, lack
of a new FAA budget will seriously hamper NextGen development
and progress. And industry is on record as strongly endorsing
the integration of NextGen with day-to-day air system
operations and JPDO long-term planning. Because AIA members
populate all of the working groups and co-chair seven of the
nine groups, we are in a good position to evaluate the FAA
restructuring: Our members uniformly support this change for it
keeps the work plan where it belongs--closer to the
implementing agency--and keeps longer-term planning within the
visionary construct of JPDO.
Now, to discuss how we can accelerate the transition from NextGen
system concepts and R&D to implementation. See attached briefing
charts.
Biography for Paul G. Kaminski
Paul G. Kaminski is Chairman and CEO of Technovation, Inc., a
consulting company dedicated to fostering innovation, and to the
development and application of advanced technology. He is also a Senior
Partner in Global Technology Partners, a consulting firm specializing
in business strategy and investments in technology, defense and
aerospace-related companies.
Dr. Kaminski served as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology from October 3, 1994 to May 16, 1997. He was
responsible for all Department of Defense (DOD) research, development,
and acquisition programs. He also had responsibility for DOD logistics,
environmental security, international programs, the defense industrial
base, and military construction. The annual budget for these entities
exceeded $100 billion.
Dr. Kaminski has had a continuing career involving large program
management, and the development and application of advanced technology
in both the private and public sectors. He served as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Technology Strategies and Alliances, a technology
oriented investment banking and consulting firm. He has served as
Chairman of the Defense Science Board and was a member of the Defense
Policy Board. In addition, he has served as a consultant and advisor to
a wide variety of government agencies and as a director and trustee of
several defense and technology oriented companies.
His previous government experience includes a 20-year career as an
officer in the Air Force. During 19811984, he served as Director for
Low Observables Technology, with responsibility for directing the
development, production and fielding of the major ``stealth'' systems
(e.g., F-117, B-2). Prior to that, he served as Special Assistant to
the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. He also
led the initial development of a National Reconnaissance Office space
system and related sensor technology. Early in his career, he was
responsible for test and evaluation of inertial guidance components for
the Minuteman missile and terminal guidance systems for our first
precision guided munitions.
Dr. Kaminski is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a
Fellow of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a
Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, and a
Senior Fellow of the Defense Science Board. He is Chairman of the Board
of both Exostar and HRL Labs, and a Director of Bay Microsystems,
CoVant Technologies, General Dynamics, and RAND. He serves as an
advisor to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, LynuxWorks, Inc., and
MIT Lincoln Laboratory. He is a member of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence Technical Advisory Board, the National Reconnaissance
Office Technology Advisory Group, the FBI Director's Advisory Board,
and the Atlantic Council. He has authored publications dealing with
inertial and terminal guidance system performance, simulation
techniques, Kalman filtering and numerical techniques applied to
estimation problems.
Dr. Kaminski has received the following awards: National Medal of
Technology 2006, Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public
Service (3 awards), Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Director of
Central Intelligence Director's Award, Defense Intelligence Agency
Director's Award, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Air Force
Academy 2002 Distinguished Graduate Award, the International Strategic
Studies Association Stefan T. Possony Medal for Outstanding
Contributions to Strategic Progress through Science and Technology, the
AOC Gold Medal, the Netherlands Medal of Merit in Gold, the French
Republic Legion d'Honneur, and the Air Force Systems Command Scientific
Achievement Award. He has been recognized as a Pioneer of National
Reconnaissance and a Pioneer of Stealth.
Dr. Kaminski was born in Cleveland, Ohio. He received a Bachelor of
Science from the Air Force Academy, Master of Science degrees in both
Aeronautics and Astronautics and in Electrical Engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and
Astronautics from Stanford University. He and his wife, Julie, have two
children, and four grandchildren.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Kaminski, and we welcome
additional information that you want to provide us. We will put
that for our review, and we will also be having more informal
type round-table discussions to follow up.
Dr. Waitz, you are next.
STATEMENT OF DR. IAN A. WAITZ, PARTNER DIRECTOR; JEROME C.
HUNSAKER PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS; HEAD,
DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Waitz. Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to comment on the status of
NextGen with regard to impacts on the environment. I am the
head of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT
and Director of the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise
and Emissions Reduction, also known as PARTNER. I would like to
note that I have also provided a more-detailed written
statement.
At PARTNER, an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-funded Center of
Excellence, we focus on energy aviation and the environment. We
have more than 50 graduate students working with faculty
members at a dozen universities. More than 50 U.S. and
international organizations collaborate with us and are
represented on our advisory board.
In 2004, we wrote a report to Congress on aviation and the
environment on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation and
the Administrator of NASA. The report put forward a national
vision for aviation in the environment that specifies absolute
reductions in significant health and welfare impacts from
aviation noise and air quality and reduced uncertainty in
understanding other emissions or other impacts such as climate.
Since 2004, when we wrote the report, the challenges facing
us have grown more significantly. Aircraft noise affects five
million people in the United States. It is the single greatest
barrier to adding new runways and expanding airport operations,
and through the constraints it places on the growth of our Air
Transportation System, it produces significant negative impacts
on our national economy.
Further, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a
band-aid approach of soundproofing homes around airports rather
than investing in the technology which is the only long-term
solution.
In terms of air quality, aircraft are responsible for less
than one percent of health impacts associated with poor air
quality in the United States as a whole, yet these impacts are
still very important, one to 200 perhaps more premature deaths
each year.
In regards to climate change, most estimates suggest that
per unit of fuel burned the impact of aircraft on climate is
more significant than that impact from land-based sources.
Climate is also an area where there is a vigorous international
debate. For example, around EU plans to include international
aviation in an emissions trading program.
Unfortunately, this is also an area where the United States
most significantly lags our European colleagues. Our entire
portfolio of research is likely less than $1 million per year.
This for the most uncertain and potentially most damaging
environmental impact of aviation.
In terms of jointly addressing the challenges of noise, air
quality, and climate change, and achieving absolute reductions
in impacts at the same time the system is growing, history
provides a lesson. In the '70s, '80s, and '90s, we had a 95
percent reduction in the number of people impacted by aircraft
noise. At the same time we had a six-fold increase in passenger
miles traveled.
And at that very same time we had a 60 percent improvement
in energy efficiency, more than any other mode of transport.
All of those remarkable improvements came from technology that
was derived from strong FAA, NASA, industry, university
research programs.
Today further improvements are possible, improvements that
can enable us to achieve absolute reductions while we grow.
However, achieving these improvements is dependent on making
the right decisions, and that requires a healthy scientific
research program and also on sufficient sustained investments
in the development of new technologies, NextGen operations, and
alternative fuels.
So what has changed since we wrote the 2004 report to
Congress on aviation and environment? The most important change
is that the challenges we are facing have gotten even more
significant. In particular, if we were writing the report
today, we would likely add contributions to climate change to
the list of impacts we would seek to reduce in absolute terms,
and there would be much greater focus on energy dependence.
There have also been some successes in the last four years
since we wrote the report to Congress. The FAA Office of
Environment and Energy headed by Carl Burleson and Chief
Scientist Dr. Lourdes Maurice, have led a sea change in the
FAA. They have adopted a rigorous science-based approach to
understanding aviation's impacts and making policy decisions
based on that. Under their leadership with the participation of
many others, I believe the environmental working group of JPDO
is regarded as one of the best.
Today the two most critical issues that we must address are
first to accelerate the FAA/NASA Aviation Climate Change
Research Initiative and second, to significantly increase the
focus, technology, operations, and alternative fuels programs
in NASA and FAA that are required to effectively bridge
fundamental aeronautics research and industrial development
programs.
This is consistent with the pending FAA and NASA
Reauthorization Bills, and I sincerely thank this committee for
its efforts in that regard. It is the right thing to do for the
health of the planet and for the health of the public. It is
the right thing to do for the economy.
The constraints on the system are sufficiently strong that
they can impede realizing the potential of NextGen. If we do
not achieve significant advances in environmental performance,
there will be increasing impacts on health and welfare and
increasing constraints on the National Air Transportation
System with the negative economic impacts that come with both.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of this
committee for the opportunity to address you. I will be pleased
to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Waitz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ian A. Waitz
Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the status of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System initiative (NextGen) with regards to the impacts
of aviation on the environment. I am the Head of the Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Director of the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise
and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER). For 17 years I have conducted
research directed towards understanding and reducing the environmental
impacts of aviation. This work has spanned climate change, air quality,
noise, and economic effects, and has included technological,
operational, and policy dimensions. I work closely with the FAA Office
of Environment and Energy.
My written testimony is organized in six sections. Section I
briefly describes PARTNER. Section 2 summarizes the key findings from
the 2004 Report to Congress on Aviation and the Environment. Section 3
provides an overview of noise, air quality, and climate change issues
related to the national air transportation system. Within this section,
I make several comments on current FAA and NASA programs and plans. In
Section 4 I draw from the discussions of the Section 3 noise, air
quality, and climate change overview and summarize what has changed
since the 2004 Report to Congress on Aviation and the Environment. In
Section 5 I share my views on the progress of the NextGen initiative
and the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). Section 6
concludes with the issues that I feel most urgently need to be
addressed.
My main message is that the United States must accelerate efforts
to address the environmental impacts of aviation. It is the right thing
to do for the health of the public and the planet. It is also the right
thing to do for the economy. If we do not achieve significant advances
in environmental performance there will be increasing impacts on health
and welfare, and increasing constraints on the national air
transportation system--with the attendant negative economic impacts
that come with both. The constraints are sufficiently strong that they
can impede realizing the potential of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. I therefore strongly support increases in
funding for environmental research, development, and demonstration
programs, such as those described in the pending FAA and NASA
Reauthorizations. The priority must be on appropriating funds to
programs that address aviation's environmental impacts starting with
the FY09 budget. Thereafter, authorization and appropriation of funding
for more significant programs are required.
1. PARTNER
PARTNER is an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-funded Center of
Excellence, founded in 2003, that focuses on improving the scientific
understanding of aviation's environmental impacts, and on assessing,
developing, and implementing technological, operational, and policy
options for mitigating these environmental impacts. Educating future
researchers and leaders in aviation and environment is an overarching
goal. We have more than fifty graduate students working with leading
faculty members at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard
University School of Public Health, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Stanford
University, Missouri University of Science and Technology, University
of North Carolina, York University in Canada, and University of Reading
and University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom.
One of PARTNER's greatest strengths is our advisory board. More
than 50 U.S. and international organizations are represented including
aerospace manufacturers, airlines, airports, national, State and local
government, professional and trade associations, non-governmental
organizations and community groups.
Hundreds of PARTNER investigators, students, and advisory board
members have worked collaboratively over the last five years under the
sponsorship of the FAA, NASA, Transport Canada, DOD, and the Airports
Cooperative Research Council (ACRD) to advance understanding of the
relationship between aviation and environment. This work has included:
designing and testing alternate descent patterns as a
no/low-cost means to reduce aircraft landing noise, fuel
consumption, and pollutant emissions
three significant measurement campaigns at U.S.
airports to assess and understand the formation of particulate
matter from aircraft
collaborating with NASA and industry studying noise
acceptability of supersonic flight over land
examining land use, noise, and local development
dynamics related to airport encroachment
assessment of the human health and welfare risks of
aviation noise, local air quality, and climate change impacts
analyses of the costs and benefits of alternative
fuels for aviation
development of aircraft and air transportation system
simulations to assess policies, technologies and operational
options for enabling environmentally responsible air
transportation growth
online resource development to better inform the
public about aircraft noise issues.
2. 2004 Report to Congress on Aviation and the Environment
One of the first collaborative endeavors undertaken by PARTNER was
to draft a report to the United States Congress on behalf of the
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of NASA. The report,
which is titled Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision
Statement, Framework for Goals, and Recommended Actions, represents the
collective views of a broad range of stakeholders. Thirty-eight
organizations participated, spanning the aerospace industry, NASA, FAA,
the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Department
of Defense, academia, State and local governments, and community
activists. It was my privilege to be the lead author of the report
(http://mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/
congrept-aviation-envirn.pdf).
The report's most important element is a proposal for a National
Vision Statement for Aviation and the Environment. This vision
statement was supported by every one of the 59 stakeholders who
participated in drafting it. The National Vision specifies absolute
reductions in significant health and welfare impacts from aviation
noise and air quality emissions--notwithstanding growth, reduced
uncertainty in understanding other impacts, and global leadership for
the U.S. aerospace enterprise in addressing aviation mobility and
environmental needs.
To achieve this challenging vision, the 2004 Report to Congress on
Aviation and the Environment recommends three actions. The first is to
promote coordination and communication among stakeholders. This should
be interpreted as a call for a structure like the Joint Planning and
Development Office. The second is to develop more effective tools and
metrics for guiding policy decisions and for planning research
investments. This is the area where some of the most important advances
are occurring within FAA, but also where further work is required in
the area of climate change. The third recommended action is to
establish a vigorous program to develop specific technological,
operational and policy options that support a balanced approach to
long-term environmental improvements. My concerns are greatest with
regard to progress on this third action.
This vision and the recommended actions have been adopted as the
basis for the environmental objectives and plans of the NextGen
Initiative,\1\ the FAA's National Aviation Research Plan,\2\ and the
National Science and Technology Council's National Plan for Aeronautics
Research and Development.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.jpdo.gov/iwp.asp
\2\ http://www.faa.gov/about/office-org/
headquarters-offices/ato/publications/oep/plans/images/
2007NARP.pdf
\3\ http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/
Final%20National%20Aero%20RD%20Plan%20HIGH%20RES.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will return to the findings of this report later in my testimony.
In particular, as you have requested, I will comment on what has
changed since the report's publication (Section 4), share my views on
the progress of the NextGen initiative and the JPDO (Section 5), and
identify the issues I believe most urgently need to be addressed
(Section 6).
3. Aviation, Environment and Mobility
Before commenting specifically on the NextGen initiative, it is
useful to describe what we know and do not know about the environmental
impacts of the U.S. air transportation system, and to set these impacts
in the context of environmental impacts from other sources. I start by
sharing two quotes:
``Flying--the worst thing,to do . . . The dirtiest industry in
the world.''
B. Sewill, Fly Now, Grieve Later, 2005
``. . . unrelenting carbon-efficient improvement is business
as usual for commercial airlines . . . We are the greenest form
of mass transportation.''
J.C. May, ATA President and CEO, Congressional
Testimony, 2007
What are we to make of these differences of opinion? In Europe for
example, sentiments in the press, and those held by many in the public,
are quite negative. It is ``common knowledge'' for some that aviation
is a dirty business. This common knowledge is not consistent with
scientific assessments. There are certainly important impacts on human
health, welfare, and ecological systems from aviation that must be
addressed (I detail many of these below). However, it is equally true
that the air transportation industry has made, and can continue to
make, significant improvements. For example, in the last 30 years,
there was a 60 percent reduction in energy intensity in air
transportation, a reduction that is larger than that of any other mode
of transportation. Indeed, between 2000 and 2007, fuel use and CO2
emissions from U.S. commercial aviation have decreased by three percent
in absolute terms despite 12 percent more passenger movements and 22
percent more freight flown.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ During the same period, CO2 emissions from aviation
in Europe rose approximately 30 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly, further improvements are possible with new
technologies and new fuels--improvements that will enable aviation to
remain a small, and possibly even decreasing, contributor to the
overall environmental burden of human activities. However, achieving
these improvements is dependent on making the right decisions (which
requires healthy scientific research programs), and on sufficient,
sustained investments in the development of new technologies,
operational procedures and alternative fuels. Thus, while it is
possible for aviation's impacts on the environment to be reduced in
absolute terms, it is more probable at our current levels of investment
that aviation environmental impacts will grow--contributing to greater
detriments on health and welfare, and further constraints on our air
transportation system and the economic growth it enables.
I started with the two quotes, ``Flying--the worst thing to do,''
and ``. . . the greenest form of mass transportation,'' to focus your
attention to the value of knowledge, knowledge that can be used to make
rational judgments about what matters, why it matters, and to whom it
matters. Aircraft, and the air transportation systems in which they
operate are highly optimized complex systems. As such, there are
important tradeoffs and interdependencies. For example, if one designs
an airplane to minimize noise, impacts on climate and air quality can
worsen and vice versa. Further, there are almost always important
safety and economic implications that come with design changes. How
should one decide what is more or less important?
The issues highlighted by the quotes I shared go well beyond
posturing in the press. The public and political views in Europe and
the United States, and the policies to which they may lead, will affect
us all--for better or for worse. Aviation is a global business, with
airplanes designed by a small number of suppliers, largely for a single
global market. If policies are imposed in one part of the world that
push aircraft design in a certain direction, all of us will fly on
those airplanes. Therefore, there is a premium on getting the answer
right when assessing tradeoffs and interdependencies. This is
especially true because new airplane development times are as long as a
decade, and airplane usage in the fleet is as long as three decades. In
aviation, when we make decisions, they tend to be expensive, and we
must live with them for a long time.
It is in this area, the area of developing the knowledge and tools
to make rational decisions about environmental impacts, where the FAA,
in particular its Office of Environment and Energy, has been leading
the world. The FAA has adopted a rigorous, rational, science-based
approach to understanding what matters, why it matters, and to whom it
matters. This is the most critical first step to taking action,
especially for a system as complex as our national air transportation
system. A detailed plan for research aimed at further developing this
understanding is contained within the latest draft of the NextGen
Integrated Work Plan.\5\ I was one of many people who participated in
developing the plan, and I strongly support it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Working draft version dated August 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the next three subsections, I describe in turn issues related to
aviation noise, air quality impacts, and climate change. Many of the
estimates of impacts I describe come from research programs funded in
the last five years by the FAA Office of Environment and Energy. Many
of the significant technological advances that I describe were enabled
and promoted by NASA Aeronautics research and development programs of
the 1970s-1990s.
3.1 Noise
There are approximately one-half million people in the United
States who live in regions near airports with high levels of aircraft
noise, noise levels such that more than 12 percent of the impacted
population will be highly annoyed.\6\ People are awakened at night,
housing values are depreciated, learning in schools is reduced. An
estimated five million people live in areas with moderate airplane
noise, but still, where greater than three percent of the population
will be highly annoyed.\7\ Adding these groups together (those in
significant and moderate noise areas), there are perhaps 200,000 people
in the United States who are highly annoyed by commercial aircraft
noise. Despite the magnitude of the number, it is small compared to the
number of people living in homes in city centers, and along all of the
highways and railways in the United States, where residents suffer
similarly from high noise levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 65dB and higher Day-Night Noise levels.
\7\ 55dB and higher Day-Night Noise levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we have seen dramatic 95 percent reductions in the number
of people impacted by aircraft noise over the last 35 years (while the
population impacted by highway and railway noise is estimated to have
increased), and this is despite a six-fold growth in aviation
passenger-miles traveled. However, most projections suggest that
advances in aircraft technology will barely be able to keep up with
growth in order to keep aircraft noise impacts in the United States
constant. Meanwhile, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year
on soundproofing homes (which is little more than a band-aid), local
authorities continue to make poor land-use decisions (allowing
residential development in high noise regions), and we burn extra fuel
for some noise abatement procedures at airports (and suffer the
associated economic, climate, and air quality detriments). Most
importantly, the very valid complaints of residents around airports
have almost halted the airport expansion that could be so vital to our
economy. The limits on airport expansion lead to further congestion of
our airspace, more flight delays, economic losses, and even more
environmental impacts. The Chinese are in the process of building some
50 airports, and expanding another 70. In contrast, consider Boston
where I live: efforts to add a third runway to Logan Airport started in
the 1970s. The runway was only half-completed when community opposition
led to a court injunction halting construction. The injunction was not
lifted until 2003--30 years of less efficient, less productive
operations that to a large extent were due to concerns about aviation
noise.
With this as context, it is useful to understand what led to the
dramatic reductions in aviation noise impact that occurred in the 1980s
and 1990s. These were a direct result of technological advancements
(especially the introduction of the high bypass ratio turbofan engine)
and policy incentives (accelerated phase-out of older, noisier
aircraft--a phase-out that is estimated to have cost the industry
between $5 billion and $10 billion). These technological advancements
were founded on robust NASA-FAA-industry-university research and
development activities.
In the last several years, funding for the NASA Aeronautics Program
has been insufficient to support such robust research and development
activities. As a result, NASA Aeronautics has shifted its focus
relatively more towards long-term, fundamental research, with
relatively less emphasis on the more costly, system-level technology
acceleration and implementation programs. This is an appropriate
strategy given the limited funding--fundamental research is the
foundation upon which all the other efforts are built. However, it is
not a strategy that is promoting the development and implementation of
low noise technology to the degree that is required. While the modest
augmentations in recent NASA Aeronautics budgets have been welcome,
they have varied from year to year, making it difficult to launch the
multi-year programs that are necessary for success. I note that the
NASA programs are strongly driven by the NextGen goals, and are
explicitly incorporated in the NextGen Integrated Work Plan. The team
is well coordinated. The missing element is an increased and sustained
funding commitment. The FAA FY09 budget request also includes funds to
more rapidly develop and implement low noise technology and procedures
(as one component of the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise
Program, CLEEN). This program, with a proposed budget of $22M per year
(for all objectives, not just noise reduction) can be an important
contributor to an effective, vertically-integrated national research
and development program. But here too, funds must be appropriated.
Thus, while we underfund the research and development that is the
only pathway to long-term improvement, we continue to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars each year on the band-aid approach of soundproofing
homes and purchasing land around airports. Because we have under-
invested in research and development, this band-aid is indeed, the only
option for residents near airports, residents who justifiably have had
enough with bearing the burden of the high noise environments. The
national strategy for addressing aircraft noise is broken. New
technology can change the equation and significantly reduce the
requirements for soundproofing and the hundreds of millions of dollars
it drains from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund through the Airport
Improvement Program.\8\ We must challenge the Nation's government-
industry-university research enterprise to do this and we must
appropriately fund it. This will break the logjam between aircraft
noise and airport expansion, promote economic growth, reduce health and
welfare impacts on residents living near airports, and contribute to
scientific and technological advancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For Greener Skies, Reducing the Environmental Impacts of
Aviation, NRC, 2003.
3.2 Air Quality
Commercial aviation is responsible for between two percent and
three percent of U.S. energy consumption, almost all of it from
petroleum. The competitiveness of the industry and the high fraction of
costs related to fuel, have led to a level of penny-pinching for energy
efficiency that is unparalleled. Airlines make decisions about
seemingly minute items to optimize their financial performance (such as
evaluating whether or not to limit the availability of ice cubes as
part of the drink service to improve fuel efficiency). The incentives
for fuel efficiency are extreme. However, as with other users of fossil
fuels, the combustion of these fuels leads to gaseous and particulate
matter emissions that can adversely affect human health. Only those
emissions emitted below 3,000 feet above ground level are traditionally
considered in EPA national inventories and in air quality evaluations,
although emerging work suggests that emissions at higher altitudes may
also be important for surface air quality. The aviation emissions below
3,000 feet represent between 0.03 percent and 0.4 percent of the total
National Emissions Inventory levels depending on the particular
pollutant.\9\ However, in many U.S. counties the contribution to
county-level inventories can be as high as several percent (rising to
as high as 20 percent to 50 percent for some pollutants in four
counties only). Moreover, there are 148 airports located in non-
attainment areas that do not meet National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for one or more pollutants. So small contributions can still
be quite important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For a one year period in 2005-2006, operations at 325 U.S.
airports, including approximately 95 percent of operations for which
flight plans were filed, represent the following percentages of the
total 2001 U.S. National Emissions inventory for anthropogenic sources:
0.17 percent of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 0.40 percent of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) emissions, 0.23 percent of emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), 0.06 percent of oxides of sulfur (SOX)
emissions, and 0.03 percent of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my knowledge, the FAA is the only organization in the world that
is specifically funding research to understand the health impacts that
are attributable to these aviation emissions. It should be commended
for this. It is another example of the FAA's rational, rigorous
approach to understanding what matters and why it matters. It is
important to do so, because even within the different pollutant
emissions, there are important trade-offs. For example, high
temperature engines that reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions can increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX). A second
example is related to emissions of hazardous air pollutants. At the
time when we wrote the 2004 Report to Congress, we listed these as one
of the highest areas of uncertainty for aviation. Four years later,
research funded by the FAA and the Airports Cooperative Research
Council is showing that hazardous air pollutants from aviation are not
a source of significant health impacts.
Of aviation emissions, those that contribute to ambient fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) are the most
significant source of adverse heath consequences. More than 95 percent
of total health impacts attributable to aviation are estimated to come
from exposure to increased levels of ambient particulate matter. The
emissions that contribute include sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
volatile organic emissions (these three groups of emissions are mostly
emitted as gases, but later in the atmosphere they lead to secondary
formation of particulate matter), and also primary particulate matter
emissions (soot). In recent studies, the average contribution of
aircraft to ambient levels of PM2.5 in the United
States was estimated to be less than one-tenth of one percent: 0.08
percent for all counties and 0.06 percent for counties in air quality
non-attainment areas. The aircraft contributions to county-level
ambient PM2.5 concentrations ranged from 0
percent to 0.5 percent. However, this is likely an underestimate since
only emissions below 3,000 feet were considered and the geographical
resolution of the models was limited.
Although the impacts are quite small relative to all human impacts
on air quality, they are important. Using standard health risk
assessment approaches, approximately 160 yearly incidences of premature
mortality can be attributed to the aviation emissions below 3,000 feet.
These health impacts of aviation very likely constitute less than 0.6
percent of the total adverse health impacts due to poor air quality
from all anthropogenic emissions sources in the United States--
underscoring the overall significance of the health risk associated
with poor air quality in the United States which very likely
contributes to more than 25,000 premature mortalities each year.
The benefits that NextGen can provide for improving air quality may
be significant. Air traffic management inefficiencies, congestion, and
delay result in increased fuel burn and emissions. We have all
experienced unacceptably long taxi operations, waiting in long lines to
take-off, or for an airport gate to become available--all the while
with engines running, burning fuel, generating emissions, and wasting
time and money.\10\ Approximately 10 percent of the fuel burn and
emissions below 3,000 feet in today's system are a direct result of
delays and inefficient operations. It will only get worse. The air
transportation system is a traffic jam waiting to happen. Without the
development of an efficient next generation system, small numbers of
additional operations (much smaller than the 2x to 3x growth that is
anticipated) will increasingly cause gridlock, especially in conditions
with poor weather. There is thus, a potential for significant adverse
environmental and economic consequences. This is an area where NextGen
planning and initiatives are appropriately targeted. Moreover, the
modelling and planning tools used by the NextGen program now explicitly
incorporate the latest results from air quality health impacts
analyses. Although many important scientific questions remain, and it
is likely that the estimates of health impacts will change, the
research programs have been initiated, and the linkages are in place so
that these effects can be appropriately considered in NextGen planning
and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Joint Economic Committee estimated that flight delays in
2007 cost the U.S., economy $41 billion. Your Flight Has Been Delayed
Again: Flight Delays Cost Passengers, Airlines, and the U.S. Economy
Billions in 2007. JEC, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to NextGen operational improvements, there are also
options to reduce air quality impacts through the adoption of low
sulfur fuels and alternative fuels. Recognition of the potential role
of alternative fuels is one of the key changes since the writing of the
2004 Report to Congress on Aviation and the Environment. The FAA is
moving aggressively to pursue the assessment (including the full life
cycle impacts), testing, and certification of low sulfur and low carbon
alternative fuels. It is not yet clear what the costs and benefits of
these options will be, but FAA has put in place a thoughtful, effective
research program to develop and assess these options. The work is a
component of a larger work program within the Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI), a broad government-industry-
academic consortium.
While the work on operational improvements and new fuels is
proceeding well, programs to develop aircraft and engine technologies
for mitigating air quality impacts are not well supported. As with the
development of low noise technologies, the reduced levels of funding
for NASA Aeronautics in the last decade have left the Nation without
sufficiently strong focused technology programs that are important for
bridging fundamental research and industrial development, and thereby
promoting more rapid advancement of aircraft and engine technology.
Here too, the recent augmentations to the NASA Aeronautics budget have
been helpful, but they are not enough--and they are not sustained,
therefore making them less effective for contributing to long-term
development programs. The FAA can also play an important role in
addressing the gap with its Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and
Noise Program, CLEEN. However, as I noted previously, this program,
with a FY09 budget request of $22M per year for all objectives, is not
sufficient to promote the technological advances that will be required
to reduce air quality impacts simultaneously with the anticipated
growth of operations.
3.3 Climate Change
Aircraft emissions contribute to climate change by increasing the
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Commercial aviation is
responsible for approximately 2.7 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions (roughly 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector). Because of the altitude at which aircraft fly,
the effects on climate are unique among all greenhouse gas emitters.
There are effects related to the formation of condensation trails
(contrails) and clouds, and positive and negative impacts of NOX
emissions that can be more pronounced than those from surface-level NOX
emissions. These effects cannot simply be added to the effects of the
CO2 emissions; they depend on time of day, time of year,
altitude of the emissions, and region of the globe. Although the
impacts of aviation CO2 are well understood, and are the
same as those from CO2 emitted from other sources, many of
the other effects are poorly understood. All of them involve complex
chemical and atmospheric processes. However, when these effects are
taken together, most estimates suggest that the impact of aviation on
climate is greater per unit of fuel burn than that from surface-based
combustion sources.
As we wrote in the 2004 Report to Congress, this is the area of
greatest scientific uncertainty for aviation, and the area with the
greatest potential for environmental impacts. It is also an area where
there is a vigorous international debate on measures that should be
taken to mitigate the impacts--for example, the debate surrounding the
European Union plans to include commercial aviation in an emissions
trading program. There are also examples closer to home like the
petition California and other states filed with the EPA to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.
Perhaps nowhere in the area of aviation and the environment is
there a greater premium on pursuing a rigorous program of scientific
study that is closely tied to national and international decision-
making needs. This is also the area where the United States most
significantly lags our European colleagues. The United States had a
robust, vibrant research program (the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation
Program). This program was discontinued around the year 2000. Since
that time, most of our understanding of the impacts of aviation on
climate has come from the excellent programs in Europe. Much of the
U.S. academic community has disbanded and gone on to focus on other
things. Although work continues, it is not well funded or well
connected. Today in the United States, the entire portfolio of funded
research focusing on aviation and climate is likely less than $1
million per year--for the most uncertain, and potentially most
damaging, environmental impact of aviation. We are now in a position of
being insufficiently prepared to contribute to national and
international discussions of climate policy for aviation--the latter of
which are likely to move ahead with or without us. This is a failure.
To address this critical need, this year the FAA and NASA launched
the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative. With
optimistically\11\ only $2 million to $3 million of funding per year,
this effort must be expanded. Without this, we will be unable to
evaluate the complex trade-offs among aviation's climate effects--let
alone balance them against other objectives for noise, air quality,
safety, and economic performance of the industry. This is a case where
engine, aircraft, and operational design trades are quite possible, and
industry is asking, ``what really matters?'' but we do not have an
answer for them. All the while, airplanes continue to be built,
airplanes with a 30-year lifetime in the fleet. We must change the path
we are on, and to do so, we must move more forcefully than we are
moving today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ It is waiting funding in the FY09 Budget.
4. What has changed since the 2004 Report to Congress on Aviation and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environment?
I have addressed several points regarding changes since the 2004
Report to Congress in Section 3; I will now summarize them. The report
recommended three actions to achieve a National Vision of absolute
reductions in significant health and welfare impacts from aviation
noise and air quality emissions, reduced uncertainty in understanding
other impacts, and global leadership for the U.S. aerospace enterprise
in jointly addressing aviation mobility and environmental needs. In the
last four years there have been some successes in responding to this
vision, and some failures.
Changes relative to recommendation 1: Promoting coordination and
communication among stakeholders.
The National Vision for Aviation and the Environment
and Recommended Actions drafted by a broad group of
stakeholders was accepted and acted upon by FAA and NASA, and
incorporated into the National Plan for Aeronautics Research
and Development and Related Infrastructure (January 10,
2008).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The National Plan was developed in response to Executive Order
13419 which implemented the National Aeronautics R&D Policy. The
National Plan establishes high priority national aeronautics research
and development challenges, goals and supporting objectives to guide
the conduct of U.S. aeronautics R&D activities through 2020.
The Environmental Working Group of the JPDO is
regarded as one of the most effective groups within the JPDO.
This is evidenced in the 2005 National Research Council Report,
Technology Pathways: Assessing the Integrated Plan for a Next
Generation Air Transportation System, where the activities of
the group were highlighted and put forward as an exemplar for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other components of the JPDO to follow.
NASA Aeronautics programs and plans are closely
aligned with the needs of the NextGen initiative.
FAA and NASA have cultivated several open,
collaborative research enterprises focused on environment and
energy including the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise
and Emissions Reduction, the Aviation Climate Change Research
Initiative, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative, the Aviation Emissions Characterization Roadmap,
the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics N+1, N+2 and N+3 research
programs, and the Research Consortium for Continuous Lower
Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN).
Changes relative to recommendation 2: Developing more effective tools
and metrics for guiding policy decisions and for planning research
investments.
The FAA has led the world in supporting research to
understand the air quality impacts of aviation resulting in
several seminal contributions.
The FAA and NASA have led the world in developing
tools to characterize and quantify the interdependencies among
aviation-related noise and emissions, impacts on health and
welfare, and industry and consumer costs, under different
policy, technology, operational, and market scenarios.
One of the most significant changes since the 2004
Report to Congress is the greater recognition of the importance
of energy efficiency, and the potential value of alternative
fuels for reducing the climate change impacts of aviation and
reducing our dependence on non-replenishable resources. The FAA
and the DOD have excellent programs in place to rigorously
evaluate the full life cycle costs and benefits of alternative
fuels for aviation.
Despite laudable efforts this year to launch the
Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative on the part of FAA
and NASA, the gap in technical credibility with regard to
aviation climate impacts has widened between the United States
and Europe in the last four years. Most of the significant
research findings are coming from Europe.
Changes relative to recommendation 3: Establishing a vigorous program
to develop specific technological, operational, and policy options that
support a balanced approach to long-term environmental improvements.
The FAA is well positioned to develop specific
operational and policy options (with the notable exception of
the aviation climate area) to support long-term environmental
improvements. One highlight is its vigorous development and
implementation of Continuous Descent Arrival procedures that
reduce noise, reduce emissions, and save fuel.
Since the writing of the 2004 Report, four more years
have passed without sufficient funding for the critical NASA-
FAA-industry-university technology development programs that
will be required to address the environmental impacts of
aviation while enabling growth in air service.
Moreover, even the more modest programs proposed in
current FAA plans (such as the Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions, and Noise Program, the Aviation Climate Change
Research Initiative, expansion of the environmental work in the
Airports Cooperative Research Program, and funding for
environmental demonstration programs at airports) will not move
forward unless funds are appropriated to support them.
5. What steps should the NextGen initiative be taking to mitigate
impacts? How satisfied are you with the JPDO's
efforts to date?
I have reviewed a working draft of the environmental section of the
latest Integrated Work Plan for NextGen (draft dated Aug. 12th 2008).
The plans in the environmental section are impressive--rigorous,
science-based, detailed, and well coordinated. The extent to which
these will be effectively integrated with the overall JPDO work program
is still to be determined, but I commend the Environmental Working
Group of the JPDO for its efforts. It has truly aspired to put in place
a program that will enable an absolute reduction in aviation's
environmental impacts notwithstanding growth of the aviation system.
Quoting from the draft Integrated Work Plan:
``Therefore, the NextGen challenge is to reduce aviation's
environmental footprint, even with projected aviation growth.
This includes reducing the impacts of aviation noise, and air
quality and greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-beneficial
manner.''
The draft Work Plan further describes their path to achieving this:
``NextGen must achieve a balance between aviation's
environmental impacts and other societal objectives, both
domestically and internationally. NextGen can meet these
challenges by eliminating system-induced congestion and delay,
accelerating the aircraft technology development/penetration
cycle and by advancing alternative fuels to manage aviation's
environmental impacts.''
This is a useful framework for summarizing my thoughts on NextGen
and JPDO. First, as I have highlighted several times, the rational,
rigorous, science-based approach adopted by the FAA to evaluate the
costs and benefits of various options is exceptional. Second, the
efforts to eliminate system-induced congestion and delay are sorely
needed. Even today we see significant environmental impacts from these
factors. These impacts will occur to an even greater extent if the
number of operations is increased without improving the system. The
efforts to carefully assess the full life cycle costs of alternative
fuels are also very appropriate.
However, it is the area of accelerating the aircraft technology
development/penetration cycle that most concerns me. The plans and
programs developed by FAA and NASA are excellent. They are well
coordinated. The national capabilities in government, industry and
academia are excellent. However, the current funding levels in this
area are insufficient to support the national vision for absolute
reductions in impacts notwithstanding the projected growth.
6. The most critical issues
The two most urgent needs are:
1) To accelerate the FAA-NASA Aviation Climate Change Research
Initiative. This will enable a careful evaluation of the
complex trade-offs among aviation's climate impacts, and a
balancing of these impacts against other objectives for noise,
air quality, safety, and economic performance of the industry.
2) To significantly increase and accelerate the focused
technology, operations, and alternative fuels programs in NASA
and FAA that are required to effectively bridge fundamental
aeronautics research and industrial development programs. This
will have the single greatest leverage on our ability to
achieve long-term environmental improvements in the aviation
industry. This can start immediately: important programs have
been planned and proposed by the FAA and NASA. However, they
are on hold waiting FY09 funding. I encourage you to support,
and indeed to expand, these programs.
Accelerating efforts to address the environmental impacts of
aviation is the right thing to do for the health of the public and the
planet. Commercial aviation is estimated to be responsible for two to
three percent of U.S. CO2 emissions, 160 or more yearly
premature mortalities associated with poor air quality, and 200,000
people who are highly annoyed by aircraft noise. While these impacts
are small relative to the sum of human environmental impacts, they are
nonetheless important. Accelerating efforts to address the
environmental impacts of aviation is also the right thing to do for the
economy. The constraints on the system are sufficiently strong that
they can impede realizing the potential of NextGen. If we do not
achieve significant advances in environmental performance there will be
increasing impacts on health and welfare, and increasing constraints on
the national air transportation system--with the attendant negative
economic impacts that come with both.
The priority must be on appropriating funds to programs that
address aviation's environmental impacts starting with the FY09 budget.
Thereafter, authorization and appropriation of funding for more
significant programs are required.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of this committee for
this opportunity to address you. I will be pleased to respond to your
questions.
Biography for Ian A. Waitz
Born January 25, 1964, Ann Arbor, Michigan; U.S. Citizen
Education:
Ph.D., 1991, Aeronautics, California Institute of Technology
M.S., 1988, Aeronautics, George Washington University
B.S., 1986, Aerospace Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
History of MIT Appointments:
Charles Stark Draper Assistant Professor, July 1991-October 1991
Rockwell International Assistant Professor, November 1991-November 1994
Assistant Professor, December 1994-June 1997
Associate Professor w/o tenure, July 1997-June 1998
Associate Professor with tenure, July 1998-June 2001
Full Professor, July 2001-present
Associate Head, Aero and Astro, August 2002-December 2003
Deputy Head, Aero and Astro, January 2003-June 2005
Department Head, Aero and Astro, February 2008-present
Overview:
Ian A. Waitz is the Jerome C. Hunsaker Professor and Head of the
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. He is also the
Director of the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions
Reduction (PARTNER), an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of
Excellence. His principal areas of interest are the modeling and
evaluation of climate,local air quality and noise impacts of aviation,
including the assessment of technological,operational and policy
options for mitigating these impacts. He has written approximately 70
technical publications including a report to the U.S. Congress on
aviation and the environment,holds three patents and has consulted for
many organizations. During 2002-2005 he served as Deputy Head of the
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He has also served as an
associate editor of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power. In 2003
Professor Waitz received a NASA Turning Goals Into Reality Award for
Noise Reduction. He was awarded the FAA 2007 Excellence in Aviation
Research Award. He is a Fellow of the AIAA, and an ASME and ASEE
member. He teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in the fields of
thermodynamics and energy conversion, propulsion, and experimental
projects. He was honored with the 2002 MIT Class of 1960 Innovation in
Education Award and appointment as an MIT MacVicar Faculty Fellow in
2003.
Teaching Experience:
Environmental Aerospace Engineering. Developed to address the growing
impact of environmental concerns on aerospace systems. Concentration on
aircraft emissions and noise is set within a broad contextual backdrop,
including discussions of ethics, regulatory measures, environmental
assessment, global change, economics, urban planning, and policy.
Aircraft Propulsion and Gas Turbines. Graduate level course devoted to
performance and characteristics of aircraft engines and
industrial gas turbines as determined by the thermodynamic and
fluid mechanic behavior of components: inlets, compressors,
combustors, turbines and nozzles.
Internal Flows in Turbomachines. Advanced graduate level course
covering concepts of rotational flows, inherent unsteadiness of
turbomachines, boundary layers, and wakes and losses in
turbomachines.
Thermal Engineering. Junior level undergraduate course in
thermodynamics and heat transfer.
Experimental Projects I and II. Selection and detailed planning of an
individual research project during the first semester, is
followed by construction and experimentation during the second
semester. Formal written and oral presentations are made by
each of the students.
Unified Engineering. Sophomore level undergraduate course presents the
fundamentals of solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, dynamics,
thermodynamics and propulsion, and forms the foundation for all
other courses taught by the department. The course is the
equivalent of four semester-long courses, and is cooperatively
taught over the period of a year by several faculty.
Research Interests:
Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool: Working with an
international team of researchers under FAA sponsorship to
develop an aviation system environmental-economic model to
better inform national and international policy-making. The
model will enable better assessment of the interdependencies
between aviation-related noise and emissions effects, and will
provide comprehensive cost analyses of aviation environmental
impacts under different technology, operations, policy, market
and environmental scenarios. Participants include Georgia
Institute of Technology Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory,
Harvard School of Public Health, BB&C, ICF, MVA, Vital Link
Policy Analysis, MITRE, Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, and Wyle Laboratories. (Active)
Environmental Design Space: Working with researchers from the Georgia
Institute of Technology Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
under FAA sponsorship to develop aircraft system-level tools
for assessing tradeoffs and interdependencies among
technological and operational strategies for minimizing noise,
local air quality and climate change impacts of aircraft.
(Active)
Alternative Fuels for Aviation: Sponsored by FAA and DOD to explore the
potential to reduce aviation environmental impacts via
alternative fuels while taking into account the full life cycle
of these fuels. (Active)
Impacts of Aircraft Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health: Working
with researchers at Cambridge University, University of North
Carolina, Boise State University, Harvard School of Public
Health, Stanford University, and the University of Houston
under FAA and other sponsorship to perform air quality
simulations and health impacts assessments of aviation
emissions. The work includes a study with FAA and EPA of U.S.
air quality impacts in response to the Energy Policy Act of
2005, assessments of the impacts of low sulfur and alternative
fuels, analyses of the global effects of cruise level
emissions, and development of reduced order models for use in
policy analyses. (Active)
Chemical and Microphysical Processes in the Turbine, Exhaust Nozzle,
and Plume: To aid in assessing the atmospheric effects of
current and future aircraft, working with Aerodyne Research
Incorporated under FAA, NASA and DOD sponsorship to conduct
numerical investigations of the chemistry and microphysics of
primary pollutant species, short-lived radicals, and
particulate matter, downstream of the combustor, in the
turbine, exhaust nozzle, and plume. (Active)
The Value of Environmental Technology in Commercial Aviation:
Developing probabilistic valuations for comparing aviation
climate, noise, and air quality impacts based on uncertain
health and welfare impacts and technological and operational
performance. (Active)
System for Assessing Global Aviation Emissions: Worked with researchers
from the MIT International Center for Air Transportation and
the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center through
funding from the FAA to develop an internationally-accepted
model for assessing emissions from aircraft (SAGE). (Inactive)
Operational Strategies for Contrail Mitigation: Used an aviation system
model to assess the costs and benefits of aircraft trajectory
and routing changes as a means to reduce contrail and aviation-
induced cirrus cloudiness. (Inactive)
The Economic Value of Silence: Worked with researchers from Cambridge
University on the Silent Aircraft Initiative to assess the
impact of low noise technology and operational procedures on
airline financial performance and regional economic
performance. (Inactive)
Robust Aerothermodynamic Design of Gas Turbine Engines. Worked with a
group of researchers within the Gas Turbine Laboratory to
develop methods for designing gas turbine cycles and components
to minimize performance variability in response to operating
and manufacturing variability. (Inactive)
Micro-Engines: Conducted experimental and numerical research in micro-
scale combustion systems to support the development of a
1mm2 inlet area micro-gas turbine generator using
silicon microfabrication technology. (Inactive)
High Fuel-Air Ratio Combustor and Turbine Research: Conducted numerical
and experimental work to understand unique reacting flow
physics and heat transfer effects within very high temperature
gas turbine cycles. (Inactive)
Reduction of turbomachinery fan noise: Numerical simulations and
experiments to investigate the impact of various blade wake
management strategies on rotor-stator interaction tone noise.
(Inactive)
Ejectors for jet noise reduction: Advanced mixer/ejector devices were
studied both computationally and experimentally to provide
insight into basic fluid mechanics and acoustics in an effort
to develop design procedures for these devices. (Inactive)
Consulting:
9/91-11/92--California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California;
Supersonic combustion, testing and analysis
3/93-1/95--PRC Inc., Mt. Laurel, New Jersey; Internal flow design and
analysis
7/94-3/95--Thermo Energy Systems Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts;
Analysis of novel fluid-dynamic power generation scheme
11/94-3/95--Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Columbus, Indiana; Analysis
of gas-turbine technology trends for power generation markets
3/95-1/96--Visidyne, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts; Analysis of flow
diagnostic techniques
1/96-10/98--General Electric, Aircraft Engines Group, Lynn,
Massachusetts; Gas turbine test facility evaluation
12/95-6/97--Allison Advanced Development Company, Indianapolis,
Indiana; Conducted wind-tunnel experiments
8/96-8/96--Volvo Aero, Trollhattan, Sweden; Professional development
course
2/96-3/96--Rasor Associates, Inc., Sunnyvale, California; Evaluation of
combustion process
12/96-2/97--CFD Research Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama; Micro-
combustion processes
8/27-9/27--Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver B.C., Canada; Aircraft noise
3/95-5/98--Telectro-Mek, Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana; Development of
thrust measuring systems for aircraft
2/96-present--United Technologies Corporation, East Hartford,
Connecticut; Gas turbine combustion, noise and professional
development courses
9/97-10/97--Deka Research and Development Corp., Manchester, New
Hampshire; Combustor design
10/97-2/00--Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles, CA;
Gas turbine combustion processes
3/98-9/98--WorkSmart Energy Enterprises, Inc., Chevy Chase, MD;
Evaluated the technical feasibility of utilizing company's
invention to improve heat engine efficiency
8/98-5/04--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Aircraft technology
for low emissions
4/99-9/02--Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center; Pollution
prevention technology development
10/99-6/02--Institute for Defense Analyses; Defense Science Study Group
4/00-12/00--Universal Technology Corporation; Joint Strike Fighter
Independent Technical Review Team (Air Quality & Noise)
6/01-9/01--Tamarac, LLC; Gas turbine durability
11/01-12/03--Meggitt Avionics, Inc.; Engine diagnostics
5/02-12/02--U.S. General Accounting Office; Aircraft emissions
8/02-12/02--Raytheon Missile Systems
8/02-present--Rolls-Royce, plc; Chair, Environmental Advisory Board
9/02-1/04--Alstom Power, Inc.; Gas turbine design and performance
9/07-present--Wyle Laboratories; Consultant for ACRP 02-06, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Inventories for Airports
Professional Activities:
Associate Editor, AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, 1996-99
AIAA Fellow (2005), Chair of Turbine Engine Committee 1996-98; AIAA
Air-Breathing Propulsion Technical Committee 1995-1999
Member, ASME Turbomachinery Committee
Member, American Society of Engineering Education
Lead Author, United Nations Environment Programme, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Aviation and the
Global Atmosphere, 1999
Defense Sciences Study Group, Class of 2000-2001
Joint Strike Fighter Independent Technical Review Team for Air Quality
and Noise, 2000
NRC Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for Environmental
Compatibility, 2000-2001
NASA Aircraft Engine Emissions Characterization and Inventory
Committee, 2001-2003
NASA Quiet Aircraft Technology Technical Working Group, 2001-2003
Duke University Mechanical Engineering Undergraduate Advisory Board,
2001-present
Defense Science Board Task Force on B-52 Re-Engining, 2002
Member of U.S. Delegation to ICAO Committee on Aviation and
Environment/6 (as an advisor), 2004
FAA National Particulate Roadmap, Impacts Team lead, 2004-present
Director of Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions
Reduction (PARTNER), an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored
Center of Excellence, 2004-present
Director, Congressional Study on Long-Term Environmental Improvements
for Aviation, 2004-2005
NRC Committee to Assess the Integrated Plan for a Next Generation Air
Transportation System (JPDO), 2004-2005
National Academy of Engineering, Steering Committee for Technology for
a Quieter America Study, Chair Cost-Benefit Analysis
Subcommittee, 2006-present
Transportation Research Board/National Academy of Sciences Study on
Transportation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Committee member,
2007-present
Honors and Awards:
Raymond L. Bisplinghoff Faculty Fellow, July 2000-June 2003
MIT Class of 1960 Innovation in Education Award, 2002
MIT MacVicar Faculty Fellow, 2003-present
NASA 2003 Turning Goals Into Reality Award For Noise Reduction,
2003
Elected Fellow, AIAA, 2006
FAA 2007 Excellence in Aviation Research Award, 2007
Publications:
Combustion and Emissions
``Assessment of the Impact of Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
(RVSM) on Aircraft-Related Fuel Burn and Emissions for the
Domestic United States,'' A. Malwitz, S. Balasubramanian, G.
Fleming, T. Yoder and I.A. Waitz, to appear in AIAA J. of
Aircraft, 2008.
``Microphysical Modeling of Ground-Level Aircraft-Emitted Aerosol
Formation: Roles of Sulfur-Containing Species,'' H.-W. Wong,
P.E. Yelvington, M.T. Timko, T.B. Onasch and R.C. Miake-Lye, J.
Zhang and I.A. Waitz** to appear in AIAA Journal of Propulsion
and Power, 2008.
``Assessing the Impact of Aviation on Climate,'' K. Marais, S.P.
Lukachko, M. Jun, A. Mahashabde, and I.A. Waitz,
Meteorologische Zeitschrift, April 2008.
``System for assessing Aviation's Global Emissions (SAGE): Model
Description and Inventory Results,'' B.Y. Kim, G.G. Fleming,
J.J. Lee, I.A. Waitz, J.-P. Clarke, S. Balasubramanian, A.
Malwitz, K. Klima, M. Locke, C.A. Holsclaw, L.Q. Maurice and
M.L. Gupta, Transportation Research, Part D, Vol. 12, pp. 325-
346, 2007.
``System for assessing Aviation's Global Emissions (SAGE): Uncertainty
Assessment,'' J.J. Lee, I.A. Waitz, B.Y. Kim, G.G. Fleming,
L.Q. Maurice and C.A. Holsclaw, Transportation Research, Part
D, Vol. 12, pp. 381-395, 2007.
``A Comparison of Two Methods for Predicting Emissions from Aircraft
Gas Turbine Combustors,'' D.L. Allaire, I.A. Waitz, K.E.
Willcox, GT2007-28346, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2007:
Power for Land, Sea and Air, May 14-17, 2007.
``The evolution of carbonaceous aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions
through a gas turbine engine,'' K. Brundish, A. Clague, C.
Wilson, R.C. Miake-Lye, R. Brown, J. Wormhoudt, S.P. Lukachko,
A. Chobot, C. Yam, I. Waitz, D. Hagen, P.D. Whitefield, AIAA
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Volume 23, Number 5,
September-October, 2007.
``Impact of Manufacturing Variability on Combustor Liner Durability,''
S.D. Bradshaw and I.A. Waitz, GT2006-91098, Proceedings of the
ASME Turbo Expo, May 2006, to appear in ASME J. of Engineering
for Gas Turbines and Power, March 2009.
``Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision Statement, Framework
for Goals and Recommended Actions,'' I.A. Waitz, J. Townsend,
J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, E.M. Greitzer and J.L. Kerrebrock,
Report to the United States Congress, on behalf of the U.S.
DOT, FAA and NASA, December 2004 (delivered to Congress,
December 2005).
``Water Injection: Could it Reduce Airplane Maintenance Costs and
Airport Emissions?'' D.L. Daggett, R.C. Hendricks, A.
Mahashabde and I.A. Waitz, ISABE-2005-1249, 17th International
Symposium on Airbreathing Engines, Munich, Germany, September
4-9, 2005.
``Engine Design and Operational Impacts on Particulate Matter Precursor
Emissions,'' S.P. Lukachko, I.A. Waitz, R.C. Miake-Lye and R.C.
Brown, GT2005-69112, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, June
2005, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol.
130, Issue 2, February 2008.
``Post Combustion Evolution of Soot Properties in an Aircraft Engine,''
P.M. Dakhel, S.P. Lukachko, I.A. Waitz, R.C. Miake-Lye and R.C.
Brown, GT2005-69113, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, June
2005, AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Volume 23, Number
5, September-October, 2007.
``NO and NO2 Emissions Ratios Measured from in Use
Commercial Aircraft During Taxi and Take-Off,'' S.C. Herdon,
J.H. Shorter, M.S. Zahniser, D.D. Nelson, Jr., J. Wormhoudt, J.
Jayne, R.C. Brown, R.C. Miake-Lye, I.A. Waitz, P. Silva, T.
Lanni, K. Demerjian, and C.E. Kolb, Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 38, pp. 6078-6084, American Chemical Society,
2004.
``Aviation Emissions and Abatement Policies in the United States: A
City-Pair Analysis,'' S. Jamin, A. Schafer, M.E. Ben-Akiva, and
I.A. Waitz, Journal of Transportation Research, Part D, Volume
9, No. 4, pp. 294-314, July, 2004.
``Gas Turbine Engine Durability Impacts of High Fuel-Air Ratio
Combustors: Near Wall Reaction Effects on Film-Cooled Backward-
Facing Step Heat Transfer,'' D. Milanes, D.R. Kirk, K.
Fidkowski and I.A. Waitz, GT2004-53259, Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo, June 2004, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, Volume 128, Issue 2, pp. 318-325, April, 2006.
``Aircraft and Energy Use,'' J.J. Lee, S.P. Lukachko and I.A. Waitz,
invited chapter in Encyclopedia of Energy, by Academic Press/
Elsevier Science, San Diego California, 2003.
``Military Aviation and the Environment: Historical Trends and
Comparison to Civil Aviation,'' I.A. Waitz, S.P. Lukachko, and
J.J. Lee, AIAA-2003-2620, invited contribution to AIAA/ICAS
International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition, Dayton,
Ohio, July 1417, 2003; AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42 No.2
(pp. 329-339) 2005.
``Historical Fuel Efficiency Characteristics of Regional Aircraft from
Technological, Operational, and Cost Perspectives,'' R.
Babikian, S.P. Lukachko and I.A. Waitz, Journal of Air
Transport Management, Volume 8, No. 6, pp. 389-400, Nov. 2002.
``Gas Turbine Engine Durability Impacts of High Fuel-Air Ratio
Combustors. Part 1: Potential for Oxidation of Partially-
Reacted Fuel,'' S.P. Lukachko, D.R. Kirk and I.A. Waitz, GT-
2002-30077, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, June 2002. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, Vol. 125, July 2003.
``Gas Turbine Engine Durability Impacts of High Fuel-Air Ratio
Combustors. Part 2: Near-Wall Reaction Effects on Film-Cooled
Heat Transfer,'' D.R. Kirk, G.R. Guenette, S.P. Lukachko and
I.A. Waitz, GT-2002-30182, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2002. Journal of Engineering
for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 125, July 2003.
``Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost and
Emissions,'' Lee, J.J., Lukachko, S.P., Waitz, I.A., and
Schafer, A., (invited contribution) Annual Review of Energy and
the Environment, Volume 26, 2001.
``Mobility 2001,'' Marks, D., et al., World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Switzerland, 2001.
``Aviation and Climate Change,'' R.C. Miake-Lye, I.A. Waitz, D.W.
Fahey, C.E. Kolb, H.L. Wesoky, and C.C. Wey, Aerospace America,
September, 2000.
``Heterogeneous Reactions in Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines,'' R.C.
Brown, R.C. Miake-Lye, S.P. Lukachko and I.A. Waitz,
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 29, No. 10, February, 2002.
``Turbine and Nozzle Effects on Emissions,'' I.A. Waitz et al., Part 7
of Chapter 7 (Aircraft technology and relation to emissions) of
Part 2 (Aviation technology and emissions mitigation) of UN-
sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, 1999.
``Confined Swirling Flows with Heat Release and Mixing,'' D. Underwood,
I.A. Waitz, and E.M. Greitzer, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Volume 16, Number 2, March-April, 2000, pp. 169-177.
``Production of Sulfate Aerosol Precursors in the Turbine and Exhaust
Nozzle of an Aircraft Engine,'' S.P. Lukachko, I.A. Waitz, R.C.
Miake-Lye, R.C. Brown, and M.A. Anderson, Journal of
Geophysical Research, Volume 103, No. D13, July 10, 1998.
``Effects of Engine Aging on Aircraft NOX Emissions,'' S.P. Lukachko,
I.A. Waitz, Paper 97-GT-386, ASME Turbo Expo, Orlando, Florida,
June 2-5, 1997.
``Chemical Processes in the Turbine and Exhaust Nozzle,'' S.P.
Lukachko, I.A. Waitz, R.C. Miake-Lye, R.C. Brown, and M.R.
Anderson, M.R., presented at the International Colloquium on
the Impact of Aircraft Emissions upon the Atmosphere, Paris,
France, October 15-18, 1996.
``Streamwise Vorticity Enhanced Mixing in a Reacting Shear Layer,''
D.S. Underwood, and I.A. Waitz, AIAA Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Volume 12, No. 4, July-August, 1996.
``Investigation of a Contoured Wall Injector for Hypervelocity Mixing
Augmentation,'' I. Waitz, F. Marble, and E. Zukoski, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 31, no. 6, June 1993.
``Vorticity Generation by Contoured Wall Injectors,'' I. Waitz, F.
Marble, and E. Zukoski, presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME 28th
Joint Propulsion Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 6-8, 1992.
``A Systematic Experimental and Computational Investigation of a Class
of Contoured Wall Fuel Injectors,'' I. Waitz, F. Marble, and E.
Zukoski, AIAA 92-0625 presented at the AIAA 30th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 6-9, 1992.
``Planar Rayleigh Scattering Results in Helium-Air Mixing Experiments
in a Mach 6 Wind Tunnel,'' B. Shirinzadeh, I.A. Waitz, J.
Balla, M.E. Hillard, J.B. Anders, and R.J. Exton, Applied
Optics, Vol. 31, No. 30, October, 1992.
``Shock Enhancement and Control of Hypersonic Mixing and Combustion,''
F. Marble, E. Zukoski, J. Jacobs, G. Hendricks, and I. Waitz,
AIAA 90-1981, presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 26th Joint
Propulsion Conference, Orlando, Florida, July 16-18, 1990.
Aircraft Noise
``Challenges and Promises in Mitigating Transportation Noise,'' I.A.
Waitz, R.J. Bernhard, C.E. Hanson, The Bridge, National Academy
of Engineering, Vol. 37, Fall 2007.
``Assessment of Silent Aircraft-Enabled Regional Development and
Airline Economics in the UK,'' R. Tam, P. Belobaba, K.R.
Polenske, I.A. Waitz, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, 8-11 Jan 2007.
``Trailing Edge Blowing for Reduction of Turbomachinery Fan Noise,''
J.M. Brookfield and I.A. Waitz, AIAA Paper 98-2321, 4th AIAA/
CAES Aeroacoustics Conference, Toulouse, France, June 2-4,
1998, AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Volume 16, Number
1, January-February 2000, pp. 57-64.
``Aeroacoustic Measurement of Transient Hot Nozzle Flows,'' D.R. Kirk,
D.O. Creviston and I.A. Waitz, 5th AIAA/CAES Aeroacoustics
Conference Proceedings, 1999, AIAA Journal of Propulsion,
Volume 17, Number 4, July-August 2001, pp. 928-935.
``A Mixer-Ejector Noise-Suppressor Model,'' D. Tew, and I. Waitz, AIAA
Paper 97-1682, AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference Proceedings, May
1997, AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power, Volume 14, No. 6,
November-December 1998.
``Transient Testing Techniques for Jet Noise Measurements,'' J.M.
Kerwin, I.A. Waitz, AIAA Paper 97-1684, AIAA Aeroacoustics
Conference Proceedings, May 1997.
``Impact of Compressibility on Mixing with Large-Scale Streamwise
Vortices,'' D. Tew, and I. Waitz, AIAA Paper 97-2637, AIAA
Joint Propulsion Conference, June 1997. AIAA Journal, Vol. 42,
Number 11, pp. 2393-2396, 2004.
``Preliminary Assessment of Wake Management Strategies for Reduction of
Turbomachinery Fan Noise,'' I.A. Waitz, J.M. Brookfield, J.
Sell, and B.J. Hayden, CEAS/AIAA 95-102, AIAA Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Volume 12, Number 4, July-August, 1996.
``The Role of Streamwise Vorticity in Compressible Mixing Downstream of
Lobed Mixers,'' D. Tew, I. Waitz, J. Hermanson, and E.
Greitzer, AIAA 95-2746, presented at the 31st AIAA/ASME/SAE/
ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, San Diego, CA, July 10-12,
1995.
Gas Turbine Engines
``Impact of Compressibility on Mixing Downstream of Lobed Mixers,''
D.E. Tew, J.C. Hermanson and I.A. Waitz,'' AIAA Journal, Vol.
42, Number 11, pp. 2393-2396, 2004.
``Endwall Blockage in Axial Compressors,'' S.A. Khalid, A.S. Khalsa,
I.A. Waitz, E.M. Greitzer, C.S. Tan, N.A. Cumpsty, J. Adamczyk,
and F.E. Marble, ASME Turbo Expo, Stockholm, Sweden, June 1998,
ASME J. of Turbomachinery, Vol. 121, No. 3, pp. 499-511, July,
1999.
``Rotor Wake Decay: Effect of Swirl,'' J.M. Brookfield, I.A. Waitz, J.
Sell,'' ASME Paper 96-GT-495, ASME Turbo Expo, Orlando,
Florida, June 2-5, 1997, and AIAA Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Volume 14, No. 2, March-April, 1998.
``Enhanced Mixing with Streamwise Vorticity,'' I.A. Waitz, J.K. Elliot,
A.K.S. Fung, J.M. Kerwin, J.K. Krasnodebski, M.N. O'Sullivan,
Y.J. Qiu, D.E. Tew, E.M. Greitzer, F.E. Marble, C.S. Tan, and
T.G. Tillman, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 33, Number
5/6, May/June 1997.
``A Computational Study of Viscous Effects on Lobed Mixer Flow Features
and Performance,'' M.N. O'Sullivan, I.A. Waitz, E.M. Greitzer,
C.S. Tan, and W.N. Dawes, AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Volume 12, Number 2, March-April 1996.
``Vortices in Aero-Propulsion Systems,'' I. Waitz, E. Greitzer, and C.
Tan, in Fluid Vortices, ed. S. Green, Kluwer Academic
Publishing, 1994.
``Enhanced Mixing in Gas Turbine Propulsion Systems,'' I.A. Waitz, T.G.
Tillman, D.C. McCormick, Global Gas Turbine News, International
Gas Turbine Institute, August 1993.
Micro Heat Engines
``Microcombustion,'' C. Spadaccini and I.A. Waitz, chapter in
Comprehensive Microsystems, eds. Y.B. Gianchandani, O. Tabata,
and H. Zappe, Elsevier, New York, NY, 2007.
``Catalytic Combustion Systems for Micro-Scale Gas Turbine Engines,''
C.M. Spadaccini, J.-W. Peck, and I.A. Waitz, GT2005-68382,
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, June 2005, Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Volume 129, Issue 1,
pp. 49-60, January 2007.
``High Power Density Silicon Combustion Systems for Micro Gas Turbine
Engines,'' C.M. Spadaccini, A. Mehra, J. Lee, X. Zhang, S.
Lukachko, and I.A. Waitz, GT-2002-30082, Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2002. Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 125, July 2003.
``Development of a Catalytic Silicon Micro-Combustor for Hydrocarbon-
fueled Power MEMS,'' C.M. Spadaccini, X. Zhang, C.P. Cadou, N.
Miki, and I.A. Waitz, Sensors and Actuators A 103 (2003) 219-
224.
``Igniters and temperature sensors for a micro-scale combustion
system,'' Xin Zhang, Amit Mehra, Arturo A. Ayon, Ian A. Waitz,
Sensors and Actuators A 103 (2003) 253-262.
``Centimeter-Diameter Gas Turbine Generators for Compact Power,'' A.H.
Epstein, S.A. Jacobson, Y. Gong, R. Khanna, J. Lang, H. Li, L.
Liu, C. Livermore, H.-S. Moon, J. Protz, N. Savoulides, M.
Schmidt, C. Spadaccini, M. Spearing, C.J. Teo, I. Waitz, D.
Ward, Proceedings of the 2003 Power & Energy Collaborative
Technology Alliance Symposium.
``Development of Polysilicon Ignitors and Temperature Sensors for a
Micro Gas Turbine Engine,'' X. Zhang, A. Mehra, A.A. Ayon, and
I.A. Waitz, IEEE 15th International Micro Electro Mechanical
Systems Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, January 20-24, 2002.
``A 6-Wafer Combustion System for a Silicon Micro Gas Turbine Engine,''
Mehra, A., Zhang, X., Ayon, A., Waitz, I., and Schmidt, M.,
Spadaccini, C., Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems,
Volume 9, Number 4, December 2000, pp. 517-527.
``A Through-Wafer Electrical Interconnect for Multi-Level MEMS
Devices,'' Mehra, A., Zhang, X., Ayon, A., Waitz, I., and
Schmidt, M., Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, Volume
18, No. 5, September/October 2000.
``Combustion Tests in the Static Structure of a 6-Wafer Micro Gas
Turbine Engine,'' A. Mehra, I.A. Waitz and M.A. Schmidt, 1999
Solid State Sensor and Actuator Workshop, June 2-4, 1999.
``Microfabrication of High-Temperature Silicon Devices Using Wafer
Bonding and Deep Reactive Ion Etching,'' A. Mehra, A.A. Ayon,
I.A. Waitz, and M.A. Schmidt, Journal of Microelectromechanical
Systems, pp. 152-160, Volume 8, Number 2, June 1999.
``Development of a Hydrogen Combustor for a Microfabricated Gas Turbine
Engine,'' A. Mehra and I. A. Waitz, 1998 Solid State Sensor and
Actuator Workshop, Hilton Head Transducers Conference, June 2-
4, 1998.
``Combustors for a Micro Gas Turbine Engines,'' I.A. Waitz, G. Gautam,
Y.-S. Tzeng, (Invited paper) International Symposium on Micro-
Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), ASME 1996 International
Engineering Congress and Exposition, 17-22 November, Atlanta,
Georgia, 1996, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, Volume 120,
March 1998.
``Power MEMS and Microengines,'' Epstein et al., IEEE Transducers '97
Conference, Chicago, IL, June 1997.
``Micro-Heat Engines, Gas Turbines, and Rocket Engines--The MIT
Microengine Project,'' Epstein et al., AIAA Paper 97-1773, 28th
AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Snowmass, CO, June 29-July 2,
1997.
Other Publications
``Integrated Teaching of Experimental and Communication Skills to
Undergraduate Aerospace Engineering Students,'' I.A. Waitz and
E.C. Barrett, presented at the 1996 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, June 1996, ASEE Journal of Engineering Education,
July 1997.
``Experimental Investigation of Wing/Fuselage Integration Geometries,''
M. Maughmer, D. Hallman, R. Ruszkowski, G. Chappel, and I.
Waitz, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 26, No. 6, August, 1989.
``Rotating Disk Transition Due to Isolated Roughness with Intense
Acoustic Irradiation,'' I. Waitz and S. Wilkinson, AIAA 88-
3761, presented at the First National Fluid Dynamics Congress,
Cincinnati, Ohio, July 24-28, 1988.
Patents:
``Reduction of Turbomachinery Noise''
I.A. Waitz, J.M. Brookfield, J. Sell, K.U. Ingard, and B.J. Hayden
U.S. Patent #6,004,095 issued December 21, 1999.
``Microturbomachinery''
A.H. Epstein, S.D. Senturia, I.A. Waitz, J.H. Lang, S. Jacobson, F.F.
Ehrich, M.A. Schmidt, G.K. Ananthasuresh, M.S. Spearing, K.S. Breuer,
S.F. Nagle
U.S. Patent #5,932,940 issued August 3, 1999.
``Microturbomachinery''
A.H. Epstein, S.D. Senturia, I.A. Waitz, J.H. Lang, S. Jacobson, F.F.
Ehrich, M.A. Schmidt, G.K. Ananthasuresh, M.S. Spearing, K.S. Breuer,
and S.F. Nagle
U.S. Patent #6,392,313 issued May 21, 2002.
Discussion
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Waitz. I am very
sympathetic to your suggestions. This committee has tried to in
various capacities authorize that R&D. It is very important to
the country. We have got to get the funding to follow up, which
means we need Presidential leadership and help in that regard.
So at this point I am going to open up the first round of
questions. I will be recognized for five minutes and following
up on that topic let me just say that it is clear that all of
you agree that it is important that NextGen be successful, and
I think it is important that we have a President who is
supportive, provides funding and leadership. We are going to
have an election soon and a new President here in just a few
months, and so we are trying to put together as a Committee
some recommendations for the next President, whomever that
might be, in areas of our jurisdiction.
Recommendations to the Next President
So I would like to take a quick couple of minutes here to
get your recommendations on what we should then make to the
next President concerning NextGen. Why don't we start, well,
Dr. Waitz, you want to start with yourself?
Dr. Waitz. Certainly. I would be pleased to. My primary
recommendation would be to recognize that mobility and
environment are both public goods, and right now they are
standing in the way of one another. And a small amount of
investment in the area resolving these problems could have a
major payoff. So I think it is an excellent area for us to
invest in terms of advancing our scientific understanding, as
well as our ability to develop and advance the Air
Transportation System.
Chairman Gordon. Anyone else have any recommendations that
you would like for us to include? Yes, sir.
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I think you hit the nail on
the head when you talked about having the President or the new
Administration recognize that this is a very crucial issue for
the Nation in terms of the role that transportation plays both
in the global economy as well as domestically. And I think it
is also important that the identification and confirmation
process for the Cabinet level as well as the FAA Administrator
be high on the list, because right now we are at a situation
where there is, you know, that leadership is very important as
champions for NextGen and transportation.
Chairman Gordon. Hopefully that confirmation process will
make that clear. Does anyone else like to--yes, sir.
Dr. Kaminski. Mr. Chairman, I think the important word here
really is execution, for us to begin to get on with the
implementation of this program and with the kind of foundation
plan that I have put in the statement for the record I think it
is a way to actually achieve this, to get on with the program
and to also build the personnel skills that are going to be
needed for this kind of key development. And that ought to be
highlighted to an incoming President.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Scovel.
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me, there have
been general comments. Let me highlight one specific
observation for the Committee's consideration.
And that is keeping in mind your jurisdiction over NASA. As
the Committee well knows, NASA has reduced its funding for JPDO
and NextGen and has chosen to focus more on fundamental
research than on its customary role in the past of not only
research but also developing prototypes which it could hand up
to the FAA when they were appropriately ready.
Our office in conjunction with the NASA IG has undertaken a
study of specific areas where NASA has made reductions in
funding, has cut back to fundamental research. It may well be
wise for this committee, if I may suggest, that you consider
recommending to the President that NASA receives sufficient
funding to not only conduct its fundamental research but to
bring prototypes to FAA so that NextGen can get that added
boost.
Chairman Gordon. We have put that in our authorization,
unfortunately, we have seen across-the-board reductions in
aeronautics research.
Ms. Cox, do you want to finish up on this one?
Ms. Cox. Yes. Thank you. The FAA would also welcome the
national attention and the focus on NextGen. We have quite a
few plans underway, and we are, as you can see from my
testimony, we have made some great progress that we would like
to see continue.
Our budget request for '09, and beyond represents
significant increases over past years, and we think that it is
important to continue to support the program in a carefully-
aligned and consistent way. And so we would ask for that. Thank
you.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. We are on a timeline, so let me
just try to quickly get through one more question.
I have a variety of other questions, particularly for Ms.
Cox that I am going to submit for the record and but let me
just finish up here.
FAA Reorganization
Dr. Dillingham, as you have pointed out, provisions were
included in the House-passed FAA Authorization Bill to
strengthen the JPDO by having its director report directly to
the FAA Administrator. In addition, I am responding to a
request for the record from the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman
Costello on the extent to which moving JPDO out of the FAA's
air traffic organization and how it would give the JPDO greater
visibility and authority. GAO stated, and I quote GAO that,
``JPDO's dual reporting status hinders its ability to interact
on an equal footing with ATO and the other partner agencies.''
GAO also said, and I quote, ``JPDO must counter the perception
that it is a proxy for the ATO and as such is not able to act
as an honest broker.'' And finally, GAO added that it is
important for JPDO to have some independence from ATO, one
exchange that, or one change that could, again, to address this
issue would be to have the JPDO Director report directly to the
FAA Administrator.
And Dr. Dillingham, after the FAA's recent reorganization,
the JPDO Director has two ATO management layers above him
before he can reach the Administrator. Are you concerned that
JPDO lacks sufficient independence from ATO as a result of this
restructure? What would be the potential consequences of the
lack of independence?
And Mr. Scovel, from your perspective what is the impact of
FAA's reorganization on the NextGen development implementation
effort? And can you elaborate on how you would characterize in
your statement as friction between the JPDO and ATO?
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You certainly got
our words correct from the last time we talked. I guess our
bottom line on this is the jury is still out in terms of how
this new governance, new organizational structure is going to
play with the external stakeholders. We, as you correctly said,
we have said that we believe that a direct report to the
Administrator was the best arrangement. It was similar to what
was in the House Reauthorization.
And the reason, part of the reason we said that is because
if JPDO is going to be seen by the partner agencies as an
objective, independent facilitator of multi-agency activities,
then it seems to be important that they are on equal footing
with some of the other parts of FAA and have a direct report
that it doesn't have to go through.
We, when we talked to FAA to about this, one of the
concerns, and we have talked to Chairman Costello about the
same things and we didn't get the sense that the stakeholders
had been allowed to comment on this, that it was more presented
to them as a fait accompli. FAA has since told us that the
internal stakeholders within FAA are supportive of this new
arrangement, and we suggested that they go and talk to the
external stakeholders and see if they are feeling the same way.
And, you know, I guess one of the big things and something
that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is when these major
reorganizations take place, it seems that Congressional
consultation should be a part of that as well.
Chairman Gordon. Chairman Costello is itching to follow up
on this, and he will have his chance here in just a moment.
Let me just, to be brief, and as you said, the jury is out
on whether this is going to be successful. I would add to that
that the burden of proof is on the FAA to determine that this
change of operation is successful when it is against most all
the advice.
I would like to go further, but I can't. I now recognize
Mr. Hall for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. If Mr. Costello has a problem with staying, I
will yield some of my time to you now.
Chairman Gordon. I think his problem is sitting still in
his seat.
NextGen Funding
Mr. Hall. Okay. Well, my first question will be to Ms. Cox,
and you know, this is the time of year we go to hearing about
CRs and at the end of every session CRs are pitched around, and
I guess if the people, the voters ever really realized and
understand what a CR is, that they are going to empty the
capital of everybody, Republicans and Democrats up here that
yield to the use of CRs. CRs to me is simply saying we are
going to do next year what we did last year because we can't
get together this year. And it narrows right down to that.
But, Ms. Cox, I wanted to ask you if FAA is funded through
a continuing resolution for all of the FY '09, what impact
would it have on NextGen and the JPDO? You know what this year
and what last year did.
Ms. Cox. Correct. Our interest is in maintaining a
continuous funding stream for NextGen so that we can continue
the plans that we have in place. We are concerned about a CR, a
year-long CR is particularly concerning in terms of our ability
to carry out our plans that we have laid for NextGen and the
requirements.
We are sufficiently aligned to make use of the funding in a
prompt manner as it comes on board. A concern is, as I
mentioned earlier, we have a rather large increase in our
budget request for fiscal year '09, that we need to get this
rolling. So the language around the CR will be important to us
as we move forward.
Mr. Hall. And I thank you for that.
Dr. Dillingham or Mr. Scovel, how would you assess OMB's
record up to this time of coordinating and aligning research
budgets among participating federal agencies, and how has OMB
been effective, if they have been effective? And a lot of times
we question their effectiveness. A lot of times.
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Hall, I think that in this case the
efforts have been noteworthy. Early on because this is a multi-
agency enterprise, the idea of working together and ensuring
that resources that are aimed for NextGen are, in fact,
considered as a portfolio in OMB's consideration I think is a
step forward that JPDO and FAA has been able to achieve. It is
very hard to, or at least historically it has been very
difficult to marshal cross-agency projects, particularly when
you are talking about five or six different Cabinet-level
organizations.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And Mr. Scovel.
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Your opinion on that.
Mr. Scovel. Yes, if I may. Thank you. My statement, sir,
speaks to disconnects between FAA and other agencies which
might well be remedied through greater OMB attention to FAA's
NextGen effort. Specifically, I have mentioned earlier between
FAA and NASA and the fundamental research question. Our
statement also speaks to the disconnect between FAA and DOD and
DHS on surveillance efforts between FAA and DOD on Net Centric
Operations efforts and most tellingly I think and the clearest
example of all of this is between FAA and the Department of
Commerce and specifically NOAA on the weather capabilities
question, the so-called 4-D Weather Cube. There is a great
difference between the budget request that Department of
Commerce has submitted for NOAA to coordinate weather and what
FAA on the other hand expects, and it requires some great
attention and resolution at the OMB level.
The Development of Alternative Jet Fuels
Mr. Hall. I thank you for that. Dr. Waitz, there is a lot
of talk today about coal to liquid and a lot of questions and
differences on drilling and when we drill and why don't we
drill and all that.
You suggest that aviation's impact on the climate might be
reduced through the development of alternative jet fuels. I
think such as coal to liquid. What other types of fuels are
under study, and I guess more importantly than that, including
production and distribution, will they produce substantially
less carbon than the conventional petroleum-based fuels? And
will they have a similar carbon footprint, and any estimates on
costs compared to petroleum-based fuels?
Dr. Waitz. You have identified all of the right issues. The
production of fuels from alternative sources is something that
we know how to do. Coal to liquid is only a good solution for
the environment if we can find a way to sequester the CO2
as part of that, and that is a huge grand challenge.
Mr. Hall. We have more coal than any--more usable coal I am
told than any other nation in the world.
Dr. Waitz. Understood. That tends to increase the
production of CO2 rather than decrease it on going
coal to liquid. I think the most promising things to look to
are bio sources, particularly those that do not compete with,
you know, food crops and things, because there can be some
friction between the two. I expect that there would be very
limited amounts of resources for doing that to make significant
changes, at least initially, but there is also a very healthy
research enterprise that is looking at that topic, and it is
one of the, you know, things that we have to pay a lot of
attention to because if we could solve that problem and really
produce fuels from bio sources that had no net CO2
impact, it would change the equation. So it is an important
thing to pursue.
Mr. Hall. My time is up or I would ask you about the cost
estimates, but I will get back to that.
Chairman Gordon. You can submit any questions for the
record, Mr. Hall.
And really, the Congressional leader in, concerning
FutureGen is, well, FutureGen and NextGen, is Congressman
Costello. Chairman Costello, and he is recognized for five
minutes.
General Comments on NextGen
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I thank you for
your kind words in your opening statements, and I thank Mr.
Hall for offering to yield to me as well.
You know, we could get into a lot of issues here concerning
NextGen, but we have limited time. Let me say that it is an
important project. Everyone recognizes that, all of the
stakeholders. This is a huge project for the FAA to handle.
Frankly, we need to move from a radar-based system to satellite
technology that will increase the safety and efficiency and
environmental capacity of our Air Transport System.
But I have to tell you, and I have said this at the T&I
Committee, I have said it in briefings, I have said it in round
tables, I have said it in meetings with Ms. Cox and many others
from the FAA. I really question if the FAA has the capability
and the capacity to manage a project of this magnitude. And I
say that for the record with Members of the Science Committee.
I want to clarify a point as well, and Members should
understand, I think Members of the T&I Committee, certainly the
Aviation Subcommittee understand, the restructuring of how the
acting Administrator handled the restructuring of JPDO within
the FAA, I still have questions as to if it is the most
efficient way to go about and prioritize and to make NextGen a
real priority within FAA.
You know, we held a number of hearings, a lot of meetings,
a lot of round-table discussions not only with the FAA but also
all of the stakeholders. The people in the end will have to run
the system, the people in the end who will be affected by the
system and the airlines, general aviation, many others. And we
came up with what I thought was a very good bill in the H.R.
2881, which passed the Committee unanimously, both
Subcommittee, Full Committee, and passed through the House of
Representatives.
And one of the things that we did in that bill was to
elevate the head of the JPDO and to have that person report
directly to the FAA Administrator, and we did it not based upon
what we thought was best but based upon what all of the
stakeholders thought was best, including, I don't want to speak
for Dr. Dillingham and the IG, but others, with all of their
input we felt that if we are going to get this major project
done, that the JPDO person had to report directly to the FAA
Administrator.
Not only did that not happen, after the bill passed the
House on September 20 of 2007, there was a restructuring within
FAA that we found out about by reading it in the newspaper as
Members of this committee did. We were not consulted, either
the Majority or the Minority in the Aviation Subcommittee or
the Full Committee.
And when we had a meeting to determine why the FAA would
move in this direction, which is contrary to what the
stakeholders told us was the best system to move to and what
the will of the House was by voting for H.R. 2881, we were told
that they thought internally that this was the best way to move
forward. At that meeting I must tell you the head of the JPDO,
who is sitting right here in the front row, Mr. Leader, I asked
him the question, I said, were you consulted about this? You
are the head of the JPDO, and he said, no. No one talked to me
about it.
So I asked Mr. Krakowski, who is now the head of the Air
Traffic Organization, I said, you didn't consult with the head
of JPDO to find out what their input would be, how it would
affect them, what they thought? No. And I said, why not? He
said, because Mr. Leader was out of town. And I said, so, how
long was he out of town, and he said, for the last week. I
asked Mr. Leader. He said I was out of town for the last week.
So I said, so you put all of this reorganization together in
five working days? Well, no, they had been working on it for a
few months.
And it is one of the problems that we are facing, not only
with NextGen but with a number of other problems and issues
within the FAA. They have a long record of not consulting with
stakeholders, people who run the system, people who, in fact,
are affected by the system.
So I wanted to clarify that. It is not a question for Ms.
Cox. She is not the person who made those decisions, but I want
to tell you that I think it was a major mistake the way that it
was restructured, and I believe that if, in fact, we are going
to get this job done, to go to a satellite-based system, that
the JPDO head should be reporting directly to the FAA
Administrator. I think all of the stakeholders would tell you
that. They told us that, and that is the reason that we put it
in the reauthorization bill.
I am pleased on a positive note that as Dr. Dillingham
indicated that for the longest time the FAA, they were moving
forward, putting NextGen together without consulting the air
traffic controllers and others who in the end will have to run
the system. It was a recommendation by I think Dr. Dillingham
and General Scovel, it was a recommendation certainly of the
Subcommittee, and finally, they are now consulting with some of
the stakeholders.
But I have to tell you that we have a lot of questions
about where we go from here, questions about the agency's
ability to undertake a project of this magnitude. You are
talking about a project that the estimates run all the way up
to $20, $25 billion to implement between now and the year 2025.
The IG back in April of this year said to the FAA, you have
long-term goals. We know where you are today, we know where you
want to be in 2025, but what are your short-term goals and give
us some reports as to where we are today. Give us a gap
analysis, give us an interim architecture, and that was the
IG's recommendation.
So we had at a meeting yesterday very briefly with Ms. Cox,
and she tells me that both the gap analysis and interim
architecture should be done by the end of the year.
But I have major concerns about how we are headed. I think
that we have to provide very aggressive oversight, both this
committee and the Aviation Subcommittee, in order to not only
make certain that the project stays on track but that we
monitor it in a proper way and not from the standpoint of is it
on track, is it moving to the goal that we want to achieve. But
also the cost.
This project has been going on for many, many years, not
only under this Administration but previous Administrations. A
lot of time and billions of dollars have been spent on this
project, and we have very few results to show for it.
So it is my hope that this Full Committee as well as the
T&I Committee will continue to provide aggressive oversight and
to work with the FAA on NextGen.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I know I exceeded my time.
Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I certainly
concur with you. And Dr. Gingrey is recognized.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will address my
question to Ms. Cox.
In your written testimony you raise I think two very
interesting points, and I would like to explore those with the
Committee. First, you testified that NextGen is not simply
about air traffic capabilities but also about fostering
improvements in ground infrastructure, aircraft technologies,
and most importantly I think, alternative fuels. And then later
on you note that the airline industry sees about 40 percent of
its overall costs spent on fuel. Maybe it is more than that
now, growing all the time, and the FAA, of course, has taken a
very active role in Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative, which includes testing on both coal to liquid fuels
and gas to liquid fuels.
Our Ranking Member Hall, of course, discussed that a little
bit with Dr. Waitz in regard to coal to liquid technology. And
saying that, I find it troubling that this Congress seems to
handcuff these efforts with a section in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was passed last
year, and I am referencing, Ms. Cox, Section 526. I am sure you
are familiar with that section, but it explicitly prevents the
Federal Government, any agency actually, any agency of the
Federal Government, including, Dr. Waitz, the Department of
Defense and within the Department of Defense the United States
Air Force, which is using most of the fuel in our air fleet.
But this section prevents any agency of the Federal
Government from contracting for the purchase of any alternative
fuel if it results in one scintilla increase in the carbon
dioxide footprint. Dr. Waitz has great concerns about that, and
it seems to me in his testimony to be sympathetic with maybe
the EU's approach to climate change and the Kyoto Protocol and
that sort of approach.
It seems to me that that kind of policy is misguided
especially when we are on a time of great dependency, great
dependency on other countries for our fuel. And that it, indeed
would stymie the efforts of the FAA in undertaking with NextGen
and developing alternative fuels. And so to that end let me ask
you two specific questions. First, because of these high fuels
costs can you provide the Committee with the progress of
testing coal to liquid fuels within its role in NextGen?
And the second question I have for you is this. Please
answer this one yes or no if you will. If the Federal
Government is supposed to take the lead on alternative fuels,
then isn't Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, a roadblock to innovation for NextGen? And if
there is time remaining, I would like to ask maybe Dr. Waitz to
comment on that as well.
Ms. Cox. Thank you for the question. In terms of progress
in alternative fuels, the FAA continues its investment in the
program through the CAAFI work that we are doing that Dr. Waitz
referenced. I would defer to his superior knowledge on the
progress of testing in the coal to liquid fuels. I am not an
expert in that area, and I know that Dr. Waitz is the expert in
that area.
We remain committed to finding an alternative fuel that
does reduce the carbon footprint, and to that end we have
increased our investment overall in the environment with our
R&D budget by a great deal between '08, and '09. Over our
environmental investment has gone up 135 percent, and of the
total R&D budget our investment in the environment is a full, a
little over 10 percent of our entire R&D budget, which this
committee is very familiar with.
So we remain committed to--and we are encouraged by the
progress that is being made, and in fact, we think that 526
sets a bar that we probably need to meet in terms of carbon
dioxide. But, again, I defer to----
Mr. Gingrey. Well, let me just say this, and I know my time
is limited and maybe won't get back to Dr. Waitz and maybe we
can in a second round. But when you tell the agency, the
Federal Government, particularly the Department of Defense that
don't bother to contract for any alternative fuels other than
conventional bubble-up petroleum jet fuel, that they are not
going to be able to use it, so that certainly puts a damper on
their enthusiasm for conducting the research on things like
coal to liquid, carbon sequestration as Dr. Waitz said. That is
the very research that we are trying to do within NASA and
Department of Defense. And it is just counterproductive.
So I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I, maybe I will
have some time in the second round.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. I do have some
good news for you. In that same act that you pointed out, this
committee put in that Energy Bill an extensive program on
carbon capture and sequestration, which is the basis for any
type of coal to liquid or anything else as Dr. Waitz pointed
out.
So the first step is being taken. You can't do the second
until you get the carbon sequestration. This Committee played a
big role in that program.
Ms. Edwards, you are recognized.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NextGen Budget and Education Issues
Dr. Kaminski, in your testimony you advocated securing
systems acquisition, systems engineering, and integrated
management talent at FAA and other agencies as part of
accelerating NextGen. And so I am really curious given today's
competitive environment, competing needs at other agencies,
what you think the FAA can do to distinguish itself and
particularly looking, and then to Ms. Cox, looking at the
budget allocations for projections for the current fiscal year
and the out years, a doubling and then a tripling of the budget
for NextGen and what the plans really are within the FAA to be
able to both acquire the talent in house that it needs to
oversee this kind of project, and you know, where the plans
might be, particularly Dr. Kaminski, for reaching that kind of
talent, given the competition from other agencies and even in
the private sector.
Dr. Kaminski. That is a very good and important question,
and when we look at the funding that the country is going spend
for this program over a 20-year period, my estimate would be
something approaching $100 billion when we start to look at all
of our equipage issues, including the private sector
investments that will be made in a corresponding way.
So this is a big deal. This is a big and important and
large, complicated program. And to get to your question to
training the people, what I proposed in the briefing that I
submitted for the record, is an approach that involves building
a little, testing a little, developing, modeling, and
simulation tools to be able to predict how this system will
work.
Those are going to be a very important foundation for us to
have as we look at new capabilities over time. We also have the
problem of what I would describe as changing the tire on the
car that is going 60 miles an hour, because we are going to
have to implement these improvements as we are moving along,
having modeling and simulation that we validated by
demonstrations is going to be very critical for us to be able
to do that.
The modeling and simulation and the demonstrations that I
propose also are a superb training ground for people to gain
some domain experience in what is going on. Education is
required, but domain experience is also required in this
process.
So it is going to be very important for us to build that
base. I do not believe that entire base is present today at the
FAA. I think the FAA is planning to try to build that base, but
it will be a challenge.
And then to your last question, one of the incentives to
attract people to this kind of activity, I don't believe they
are only going to be financial incentives. In my experience in
the DOD what I have found is that it is possible to attract
best and brightest people to government and to industry and
this kind of activity, but keeping them depends upon providing
them with real challenges, providing them with the tools to
address those challenges, and most importantly allowing them to
see that they can make a difference, that they can change the
world, they can change the infrastructure of our country in
important ways. That is the fundamental attractor.
Ms. Edwards. Well, it certainly has to be interesting work,
and then Ms. Cox, can you address the budget concerns? Because
I am just, I think that kind of growth is really significant,
and I am not really sure what you have in house to manage that
kind of growth.
Ms. Cox. Yeah. Thank you for the question. It is a very
good one. In response to the systems engineering issue, I can
say that we are growing some of that talent in house. Fifty-
seven employees in the air traffic organization have received
certificates in graduate systems engineering disciplines, and
we have 60 employees who are currently enrolled in certificate
programs in systems engineering. So we gain some in that way.
We are concerned about systems engineering and other
technical skills such as information technology specialists,
automation specialists that we will need going forward to
support the level of work that you point out that we have. We
have hired within the NextGen and operations planning
organization over the past year 78 new employees, most of whom
came from outside the FAA. One way we attract people is as Dr.
Kaminski has pointed out through the very, this is a very
exciting program. This is a real opportunity to make a
difference, and I think that is very attractive to folks,
especially recent graduates just entering the workplace, and
that is a group that we do want to attract.
We believe that we are going to need to hire on the level
of 300 more in-house professionals in addition to the
assistance that we can get through external sources such as
federally funded research and development corporations and
other external opportunities to bring people on board.
And we are working closely with our human resources
organization to be sure that they have the resources on hand to
help us recruit and bring in those people. And as Dr. Kaminski
points out, the methods to retain the people once we get them.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Edwards and Ms. Cox.
Dr. Ehlers, you are recognized.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have spent
entirely too much time with some of you in the past two days,
but I enjoyed it.
FAA Hiring
Ms. Cox, continuing with some of this discussion, I voiced
yesterday in one of the two meetings we had my concern about
NASA involvement and that they don't seem to have the funding
or the personnel to do it. Now, you are taking on more and
greater research and development responsibilities as a result,
aren't you, in the FAA? And your last comment about the number
of people you are adding, is that to fill that gap? Is it
specifically directed to what NASA might ordinarily have done,
or are there other factors here as well?
And I am also wondering if you have the flexibility you
need to do the hiring? I know how convoluted hiring practices
can become in the Federal Government. Obviously you need these
people fairly quickly, and I am wondering if you are having any
difficulties with that and whether you will be able to find the
mix of skills that you need in the time that you need them.
Would you just give me some idea on that?
Ms. Cox. Well, as we pointed out, we do need people to help
us manage the work that the budget request reflects that we
will need to be doing to achieve NextGen. So the hiring is
around that, and that includes the additional R&D work that we
anticipate doing to support NextGen. We have been working
closely with the human resources organization at the FAA to
address this issue of the difficulty of bringing people on
board.
We had pretty good success. Seventy-eight people in just
our organization in the course of a year, most of them coming
from outside, is a pretty good record for the Federal
Government in hiring. The FAA, as you know, has some
flexibilities in that area that we are looking at how to
utilize and take best advantage of.
I am not sure that we have always taken best advantage of
those efforts in the past, but we are looking at, we have lots
of room for innovation and moving ahead. So we hope to do that.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, if I lose my election, I may be applying
as well.
Gap Analysis Findings
Also, the gap analysis that you mentioned. You stated that
JPDO completed a gap analysis. Could you expand just a little
bit on the findings? What areas need focus, how will you handle
it, how will the partner agencies handle it?
Just if you can give me sort of an overall picture of what
the gap analysis revealed and how you are going to handle it.
Ms. Cox. Well, the gap analysis was an effort by the Joint
Planning and Development Office, and they work closely with
MITRE to assess what was in the Integrated Work Plan and what
is in the plans of the partner agencies of JPDO. They found
seven critical areas that they believe require additional
focus. Those include the environment, and we have had quite a
bit of conversation about those issues today. Security risk
management is another area. Validation and verification of
complex systems. You know, we are introducing something kind of
new and different with this, and it is a very complex
undertaking. Validation and verification of what we are doing
is going to be extremely important. Then they looked at some
air traffic issues that go to kind of specific areas.
One is closely spaced parallel runways. Ten of the 35 OEP
airports have closely-spaced parallel runways, and we need to
get greater capacity out of those. So that was another key area
that they identified.
How to integrate arrival and departure traffic with surface
traffic was another area that they identified, and also this
issue of air to ground functional allocation. What is the role
of the pilot, what is the role of the controller in the NextGen
environment? That needs more work to be addressed, particularly
with the human factors issues that are involved with that.
And finally, the JPDO or the NextGen Enterprise
Architecture, the Enterprise Architecture that rolls up the
work of all the individual partner agencies into a single
architecture for NextGen, the validation of that and developing
a business case around that was another issue.
Obviously, the air traffic issues fall under the province
of the FAA and NASA in terms of some of those it required the,
some research and development to move us forward. DHS with
security risk management and the JPDO with the Enterprise
architecture issue.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Cox, and----
Mr. Ehlers. May I just make a comment?
Chairman Gordon. Okay. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. I just want to say I have been very, very
concerned about the entire NextGen Project, and I wasn't sure
that we were going to, that you and we were going to be able to
pull it off in a timely fashion at a reasonable cost. I must
say I am pleased with the progress made, and I am starting to
feel much better about the project now, and I am addressing
that not just to Ms. Cox but to all of you.
I think you are making substantial progress in the right
direction. I still have a lot of concerns but I would be crazy
if I didn't have concerns about a project of this magnitude.
Thank you for the work that you are doing.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. You know, there has
been a lot of discussion about costs, so I think it is
appropriate that we talk to an appropriator here and so Mr.
Rothman, let me just say, again, there is a 9/11 memorial
getting ready to start, and so Mr. Rothman will be our last
witness. Our other--our last Member to ask questions. Any other
Members that have questions they can be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this very important hearing. I want to, I am speaking quickly.
I have five minutes. I want to acknowledge and express my
appreciation to the panel for their expertise and for their
service to our country. You have distinguished careers, each
and every one of you.
I want to say a couple of things real fast. It was noted
that air traffic controllers are being a part of the NextGen,
and that is a great thing. Please keep that up. If there, in
fact, is a need for more input from safety technicians, I hope
the people responsible will address that.
I also would hope that citizens groups who are involved in
quality of life issues and noise in particular, but also
emissions over their homes and their barbecue grills will also
be consulted as NextGen is developed.
One other pet peeve, wondering why small trainers or
propeller planes are still permitted to fly over densely-
crowded populated areas. I don't think we are allowed to bring
horses and buggies into, through tunnels and bridges into the
major density populated areas of a country. So I don't think--I
think these trainers and small prop planes should be prohibited
from flying over densely-populated areas.
So I hope that those who will have jurisdiction over that
area will address it.
Overcrowding of the Skies
But here is the point I or the question I want you, the
panel, to consider. I would like to hear first from Dr. Waitz,
but I would be interested in everyone's views assuming there is
time. And I am very grateful that you are working on noise
issues and emissions issue. It is really important, and as Dr.
Waitz said, that is a limiting factor on expansion of airports
but beyond that it has to do with the lives of five million
people, and I think that number is rather low.
So thank you, keep that up, and I will be paying attention.
Let us assume that we make a quiet airplane, perfectly
silent, and God willing that will happen some day. How do we
feel about the sky over our head being filled with aircraft?
You know those pictures of World War II, the bombing of Dresden
and the sky filled with aircraft. Now, granted, I understand
that the effort is to have the planes fly higher and so all of
that, but let us reduce it to the extreme or the absurd if you
will. To find out the nature of your thinking, do we want a
society or a world where our skies are completely filled with
aircraft, even if they are silent and there is no dangerous
emissions coming from them?
Dr. Waitz. I remember the first airplane my dad bought me
when I was four. So you are asking the wrong person. Blue with
yellow wings. I look up every time I see one. I think it is
just an important part of providing, you know, goods and
services and movement of people. And the sky is not so filled
with airplanes when you look at how much sky there is.
Mr. Rothman. Where do you live, Dr. Waitz?
Dr. Waitz. I live in Boston. Yeah. So, no, my feeling is
that, you know, airplanes are an important part of our modern
life, and I value them.
Mr. Rothman. Anyone else have any comments?
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Rothman, I think that there is a
recognition of the concern about a situation that you
described, and to address that there is also initiatives or
thinking about an intermodal approach to transportation. So,
you know, your concerns are widely shared, and there is, there
are efforts about to do something about them.
Mr. Rothman. Great. I just can say that there will be
resistance to filling the sky with planes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Although Mr. Hall
wanted me to point out that in Texas you can bring horses and
buggies in on the roads and into the bridges, again, thanks to
our witnesses. I am sorry we had to be somewhat abbreviated
today. I know I have some and I think other Members will have
some additional questions for you, and I would like to now pass
the gavel to Mr. Hall to adjourn us for this session of
Congress.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) is intended to
be a cornerstone of the NextGen system. However, I understand that FAA
received strong criticism in response to its proposed ADS-B rule-making
for user equipage. Users expressed concern that mandating equipment on
board aircraft would provide only the ADS-B ``out'' service, where
signals transmitted would be used primarily by the air traffic control
system to get new data on aircraft positions. Some operators viewed the
mandated ADS-B ``out'' equipage as providing them with little or not
benefit, either operationally or financially. While FAA no doubt will
benefit from ADS-B, push back from the intended users shows that they
have yet to be persuaded.
Q1a. What commitments, such as a reduction in delays or lower fuel
consumption, could FAA make to convince users of the positive benefits
of equipping with ADS-B ``out''?
A1a. The following table summarizes the benefits for the Air Transport
community (note: ADS-B `Out' benefits are highlighted in yellow, ADS-B
`In' benefits are highlighted in green, and both `In'/`Out' benefits
are highlighted in orange):
The following table summarizes the benefits for the General
Aviation community (note: ADS-B `Out' benefits are highlighted in
yellow, ADS-B `In' benefits are highlighted in green, and both `In'/
`Out' benefits are highlighted in orange):
Reduction in delays or lower fuel consumption:
United Parcel Service (UPS) has been an early adopter of ADS-B
technology; they have equipped some of their aircraft and have seen
both increased efficiency and lower fuel burn in their operations. For
example, they have seen a 30 percent reduction in noise, a 34 percent
reduction in nitrous oxide emissions and 250 to 465 pounds less fuel
burn per flight.
Additionally, the agency is working to develop performance routes
in the National Airspace System (NAS) for ADS-B equipped aircraft. This
would enable direct routing which translates into increased efficiency
for the airline/aircraft operations. By providing these routes it would
also lower fuel burn since the aircraft would be flying at optimal
altitudes and optimal routes.
Q1b. When will ADS-B ``in'' become available, especially given its
potential for helping prevent runway incursions?
A1b. ADS-B is available today and the FAA is encouraging users to equip
by providing ADS-B in applications such as advisory services. The FAA
is currently providing Traffic Information Service--Broadcast (TIS-B)
and Flight Information Service--Broadcast (FIS-B) to ADS-B equipped
aircraft in Southern Florida. TIS-B will show pilots the same display
of air traffic that controllers see. The FIS-B products will provide
graphical displays of National Weather Service products and essential
flight information, such as special-use airspace and temporary flight
restrictions. TIS-B and FIS-B are a part of the service that supports
ADS-B `In.'
As a part of segment one deployment the FAA will be providing these
services (TIS-B and FIS-B) along the east and west coasts, and portions
of the mid-west by 2010. As for segment two, the plans are to provide
the same services everywhere there is radar coverage today by 2013.
Q1c. What specifically is FAA doing to accelerate transition to early
equipage of ADS-B? When could we see the job completed?
A1c. The FAA has been working with Industry through the ADS-B Aviation
Rule-making Committee (ARC) to accelerate early equipage of ADS-B.
Specifically, two of the ARC recommendations focus on benefits/
equipage:
Recommendation #9: Leverage the benefits of ADS-B
information to incentivize equipage by establishing agreements
with specific operators.
Recommendation #10: Continue to establish agreements
with local and State governments to leverage the benefits of
ADS-B
Since that time, the FAA has held the following meetings to
determine potential incentive mechanisms to include in potential
agreements:
January 2008: NetJets, American Airlines, FedEx
April 2008: Continental Airlines, DayJet, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of
Transportation
May 2008: DayJet Follow-up
June 2008: Follow-up with American Airlines,
California Department of Transportation
July 2008: Additional Follow-up with American
Airlines, United Airlines
October 2008: USAirways
The following table incorporates the feedback from these meetings
to show what may incentivize users to equip early.
Q2. The terrible events of September 11, 2001 remind us of the
potential consequences of the malicious misuse of the Nation's aviation
system. As you know, by using ADS-B, NextGen will be able to monitor
the precise location of aircraft in the national airspace, but only if
those aircraft cooperate and emit the needed signal.
Q2a. In the NextGen era, will there be a continuing need for DOD and
DHS to maintain radar surveillance to guard against a situation where a
terrorist-operated aircraft does not transmit ADS-B signals so that it
can fly unobserved?
A2a. The surveillance requirements for the national air transportation
system are continuing to evolve. While ADS-B will offer considerable
benefits in terms of system operations there are additional security
and national defense concerns that require consideration. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense
(DOD) have both expressed the need for continued primary, non-
cooperative radar capabilities.
Q2b. If so, have the FAA and other agencies determined how that radar
surveillance capability will be provided? How will it be provided?
A2b. Successfully addressing this issue requires a multi-agency
perspective. In its cross-agency coordination role NextGen's Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) has established a joint
Interagency Surveillance Study Team (ISST) with the DOD, the DHS, the
Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and
the Department of Commerce to address the issue.
Q2c. What requirements are DOD and DHS levying on the NextGen system
for radar surveillance?
A2c. The ISST has recommended the establishment of a formal and
institutionalized mechanism for the management and ownership of the
Nation's integrated surveillance capabilities. Under this approach
future national aviation surveillance information requirements can be
analyzed holistically. This comprehensive approach will ensure that the
responsibilities and requirements of key stakeholders are addressed.
These proposals have been presented to the JPDO's Board of
Directors and will shortly be considered by the NextGen Senior Policy
Council.
Q3. A few weeks ago, an internal software processing error in FAA's
NADIN system grounded hundreds of flights. Evidently an aging back up
system got overwhelmed and hundreds of planes could not get off the
ground. In drafting H.R. 2698--legislation authorizing FAA's R&D--this
committee explicitly singled out the need for contingency plans in
designing NextGen. Specifically, the Director of JPDO was directed to
develop contingency plans for dealing with the degradation of the air
traffic control system in the event of a natural disaster, major
equipment failure, or act of terrorism.
In developing NextGen, which is a system of systems, how is the
need for redundancy and backup capability being addressed?
A3. Business Continuity is a fundamental requirement in NextGen. The
limitations imposed on our systems, such as computer processing,
communications over copper phone lines, and old protocols for exchange
of information, are being removed. Air traffic management,
communications, navigation, surveillance services are provided in a
more seamless, flexible fashion than today. Network enabled services
will provide greater system resilience, and the opportunity to handle
demand more effectively. The flexibility these systems provide for
reliability and backup also provide the flexibility to better manage
weather events and other perturbations to the NAS that cause delays and
reduce service levels.
The NextGen transformational programs especially System Wide
Information Management and NAS Voice Switch, along with FTI, provide
much of the infrastructure needed to move networked enabled services
forward. These systems enable the information sharing between
facilities that is an essential element of NextGen: dramatically
improving situational awareness, maximizing collaborative planning, and
minimizing the impacts of weather and system outage on capacity. Air
traffic services will no longer be directly tied to a legacy, static
information infrastructure.
Q4. How is budgetary and program accountability assigned in the new
ATO restructuring? In other words, who has control over the budget of
an acquisition such as ADS-B or SWIM that will be critical to the
success of the NextGen initiative? Who is in charge of those programs?
A4. The Sr. Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning has
responsibility for all elements of the NextGen portfolio, including the
transformational programs (i.e., ADS-B, SWIM, NNEW, Datacomm, and NVS).
The NextGen Integration and Implementation (I&I) Office, reporting to
the Sr. Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning, is
responsible for developing and managing the FAA NextGen Implementation
Plan, and the budget that supports it. Individual NextGen programs such
as ADS-B and SWIM are assigned to program offices as part of the
investment decision. The individual program offices retain the
responsibility for meeting program expectations and for managing their
programs in accordance with timelines and milestones established with
the I&I Office and the FAA's Acquisition Management System. The Senior
Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning is responsible for
overall management and alignment of all NextGen projects.
Q5. The DOT OIG recommended earlier this year that FAA develop an
interim architecture or ``way-point'' that is manageable and executable
for what is expected in 2015. The OIG report says that FAA concurred
with this recommendation.
Q5a. When will such an interim architecture be completed?
A5a. The FAA concurs with the recommendation to develop an interim
National Airspace System (NAS) architecture that defines a way-point on
the path to realizing NextGen and the ``To Be'' enterprise
architecture. The development of an interim architecture and the
associated requirements will provide a mid-term goal for the
implementation of key NextGen capabilities that reduces far-term
schedule risk.
The annual update of the FAA's NAS Enterprise Architecture Roadmaps
will be published in January 2009. These architectural updates will be
reflected in the next version of the FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan,
which is also scheduled for release in January 2009. These documents
outline the FAA's activities for implementing near-term and mid-term
NextGen capabilities into the NAS.
As part of this year's roadmap updates, several new activities and
features are being incorporated to enhance the usability and
effectiveness of the roadmaps and to support the definition of the mid-
term architecture.
First, we worked with the JPDO to ensure alignment of the
Operational Improvements between the JPDO's planning documents and the
FAA's Enterprise Architecture. Each of the Operational Improvements
were then mapped to functions and projects by phase: near-, mid-, and
far-term. The results of this mapping activity are being transferred to
the roadmaps as part of this year's update process. This alignment work
will allow a more precise definition of the mid-term architecture,
capabilities and functions, and the associated projects necessary to
realize the NextGen benefits including the critical capabilities to be
realized in the mid-term.
Second, we initiated efforts to integrate key supporting activities
such as research and development, prototypes and demonstrations,
international initiatives, and other activities into the EA roadmaps.
This will provide greater insight into schedule dependencies, policy
issues, transition readiness criteria and associated risks, and
identify any gaps between these supporting activities and Agency
projects and programs that need to be addressed to reduce
implementation risk for NextGen. We are also ensuring that we fully
capture all legacy systems in the EA so that we can properly identify
convergence strategies as we migrate from the current portfolio of
systems to NextGen.
Third, new roadmaps are being developed to provide greater
visibility into key areas of the NextGen mid-term architecture such as
airspace design and procedures, service oriented architecture, network-
centricity and inter-operability, as well as to identify impacts on
personnel, security, and safety. These new architecture ``views'' will
be aligned with existing EA products to provide a more complete
definition of the mid-term architecture.
These initiatives taken together will provide the basis for a
complete definition of the mid-term architecture and enhanced insight
into the evolution of NAS changes necessary to realize NextGen.
Q5b. How will it affect the long-term NextGen implementation schedule?
A5b. A more complete definition of the mid-term architecture based on
the initiatives described in the previous response will enhance our
ability to accomplish long-term objectives. Therefore, it will
positively affect the long-term plans for NextGen and reduce far-term
schedule and implementation risk.
As previously mentioned, we worked this year to align the
Operational Improvements between the JPDO's planning documents and the
FAA's NAS Enterprise Architecture. Early next year, we have plans to
continue this effort by focusing on the far-term Operational
Improvements and the associated research activities needed to reduce
far-term schedule risk. We will continue the efforts initiated this
year to align R&D activities within the EA roadmaps and look for gaps
and opportunities to more closely align R&D with project acquisition
strategies.
In addition, we have plans over the next several months to
supplement the existing enterprise architecture with new views that
will provide greater insight into the ``To Be'' architecture. These
views will provide additional information and detail into important
aspects of the architecture needed to reduce long-term implementation
and schedule risk.
Q5c. Are you still committed to the release of an updated Integrated
Work Plan by the end of September 2008?
A5c. This action is complete. The Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) released The Next Generation Air Transportation System
Integrated Work Plan: A Functional Outline (Version 1.0) in September
2008 as planned. The Integrated Work Plan (IWP) provides a tool to
support the collaborative planning and deliberation needed among
partners and stakeholders to prioritize needs, establish commitments,
coordinate efforts, and focus resources on the work needed to achieve
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). The IWP is a
functional plan that outlines the proposed building blocks towards
achieving the NextGen vision. NextGen will be realized through the
research, development, and implementation investments that are funded
and managed by each NextGen Partner. The JPDO works with all NextGen
Partners to align their investments towards achieving the overall
NextGen vision. IWP Version 1.0 conveys the JPDO's current
understanding of Partner efforts and presents the suggested alignment
of NextGen planning elements with each Partner's mission areas. It is
important to note that the IWP is an unconstrained plan and does not
seek to define prescriptive implementation activities, nor does it
address priorities of activities at this time. It proposes a path to
realize the IWP elements but not the specific program steps, resources
or implementation elements such as facility roll-out, training, or
decommissioning. The detailed planning for each IWP element is the
responsibility of the NextGen Partner that has accepted the element as
part of their overall mission. For more information and to view the IWP
Version 1.0, visit www.jpdo.gov.
Q6. I understand that DOD and DHS have failed to identify their
respective future NextGen-related FY09 budgets to JPDO.
Q6a. Has this issue been broached at Senior Policy Committee meetings?
A6a. The issue of shared responsibility between the Department of
Commerce and the FAA for NextGen weather initiatives has been discussed
at the SPC. The Department of Defense is sharing weather information
already funded and underway as part of their core program. Joint
weather programs are by far the most mature of the JPDO's interagency
collaborations.
Q6b. Why have these agencies not identified their expected
contributions?
A6b. The DOD and DHS have both been working with the Joint Planning and
Development Office to identify their respective NextGen requirements.
The DOD, with the Air Force as the lead service agency, is now actively
involved in the development of NextGen. This includes net-centric
operations development, weather research, and demonstration efforts
planned for 2009. The Air Force leads the net-centric division at the
JPDO and will shortly be assigning a senior executive who will be
responsible for the DOD-wide NextGen initiative. The DOD has provided
fiscal year 2008 funding in support of the net-centric effort.
DHS also maintains a full time presence at the JPDO and contributed
to the ConOps by developing a separate Security Annex. They also
provided substantial input to the NextGen Integrated Work Plan (Version
1.0). DHS is also providing funding, along with the FAA and DOD, for
the Network Based Operations Demonstration. Further, in an effort to
accelerate its participation in NextGen, DHS is using the Florida area
(also a site for several FAA airspace related NextGen demonstrations)
to demonstrate its ``Project 6'' which involves a number of closely
related evolutionary checkpoint security initiatives. This includes a
perimeter intrusion detection system, an emergency management
operations controls system, and unified air cargo tracking. The intent
of this work, which supports the JPDO goal of a curb-to-gate approach,
is to expand capabilities to other locations and then throughout the
United States.
Q6c. How have their omissions impacted NextGen plans and schedules?
A6c. To date NextGen plans and schedules have not been impacted.
Q7. Estimated costs for FAA investments needed to reach NextGen's end
state in 2025 have been identified by the JPDO as being in the range of
$15 billion to $22 billion. Regarding the cost of equipping aircraft
with NextGen's avionics, the JPDO said ``the most probable range of
total avionics costs to system users'' is $14 billion to $20 billion.
Q7a. How credible are these numbers?
A7a. The $15-$22 billion mentioned in the question was developed
several years ago by a special JPDO/Industry team. These estimates are
preliminary and were useful in gauging the initial magnitude of NextGen
costs. Further, it should be noted that these estimates represented
capital expenditures and not life cycle costs.
Q7b. What are the confidence levels associated with these estimates?
A7b. Because of the preliminary nature of both sets of estimates
confidence levels were not used.
Q7c. If confidence levels were not used, what was the basis for the
cost estimate ranges?
A7c. The data relied on broad estimates and approximations based on the
level of operator participation.
Q7d. When will these numbers be updated and what confidence levels
will they have?
A7d. As the requirements, program definition and scope of NextGen have
continued to evolve, more accurate and comprehensive estimates are
being developed. The same can be said of the estimates, noted above,
regarding avionics costs.
Estimates now under development represent a much more structured
and verifiable cost estimating process. All known NextGen programs and
activities are being identified, their costs gathered or developed,
adjustments, in terms of program maturity are being applied, and then
the overall data is being evaluated for completeness. There will also
be sensitivity analysis to account for changes in the aviation
environment, demand, and funding levels. On this basis, it will be
possible to apply useful confidence levels to programs with known
requirements. It should be noted that requirements for many key NextGen
programs such as Data Communications and System Wide Information
Management as well as requirements for a common automation platform
have not been established. This means that a final, highly accurate
cost estimate will not be available until these programs have fully
developed requirements.
Q8. I understand the FAA plans to stand up an integrated test bed of
NextGen technology near Miami to accelerate NextGen implementation.
A8. Background: We are already utilizing NextGen capabilities that have
been established in the region such as the ADS-B infrastructure and
capabilities established by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and
its partners. In addition, the test bed will include the use of
performance-based navigation tools to obtain valuable information that
will assist FAA in developing additional requirements, standards and
procedures for operations in the NextGen environment while providing
immediate benefits to targeted areas. These efforts will focus on
Florida, the east coast, Texas and the Gulf of Mexico.
Q8a. Which NextGen R&D initiatives will be accelerated?
A8a. Provided below are the names, descriptions, associated NextGen
Solution sets and the anticipated benefits for seven programs and
projects we are demonstrating to accelerate NextGen implementation.
Q8b. By how much time will they be accelerated?
A8b. The total time saved will be dependent on the success of these
NextGen demonstrations (i.e., did the demonstration validate the
procedure or new technology), and can the procedure or technology be
successfully inserted in the National Airspace System (NAS) based on
related legacy technologies, procedures, equipment and automation; and
the arrival of newer NextGen technologies, procedures, equipment and
automation. To the extent possible, every effort will be made to
``bundle'' developmental successes with other implementation efforts.
Q8c. What user benefits are being achieved earlier?
A8c. The anticipated benefits for the seven NextGen demonstration
programs and projects are provided above. All of these have been
accelerated.
Q8d. How will this translate into faster nationwide implementation?
A8d. The initial NextGen demonstration effort is directed at
accelerating operational procedures in conjunction with established
programs as follows:
Establishing criteria for use of Continuous Descent
Arrivals in higher density airports increases the individual
development and effective use in a national roll-out
Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), Conflict Probe, and
RNAV/RNP for Tailored Arrival (TA) (also includes future
domestic Data Communications) and 3-Dimensional Path Arrival
Management (3-D PAM),
Advanced Technology and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) for
Oceanic Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) proof of concept
demonstration,
TMA and Enhanced Winds Aloft Product to provide
Weather integration into TMA,
Airport Surveillance Detection Equipment Model-X
(ASDE-X) and multi-lateration with Surface Decision Support
System (SDSS) development to provide ``Shared Situational
Awareness'' and ``Collaborative Decision-Making'' between air
navigation service providers (ANSPs) and airline ramp towers,
and
Development and/or leveraging innovative, effective
and efficient system-to-system operational architecture with
supporting procedures to provide the FAA and its partners with
an agile, high connective network for shared situational
awareness through the System-Wide Information Management (SWIM)
network.
Q9. Two years ago, following a hearing on the National Academies'
Decadal Plan for Aeronautics, Dr. Kaminski, in an answer for the
record, characterized certification of new technologies as a key
barrier. He said:
``As systems become more complex and non-deterministic,
methods to certify new technologies become more difficult to
validate. Core research in methods and models for assessing the
performance of large-scale systems, human interactive systems,
and non-deterministic systems, and complex, software-intensive
systems, including safety and reliability in all relevant
operating conditions, is essential for NASA, because such
research is currently beyond the capabilities of regulators
such as the FAA.'' He further added that ``Certification issues
can be show-stoppers if not addressed early in the R&T
process.''
Do you agree with Dr. Kaminski's concern and if so, what research
will you have to facilitate future certifications, especially for human
interactive systems? When will this research begin and when are
significant results anticipated?
A9. The FAA believes it either has the appropriate standards in place
or has the appropriate R&D and standards-development activities
underway to develop the necessary certification standards to support
the insertion of NextGen technologies over the next ten years. Examples
include electronic flight bags, ADS-B, Data Communications, enhanced
flight vision systems, and complex software and digital systems. The
FAA works closely with industry advisory groups, such as RTCA and
Aviation Rule-making Committees (ARCs), in developing the new
standards.
The FAA also continues to explore longer-term advanced NextGen
concepts beyond the ten year horizon in partnership with other partner
agencies, including NASA. As these concepts mature, the FAA will work
with these agencies to transition the technology into use. These
transitional activities will include research into the appropriate
means to certify technologies that extend beyond the bounds of existing
certification standards.
Q10. One of the biggest challenges for the FAA in implementing NextGen
will be to not only add or change technologies, but also change the
operations of the system.
Q10a. How will you integrate implementation of these technology
programs, like ADS-B, and the operations that will take advantage of
the improved technology?
A10a. The FAA has developed and maintains an updated NAS Enterprise
Architecture which provides the framework and technical strategy for
the integration and transition of NextGen capabilities. NextGen
capabilities are implemented by applying the principles of System
Engineering both to define the requirements for each system and to
align implementation schedules across programs.
Q10b. Who in FAA will be responsible for integrating and meeting the
schedules for providing these operational capabilities?
A10b. The Sr. Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning is
responsible for the integration and implementation of all NextGen
elements, which are executed by program offices and other organizations
dispersed throughout the agency. Within NextGen and Operations
Planning, the NextGen Integration and Implementation (I&I) Office has
been established to develop and manage the FAA NextGen Implementation
Plan, and the budget that supports it. Working with the programs and
other performing organizations, the I&I Office orchestrates the
execution of major portfolios of work and is responsible for the
integrated program planning necessary to achieve NextGen capabilities.
The I&I Office is working across all service units and programs
necessary to make NextGen successful to ensure all the activities
needed to realize a capability are aligned, funded, and on track.
Q11. In the House-passed Reauthorization Bill, specific direction was
given to FAA to develop a comprehensive plan to safely integrate
commercial unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.
Has the JPDO made progress in establishing:
Q11a. What research needs to be conducted to address the safe
integration of commercial unmanned aircraft systems into the National
Airspace System?
A11a. Developing a strategy for the further integration of unmanned
aircraft systems into the national airspace system will require
extensive research and analysis before any recommendations can be
developed.
Q11b. How acceptable standards for operations and certification of
commercial unmanned aircraft systems would flow from research?
A11b. The discussion on acceptable standards will require the
involvement of the agencies that perceive a need for possible UAS
operations in controlled airspace. The JPDO is engaged in multi-agency
discussions regarding various collaborative approaches to addressing
this issue.
Q12. In the recently completed JPDO comparison of NextGen and its
European counterpart SESAR, it was noted that:
``Probably the most easily recognized difference in the two
concepts is the breadth of scope. The NextGen ConOps includes a
full `curb-to-curb' approach that includes passenger and
intermodal security considerations.''
A12. The recently released NextGen Integrated Work Plan (IWP), Version
1.0 includes a range of security operational improvements that directly
address the needs of the ``curb to curb'' concept. The IWP was
developed with the direct input of all of the JPDO government and
industry partners to include the Department of Homeland Security.
Q12a. What are some examples of R&D tasks in the Integrated Work Plan
that address ``curb-to-curb'' aspects such as security, passenger delay
at gates, etc.?
A12a. The key operational improvements that directly address ``curb-to-
curb'' needs include integrated passenger screening, credentialing and
identification as well as enhanced and integrated screening and
credentialing for airport personnel.
Q12b. What priority is actually being given to those R&D tasks in
dollars--or manpower--terms?
A12b. The IWP will continue to evolve to provide DHS, and the airport
community, as well as other participating agencies, with important
guidance to assist them in developing their priorities, plans and
budgets. As for priority, DHS, through the Transportation Security
Administration, is currently researching and testing, in an operational
environment, various technologies that will improve passenger screening
and allow for the integrated flow of data and information in the
airport environment. The DHS is allocating $128 million in 2009 for the
testing and deployment of new technology for use in screening airline
passengers.
Q13. You indicate in your statement that the Integrated Work Plan
(IWP) will be ``published this month'' [i.e., September 2008]. That
said, when will the ``prioritization of elements'' you allude to in
your statement be completed?
A13. The JPDO Integrated Work Plan (IWP) published in September 2008
provides initial guidance to NextGen partner agencies on the steps
necessary to achieve the NextGen vision. It does not address priorities
of activities.
Each NextGen partner is responsible for developing detailed plans
for the implementation and execution of the NextGen needs within their
respective areas of responsibility and for prioritizing their
respective tasks. The JPDO has committed to working closely with each
of its partners to facilitate alignment between the NextGen partner
plans and the IWP. FAA's near and mid-term plans have been aligned with
the IWP. The FAA's detailed plans are provided in the NextGen
Implementation Plan scheduled to be published in January 2009. JPDO
will not be able to reflect cross-agency prioritization in its IWP
until all agency detailed NextGen plans are final.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1a. With the upcoming change in Administrations, do you foresee
difficulties maintaining program continuity during the transition?
A1a. Civil aviation is a critical engine for economic growth and
regardless of the change in Administrations, the inefficiencies of the
current ground based air traffic control system result in delays that
already cost operators and consumers billions of dollars each year. We
believe that the new Administration will proceed with replacing the
aging air traffic control infrastructure. The industry needs NextGen to
provide operational, environmental, and safety enhancements that
deliver benefits to stakeholders today and prepare the way for the
future. The Congressionally authorized approach to NextGen utilizes a
multi-agency effort to create and carry out an integrated plan for the
NextGen system.
Q1b. Does NextGen have enough traction among its partner agencies to
maintain momentum in the months ahead?
A1b. There is some concern about remaining under a Continuing
Resolution for the entire fiscal year since the FAA would be
essentially operating at Fiscal Year 2008 funding levels. The Fiscal
Year 2009 President's Budget included a significant increase for
NextGen over Fiscal Year 2008 levels. This funding is required to keep
NextGen on track with the published Implementation Plan and is
necessary to achieve the mid-term capacity and environmental goals
integral to the National Airspace System mid-term architecture.
Q2. The Joint Planning and Development Office is a planning and
coordinating body that relies on the cooperation of its federal
partners to provide the expertise and resources needed to accomplish
NextGen.
Q2a. With slightly more than four years of experience, how would you
rate the effectiveness of the JPDO, especially with regard to engaging
and sustaining the cooperation of the participating federal agencies?
A2a. The interaction has very been promising in many aspects. With the
FAA there has been consistent interaction on the Concept, Enterprise
Architecture (EA) and Integrated Work Plan (IWP). This effort has
included alignment of the FAA's NAS EA with JPDO's NextGen EA and the
FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan with JPDO's NextGen IWP. Engagement
with NASA has also been very successful. NASA has been very active in
supporting the concept and integrated work plan and, with the NASA
Airspace Program, mapping its research to the IWP. JPDO has also
sponsored the creation of FAA/NASA Research Transition Teams to support
the technology transfer of products to the FAA for implementation and
the support of the FAA to NASA researchers in areas of operational
expertise and system integration.
With the Department of Commerce and Department of Defense there has
been very good engagement on the evolution of aviation weather with
specific actions identified to improve collaboration on aviation
weather products. A new effort with DOC, DOD and the Department of
Homeland Security has recently been established to examine Multi-
function Phased Array Radar for potential use for weather and
surveillance purposes.
With FAA, DOD and DHS the JPDO has had good cooperation on Net-
Enabled Operation (NEO) demonstrations, which have been successfully
fostered by JPDO. JPDO has also been successful this year in getting
DOD commitment to expand its role in NextGen with a large emphasis on
enabling net-centric operations, a core requirement for all the member
agencies to move NextGen forward.
Q2b. What concerns, if any, do you have about the JPDO's effectiveness
following the reorganization?
A2b. Collaboration among the JPDO partner agencies has continued to
increase since the reorganization. The reorganization will continue to
strengthen the effectiveness of JPDO as the agencies begin to move from
planning to implementation. Even in early implementation activities
such as NEO or weather or tech transfer from NASA to FAA, there is a
shift from activity leader to facilitator on the part of JPDO. With
focus on implementation activities growing, the inclusion of JPDO
closer to that action will improve JPDO's ability to facilitate cross-
agency cooperation for the near and mid-term while not diminishing its
continuing role as long-term definition leader.
Q3. FAA is taking on greater research and development responsibility
for NextGen, notably in disciplines that had been conducted by NASA.
A3. The FAA has been evaluating the resources that will be required to
support NextGen research and development (R&D) during this past year
and the following are the results to date.
Q3a. Where will these new research capabilities be housed?
A3a. The FAA has conducted a gap analysis to assess how existing NAS
modeling, simulation, and test facilities support the R&D necessary for
design and implementation of NextGen. This analysis has identified
shortfalls in existing capabilities, the need for some new simulation
capabilities, and opportunities to leverage external ATC, flight deck,
and software assurance capabilities. As a result, the FAA is upgrading,
co-locating, and integrating existing ATM and CNS simulation
capabilities to support NextGen concept validation and integration
studies. Also, the FAA, DOD and NASA are participating in a year long
examination of the national research and development infrastructure.
This study, directed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is
comparing existing research facilities across the Federal Government to
requirements identified in the National Aeronautics Research Plan and
will report on both shortfalls and duplications.
Traditionally, the FAA has evaluated concepts and technologies
through the use of modeling, simulation (both fast time and real time
human in the loop), engineering analysis, field prototypes, and
operational demonstrations. For NextGen, we are establishing
partnerships with industry, academia, and the airlines to develop three
NextGen demonstration capabilities in New York, Texas, and Florida.
Q3b. Will FAA have to build new facilities?
A3b. The FAA continues to maintain our 30+ year relationship with NASA
through the FAA Research Field Offices at NASA Langley and NASA Ames
Research Centers, with researchers also on-site at NASA Glenn and NASA
Kennedy Space Center. Through ongoing Interagency Agreements, FAA can
use NASA facilities and personnel to augment our research capabilities.
Moreover, the FAA is accelerating transition from research to
implementation through Research Transition Teams (RTT) between NASA and
FAA, facilitated by the JPDO. The goal of the RTTs is to ensure that
R&D needed for NextGen implementation is identified, conducted, and
effectively transitioned to the implementing agency
While considerable attention must be given to the research needed
to develop NextGen, we must also note that the FAA is maintaining a
healthy research program in our core research areas of aircraft safety,
airport technology, fire safety, fuels and propulsion, human factors,
weather, wake turbulence, atmospheric hazards, airworthiness assurance,
and the environment and energy. We maintain a cadre of world class
scientists and engineers supported by unique national facilities at the
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center.
Q3c. Does FAA have the scientists, engineers and project managers to
carry out the research?
A3c. The FAA is adding scientists, engineers and project managers to
its workforce. To ensure that we have aligned the right capabilities,
the FAA has enlisted the National Academy of Public Administration to
assess the skill sets required to implement NextGen and develop a
strategy to obtain this expertise. Internally, staffing needs continue
to be assessed corporately and, over the past two years, the NextGen
and Operations Planning Office have hired 178 new employees within the
technical and programmatic disciplines. Training programs in the areas
of project management, system engineering, safety management, human
factors, and modeling and simulation are available. In 2004, the ATO
Systems Engineering Program was established offering certificates in 1)
System Design and Architecture and 2) Supportability and Logistics. To
date, 57 graduate certificates have been earned by ATO employees and 60
more employees are currently enrolled in the program.
Additionally, 75 universities augment our internal resources
through our congressionally mandated Air Transportation Centers of
Excellence (COE) long-term partnerships. The university members and
their industrial affiliates conduct research, education and training in
the following mission critical focus areas: airport technology,
operations research, general aviation, noise and emissions mitigation,
advanced materials, and research in the intermodal transportation
environment. In addition to providing access to their research
facilities throughout the country, more than 100 world-class faculty
and 300 graduate students are currently available and prepared to
support ongoing aviation research requirements.
Q4a. Will FAA decommission its network of ground-based radars once
NextGen is fully implemented, and if so, how will our government track
non-cooperating targets?
A4a. The FAA maintains and uses two types of radars--primary radars
which do not require cooperation, they ``skin paint,'' and the radio
based secondary radars which do require the aircraft to cooperate. The
NextGen implementation of ADS-B is directly related to the cooperative
secondary surveillance radars.
While ADS-B will offer considerable benefits in terms of system
operations there are additional security and national defense concerns
that need to be considered. Both the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have expressed the need for
continued primary, non-cooperative radar capabilities.
The FAA also recognizes that a back-up system is needed in case of
problems with the GPS satellite system In 2006, a team from the FAA,
industry, and the military performed an analysis and the agency adopted
the recommendation to maintain about half the current network of
secondary radars as an ADS-B back-up system.
The table below highlights the plan to reduce the existing 365
Secondary Surveillance Radars (SSRs) used for both terminal and en
route surveillance to 190 SSRs (40 terminal and 150 en route).
Q4b. Who will have principal responsibility to detect and monitor
unfriendly aircraft?
A4b. The FAA does not plan to remove any primary radar systems and
continues to use primary radar to mitigate single-aircraft avionics
failures. Primary radar data remains available to the DOD and DHS to
detect and monitor unfriendly aircraft.
The long-term strategy for non-cooperative surveillance requires a
multi-agency perspective. As part of its cross-agency role, NextGen's
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) has established a joint
Interagency Surveillance Study Team (ISST) working with the DOD, the
DHS, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and the Department of Commerce to address the issue.
The ISST has recommended the establishment of a formal and
institutionalized mechanism for the management and ownership (to
include funding) of the Nation's integrated surveillance capabilities.
Under this approach all future national aviation surveillance
information requirements are analyzed holistically. This JPDO led
approach will ensure that the needs and responsibilities of the key
stakeholders are addressed.
These proposals have been presented to the JPDO's Board of
Directors and will shortly be considered by the NextGen Senior Policy
Council.
Q4c. To what extent will the introduction of NextGen-related
capabilities lead to the closure of other (non-radar) obsolete FAA
facilities?
A4c. As we evolve to NextGen, we anticipate that fewer facilities will
be needed to operate the National Airspace System in a safe and
efficient manner. As the FAA and the aviation community transitions to
satellite-based navigation capabilities, the number of ground
navigation systems can be significantly reduced with the extent and
time-frame for this reduction dependent upon the speed which aircraft
owners equip with new avionics. Up to a 50 percent reduction in legacy
en route navigation facilities is considered reasonable in the NextGen
time frame. In addition, a significant number of ground-based approach
and landing systems in the airport environment (ILS, Terminal VOR's)
can eventually be decommissioned and replaced with GPS-enabled
capabilities.
Q5. The ADS-B program is fundamental to NextGen. What are the major
risks with ADS-B in terms of capabilities, schedule, cost, and industry
acceptance?
A5. The FAA has a rigorous risk management process required on every
program. As part of that process, the ADS-B program has identified its
high risks, developed mitigation plans for those risks, and maintained
a status report on the progress of those mitigation activities. These
are the high risks:
Industry Acceptance:
Risk Statement: If National Airspace System users demonstrate
active opposition to avionics related airspace mandates (ADS-B), there
may be delays in required rule-making activities and/or the program may
experience a reduction in benefits.
Planned Mitigation: This is a four pronged approach: 1) getting the
right implementation and benefits message out (measure this with
feedback, user surveys, etc.), 2) quickly move to resolve community
issues through accelerated rule-making activities, 3) delivering a
legacy transitioning plan, and 4) working with the Air Traffic
Management Advisory Committee (ATMAC). The ATMAC provides a forum for
user interface.
Status on Mitigation Plans: The Notice of Proposed Rule-making
comment period closed in March 2008; An Aviation Rule-making Committee
(ARC) was chartered to review benefits of early equipage and to review
comments received on the NPRM. The ARC submitted its recommendations on
the NPRM comments on September 26, 2008. The FAA is currently drafting
plans for responding to the ARC recommendations on early equipage. In
addition, the program office has been actively engaged in user
community outreach activities, including industry days and user
community conferences.
ADS-B broadcasting on 1090 MHz:
Risk Statement: Without proper control of the 1090 MHz spectrum,
the addition of SBS (Surveillance and Broadcast Services) to the
current environment may reduce the performance of ADS-B and other 1090
MHz systems, reducing benefits and system performance.
Planned Mitigation: To mitigate this risk of spectrum saturation,
two parallel approaches are underway: 1) 1090 MHz Spectrum Risk Panel
is looking into the technical effectiveness of implementing various
proposed solutions to reduce the individual 1090 MHz systems usage of
1090 MHz , and 2) 1090 MHz Spectrum Alternatives Analysis team is to
provide a low-risk, cost effective solution to be implemented to reduce
the congestion problem.
Status on Mitigation Plans: The Spectrum Risk Panel provided a
final report to the FAA program office in August 2008. Additional
assessments and recommendations for mitigations are underway. The
Alternatives Analysis team defined their objectives and requirements
and will develop final alternatives and definitions based on the August
Spectrum Risk Panel report.
Displaying ADS-B Data in the current automation platforms and their
related displays:
Risk Statement: Currently the automation platform (MEARTS) does not
process and display ADS-B data provided by ITT. If MEARTS is not
modified to support that data set by April 2010, the Surveillance and
Broadcast Services Juneau IOC will be delayed.
Planned Mitigation: Establish an automation requirements work
group. Coordinate with computer human interface work group, separation
standards work group, and system test and evaluation work group.
Conduct alternatives analysis to determine preferred means to integrate
the ADS-B data on each automation platform. Develop prototypes and
conduct simulations on automation systems, and develop final automation
requirements.
Status of Mitigation Plans: The final visual specification for use
of multiple surveillance sources in Air Traffic Control has been
provided by program office. Agreements on plans to resolve the computer
human interface requirements and automation requirement issues have
been reached. The program office is currently finalizing an integrated
schedule for the automation platform.
Q6. You testified that JPDO's gap analysis identified seven critical
areas that require additional focus. For the record please: (1)
identify them; (2) designate the partner agency having primary
responsibility; and (3) describe how each of these critical areas will
be addressed.
A6. According to the JPDO's analysis there are seven critical areas
that require additional focus. The following are the issues involved:
Question submitted by Representative Laura Richardson
Q1. What are your thoughts on concerns conveyed April 1-2, 2008 at the
National Academies workshop?
A1. The National Academies workshop provided interesting perspectives
that highlighted some shortfalls regarding the JPDO, NextGen and the
NextGen R&D Plan. There was significant discussion regarding the
importance of system level modeling to support NextGen planning,
research, and investment. This discussion was particularly timely and
validated a JPDO focus in that at the time of the workshop, JPDO was in
the process of developing a much more rigorous modeling capability
based on its determination of this shortfall.
Another major point was the limited scope of R&D programs that has
been reviewed and considered to date. This was a valuable insight. The
workshop discussion highlighted the need to look beyond FAA and NASA,
and consider other agencies, the private sector (especially the airport
community) and international bodies. The JPDO has increased its efforts
with respect to each of these sectors and the workshop discussion was
helpful in guiding that effort. The newly established multi-agency, DOD
led, net-centric initiative is a good example of the JPDO increased
scope and leadership.
Finally, there was substantial discussion centered on
implementation. While the participants acknowledged that the JPDO is
not an implementation entity, they expressed concern that the plans did
not provide the community with a clear view of a structured pathway to
implementation. The recent FAA reorganization makes this connection
clear with the creation of an integration and implementation entity
within the Air Traffic Organization.
Questions submitted by Representative Paul C. Broun
Q1. On October 5, 2007, the FAA issued a proposed rule requiring
aircraft in controlled airspace be equipped with ADS-B by 2020.
A1. Background:
An Aviation Rule-making Committee (ARC) was chartered in July 2007
to support the ADS-B rule-making. The ARC's membership covers every
sector of the aviation industry, and includes members from the
government and academia. The ARC was tasked to:
Serve as a platform for developing a report in
optimizing operational benefits of ADS-B prior to implementing
a nationwide ADS-B airspace rule. (This report was delivered in
October 2007. The FAA is currently developing plans to address
the report.)
Make specific recommendations to the FAA concerning
the NPRM requirements (this report was delivered in September
2008).
Q1a. What is the FAA doing or what is the FAA's plan to encourage
voluntary ADS-B equipage? It seems that the FAA is too focused on the
equipage mandate, and that a better approach would be to focus on the
avionics and incentives to encourage voluntary equipage.
A1a. The FAA is engaging with the community to encourage equipage, and
many of the recommendations cited in the ARC's October 2007 report
demonstrate that there is a willingness by the airlines to equip early,
provided that the FAA creates the environment (infrastructure, routes
and procedures) that enables early benefits to airline operations.
Specifically, two of the ARC recommendations focus on agreements:
Recommendation #9: Leverage the benefits of ADS-B
information to incentivize equipage by establishing agreements
with specific operators.
Recommendation #10: Continue to establish agreements
with local and State governments to leverage the benefits of
ADS-B.
Since that initial ARC report, the FAA has held the following
meetings to determine incentive mechanisms that might be included in
potential agreements:
January 2008: NetJets, American Airlines, FedEx
April 2008: Continental Airlines, DayJet, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of
Transportation
May 2008: DayJet Follow-up
June 2008: Follow-up with American Airlines,
California Department of Transportation
July 2008: Additional Follow-up with American
Airlines, United Airlines
October 2008: USAirways
The following table summarizes the feedback from these meetings and
shows what may be an incentive to users to equip early.
Q2. The ADS-B equipage mandate is extremely costly and provides no
benefit to general aviation.
Q2a. The majority of the benefits are in the high-altitude airspace or
for aircraft landing at the Nation's 35 OEP airports. So, why is the
mandate so broad?
A2a. While it is true that many of the advanced applications of ADS-B
In and Out will be of benefit to the high altitude major metro area
customers, the initial benefits of ADS-B have and will support the low
altitude user group by providing traffic and flight information to ADS-
B equipped aircraft. The provision of radar-like services and the
increased situational awareness for the pilot have supported aircraft
operating in more remote areas and aircraft operating under visual
flight rules. Specific low altitude user groups that have and will
benefit from ADS-B include operators in Alaska, helicopters, especially
in the Gulf of Mexico where a significant number of daily operations
take place, and General Aviation aircraft across NAS especially with
the related traffic and flight advisory information, and support timely
search and rescue.
Q2b. Has the FAA considered limiting the ADS-B equipage mandate to
aircraft operating above FL180 or landing at the Nation's 35 OEP
airports?
A2b. Background: The ADS-B Aviation Rule-making Committee (ARC) was
formed in July 2007 to support the ADS-B rule-making. The ARC's
membership covers every facet of the aviation industry, and includes
members from the government and academia. The ARC was organized to
provide the agency the broadest perspective possible as it advances the
ADS-B rule-making. The committee had the following two tasks:
As an initial tasking before the publication of the
Notice of Proposed Rule-making (NPRM), the ARC should serve as
a platform for the development of a report on how operational
benefits of ADS-B could be optimized before compliance with a
nationwide ADS-B mandate. The report was delivered to the FAA
in October 2007.
Once the NPRM is published and reviewed by the ARC,
the ARC should make specific recommendations to the FAA about
any changes that should be made to the proposed language in the
NPRM. The ARC provided these recommendations to the FAA on
September 26, 2008.
The ARC, as a part of its work on its second task, evaluated a
phased approach to implementing ADS-B which would have required ADS-B
sooner in Class A airspace and at the Nation's 35 OEP airports. The ARC
was unable to reach a consensus on this approach and, therefore,
recommended that the FAA retain the 2020 compliance date in the
original Notice of Proposed Rule-making (NPRM).
To further address the issue of low altitude equipage, the ARC
identified additional measures that would benefit the low altitude
community and recommended that the FAA take advantage of the
opportunity to provide a positive business case for that large segment
of the aviation community. Specifically, Recommendation #9 requests:
The FAA should implement the necessary incentives to create a
positive business case for low altitude airspace users. This
requires the FAA to make changes that result in lower
investment costs and increased benefits, and provide economic
incentives to offset costs when benefits are insufficient for a
particular operator segment. If the ADS-B mandate results in
the low altitude segment of the aviation community investing
more into the system than the benefits enabled, the FAA should
not mandate ADS-B Out for that segment of the community.
In addition, Recommendation #18 suggests:
The ARC, based upon analysis it has performed, urges the FAA
to allow non-diversity antenna installations for visual flight
rules (VFR) aircraft flying through high-density airspace, for
example class B and C and below 15,000 feet (1090) or below FL
180 (UAT) but not landing at the primary airports.
Additionally, the FAA should continue to resolve the barriers
(as identified by the ARC) to permit single-antenna
installations on low altitude, slow moving aircraft. The ARC
recommends that the FAA conduct the necessary testing to
identify appropriate solutions.
The Surveillance and Broadcast Services program office is currently
evaluating these recommendations from the ARC and will determine how to
proceed for the final rule on ADS-B equipage.
Q3. The DOT Inspector General, GAO and others have testified that
stakeholder acceptance is going to be key to a successful ATC
modernization and transition to a satellite-based system.
A3. The ADS-B Aviation Rule-making Committee (ARC) was formed in July
2007 to support the ADS-B rule-making. The ARC's membership covers
every facet of the aviation industry, and includes members from the
government and academia.\1\ The ARC was organized to provide the agency
the broadest perspective possible as it advances the ADS-B rule-making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ARC had participation from the following stakeholder
organizations: Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), Air
Transport Association (ATA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA), Airbus, Air Line Pilots Association, Alaska Airlines (ALPA),
Aviation Communication and Surveillance Systems (ACSS), Boeing, Cessna,
Department of Defense, Federal Express, Garmin, General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA), International Air Transport
Association (IATA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), MITRE/
CAASD, National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), National
Business Aviation Association (NBAA), Regional Airline Association
(RAA), Rockwell Collins, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and UPS.
Q3a. While the entire aviation industry supports modernization, as far
as I can tell, the FAA's strategy and implementation plan has little
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(possibly no) support from stakeholders.
A3a. In the September 26, 2008 report, the ARC emphasized its support
for ADS-B Out implementation by 2020.
Q3b. How is the FAA handling the comments submitted from aviation
stakeholders?
A3b. The ARC reviewed 1,423 comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule-
making (NPRM) submitted to the docket by 165 entities, categorized the
comments for further analysis, and studied the issues underlying 1,101
of the 1,423 comments. The ARC was tasked with resolving these comments
and making a final recommendation to the FAA, which was provided on
September 26, 2008. The committee focused on the link implementation
strategy, programmatic issues, performance requirements and an avionics
transition plan. The ARC made 36 summary recommendations regarding the
ADS-B link strategy, program, business case, required equipment,
security, and privacy.
The Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) program office is
reviewing this report and will determine how to proceed with the
recommendations prior to finalizing the rule. In addition, the SBS
program office is reviewing the remaining 322 comments not addressed in
the ARC submittal. These comments focus on general opposition,
editorial comments, safety, extension of the comment period, impact to
small businesses, regulatory evaluation edits, testing and maintenance,
and military/DOD comments.
The FAA's Rule-making Council is tentatively planning to approve
the Phase 3 Rule-making Project Record (RPR) in January 2009.
Q3c. Does the FAA intend to issue a supplemental notice of proposed
rule-making or does the FAA intend to proceed forward with a final
rule?
A3c. At this time, the FAA does not intend to issue a Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rule-making (SNPRM). The FAA is proceeding with the
development of a final rule which will be issued in April 2010.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Some observers have commented that the degree of participation by
the partner agencies seems to run on a continuum from a significant
amount of participation to seemingly not very much at all. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) are consistently indicated as the most involved
participants.
Q1a. In your opinion, to what extent are the partner agencies
participating in the vision and work of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen)?
A1a. The partner agencies' participation in the vision and work of
NextGen has varied to date and will continue to evolve over time.
Interagency partnerships mature slowly because it takes time to forge
working relationships and establish accountability. While FAA and NASA
have been the most involved in the planning and coordination of
NextGen, the other agencies are also participating. The Department of
Defense, for example, is transferring to NextGen the technology it has
developed for sharing information across networks, establishing a
program office to coordinate all of its NextGen activities, and
collaborating with FAA and the Department of Commerce to develop and
implement NextGen's weather forecasting capability.
Furthermore, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO),
which was created to plan for and coordinate the NextGen activities of
federal and non-federal stakeholders, has established some practices
that are important to institutionalizing a collaborative process. For
example, a memorandum of understanding, signed by the Secretary or
another high-ranking official from each partner agency, defines the
partner agencies' roles and responsibilities. In addition, some NextGen
goals and activities have been incorporated in partner agencies' key
planning documents such as FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan, and JPDO
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have developed a process
for identifying NextGen-related research programs in the partner
agencies' budgets.
Q1b. How could the role of the partner agencies be changed to enhance
their participation or positively affect the development of NextGen?
A1b. We believe that the partner agencies' participation in NextGen
could be enhanced by further incorporating NextGen goals and activities
in the agencies' key planning documents and research agendas. For
example, FAA has refocused one of its key planning documents--the
Operational Evolution Partnership--making it into the NextGen
Implementation Plan. Formerly a plan for enhancing airport capacity,
the NextGen Implementation Plan has been expanded and revamped to
become a comprehensive description of how FAA will implement NextGen.
We believe that similar efforts by the other partner agencies could
increase their participation in NextGen.
Q2. In your opinion, how successful has JPDO been in developing
conceptual and technical descriptions of what NextGen will consist of?
How about in developing a plan for the coordinated implementation of a
transformed future system?
A2. JPDO has made progress in developing planning documents that
provide conceptual and technical descriptions of NextGen. However,
further iterations of these documents will be needed as NextGen
technologies are developed. JPDO's authorizing legislation requires the
office to create a research and development (R&D) plan for the
transition to NextGen. This requirement led JPDO to develop initial
versions of the Concept of Operations, Enterprise Architecture, and
Integrated Work Plan (IWP). The Concept of Operations is the
fundamental planning document from which the other two documents flow.
Version 2 of the Concept of Operations, issued in June 2007, describes
how the NextGen system is envisioned to operate in 2025. Version 2 of
the Enterprise Architecture, issued in July 2007, is a technical
description of the NextGen system, akin to blueprints for a building.
The Enterprise Architecture provides a means for coordinating among the
partner agencies and private-sector manufacturers, aligning relevant
R&D activities, and integrating equipment. IWP, the most recent version
of which was issued in September 2008, is JPDO's plan for achieving
NextGen. It describes the integrated framework needed to transition to
NextGen and will continually need to be refined and enhanced to reflect
current priorities, budgets, and programs.
Our work indicated that the previous version of IWP lacked critical
information and was not sufficiently ``user friendly'' to be used
effectively as a plan for coordinating the partner agencies'
implementation of NextGen. Our review of the most recent version of the
plan indicates that it is more detailed, contains further research
plans, and shows interrelationships among activities that should be
useful for coordinating those activities. This version of IWP is an
automated, searchable, user-friendly database--that we found will have
the capability to track dates and identify programs that are behind
schedule, making it useful, but not sufficient, for oversight.
According to senior JPDO officials, this version identifies the
specific operational improvements and capabilities that NextGen will
incorporate and shows what policies, research, and other activities are
needed to enable those improvements and capabilities; when they are
needed; and what entities are responsible for them. Moreover, this
version includes schedule information that has been updated to reflect
newly available information, coordination with FAA schedules and plans,
and public comments received on the previous version, according to JPDO
and FAA officials. This version also identifies the sequence of
research activities that the partner agencies must complete before
specific NextGen capabilities can be implemented. The plan should serve
as a useful tool in prioritizing and tracking NextGen research.
Furthermore, subsequent versions of IWP are expected to include
cost information that decision-makers can use to help understand the
rationale for budget requests, monitor costs, and improve future cost
estimates for acquisitions. This information will be helpful to
decision-makers when budget constraints do not allow all system
acquisitions to be fully funded at planned and approved levels and they
must decide which programs to fund and which to cut or delay according
to their priorities.
In addition, coordination is enhanced by JPDO's efforts to work
with OMB to develop a process that allows OMB to identify NextGen-
related research and acquisition projects across the partner agencies
and consider NextGen as a unified, cross-agency program. Under this
process, JPDO and its partner agencies jointly present OMB with
business cases for the partner agencies' NextGen-related efforts, and
these business cases are used as inputs to funding decisions for
NextGen research and acquisitions across the agencies.
Q3. In the transformed NextGen, I understand that roles and
responsibilities of key players will change dramatically. Pilots will
take on more separation responsibilities and automation will enable air
traffic controllers to manage larger numbers of aircraft while
improving safety.
Q3a. What are the key aspects from human factors research that FAA and
NASA need to get right before we can have confidence that this
delegation of decision-making duties is both feasible and safe?
A3a. Our work indicates that the key aspect from human factors research
that FAA and NASA must address is how changes in the roles and
responsibilities of both air traffic controllers and pilots will affect
the safety and efficiency of the national airspace system. According to
an FAA official, verbal communication is an example of a human factors
area that requires further R&D. Currently, air traffic controllers
primarily rely on verbal communication to direct aircraft. Because
NextGen will rely more on automated communications, controllers will
require training in both understanding and operating in an automated
communications environment. The research to support such training has
not been conducted, according to FAA.
Q3b. Are the needed R&D programs in place and adequately funded to get
that research done?
A3b. While not all of the needed human factors R&D programs are
currently in place, FAA plans to increase its investment in human
factors research from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. Over
that period, FAA's human factors research would total $180.4 million.
In contrast, NASA started to reduce the size of its human factors
research staff in fiscal year 2005, reassigning some staff to other
programs and reducing the contractor and academic technical support for
human factors research. However, according to NASA, human factors
research continues to be a critical component of its aeronautics
research program, with activity focused at the foundational level. It
remains to be seen if FAA's planned R&D in this area will offset NASA's
reductions, since FAA's research is typically at a more applied level.
Q4. In describing FAA's Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise
(CLEEN) environmental R&D program, your statement indicates that FAA
and the JPDO recognize the need to ``fill any gaps that may exist
between basic research and the transfer to industry for further
development.'' But you also conclude that ``the research might prove
more difficult and take longer than planned.''
Q4a. Can you elaborate on why this might be more difficult and time-
consuming than envisioned and how FAA can minimize this problem?
A4a. Filling gaps that may exist between conducting basic research and
transferring technologies and tools to industry may be more difficult
and time consuming than envisioned for several reasons. CLEEN
illustrates this challenge. The House reauthorization bill for FAA is
seeking funding for CLEEN.\1\ CLEEN would establish a research
consortium of government, industry, and academic participants that
would allow for the maturation of aviation noise technologies via
demonstration projects for further refinement by the aviation industry
and eventual incorporation into new aircraft designs. The CLEEN program
would support the development, maturation, and certification of engine
and airframe technologies for aircraft over the next 10 years to reduce
aviation noise and emissions. While acknowledging that CLEEN would help
bridge the gap between NASA's R&D and manufacturers' eventual
incorporation of technologies into aircraft designs, aeronautics
industry representatives and experts we consulted said that the
program's funding levels may not be sufficient to attain the goals
specified in the proposal. According to these experts, the proposed
funding levels would allow for the further development of one or
possibly two projects. Moreover, in one expert's view, the funding for
these projects may be sufficient only to develop the technology to the
level that achieves an emissions-reduction goal in testing, not to the
level required for the technology to be incorporated into a new engine
design. According to FAA and some experts we consulted, however, the
CLEEN program amounts to a pilot project, and if it results in the
development of emissions-reduction technologies that can be introduced
into aircraft in the near future, it could lead to additional funding
from the government or industry for such efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. 2881, 110th Cong. 505 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filling R&D gaps may also be more difficult and time-consuming than
envisioned because of uncertainties about the ability of aircraft
engine and aircraft manufacturers to incorporate new noise reduction
technologies into new engine and aircraft designs. NASA officials
stressed that when NASA's research ends, it will be up to engine and
aircraft manufacturers to take the next steps to integrate the noise
reduction technologies into engine and aircraft designs, and the
manufacturers' willingness to do so is not guaranteed. An expert we
consulted noted that if manufacturers do take the steps to integrate
noise reduction technologies into new designs, the pace of noise
reduction will also depend on the pace of development for new aircraft
and aircraft engine designs.
Moreover, technical challenges may further complicate efforts to
close the gap between agencies' research and manufacturers' development
of technologies for incorporation into products. In particular, it may
be technically challenging to design aircraft with reduced noise while,
at the same time, achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gases
and other emissions that will be required to address global warming and
improve air quality. Although it is possible to design engines that
produce less noise and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, the reductions
in greenhouse gases could be limited in engines that produce
substantially less noise. Furthermore, engines that produce less noise
typically burn more fuel and are therefore more costly to operate. As a
result, air carriers may not be inclined to buy jets with engines that
reduce noise but may be more expensive to operate.
Q4b. Should NASA be playing a bigger role in this area, as it did in
its previous innovative aircraft engine technology development
programs?
A4b. It would be useful for NASA to conduct the type of intermediate
R&D and demonstration projects that NASA previously conducted and that
will be needed for the NextGen program. NASA, however, is now focusing
on longer-term fundamental research on noise and emissions and its
current aeronautics research budget is about half of what it was in the
mid-1990s. Moreover, the budget request for aeronautics R&D for fiscal
year 2009 is $447 million, or about 25 percent less than the $594
million provided in fiscal year 2007. Nonetheless, according to NASA,
about $280 million of the proposed $447 million would contribute to
NextGen. In addition, according to NASA officials, a significant
portion of the funding for subsonic fixed-wing aircraft is directed
toward emissions-related research, and many other research efforts
contribute directly or indirectly to potential emissions-reduction
technologies.
Q5. In your February report to the Subcommittee, you indicated that
noise reduction technologies may be limited by concerns about global
warming as advances in these technologies could make it more difficult
to also achieve reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Is GAO
saying that reductions in noise and emissions are mutually exclusive or
could high fuel prices spur technological innovations we have yet to
envision?
A5. I do not think that efforts to achieve reductions in noise and
emissions are mutually exclusive, but finding the right balance between
them does pose a significant challenge for the partner agencies and
private stakeholders. It is technologically challenging to design
aircraft that can reduce one environmental concern without increasing
another. Since the aviation industry must consider economic as well as
environmental concerns, research must consider the trade-offs between
noise reduction, emissions reduction, and fuel economy. Engine
technology has been relatively successful in increasing fuel
efficiency, reducing most types of emissions, and lowering noise, but
has not been able to achieve comparable reductions in nitrogen oxide
(NOX), which is a primary source of local air pollution. NOX has
increased because new engines operate at higher temperatures, producing
more power with less fuel and lower carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide
emissions, but also producing higher NOX levels, especially at takeoff
and landing when engine power settings are at their highest.
Q6. The JPDO was established to plan and coordinate the R&D for
NextGen. You testified that the three key planning documents have been
developed and that JPDO has been pretty much absorbed into the Air
Traffic Organization (ATO). How long do you think the JPDO ought to
continue to exist and what would it do?
A6. JPDO was established to plan and coordinate the development of
NextGen and should exist for the duration of those tasks. JPDO has
developed the key planning documents for NextGen, but further
iterations of these documents will be needed as NextGen technologies
are developed and implemented. For example, JPDO officials expect to
issue annual revisions to the IWP. JPDO also has a central role in
coordinating and facilitating the NextGen activities of the partner
agencies. For example, JPDO serves as the principal point of contact
with OMB in coordinating the multi-agency budgets for NextGen, and its
working groups facilitate coordination with industry stakeholders. If
JPDO ceased to exist, another entity would have to assume
responsibility for these planning and coordinating activities.
JPDO's role could evolve to include additional coordination and
oversight activities. For example, JPDO could establish a program
oversight capacity that would enable it to perform such functions as
(1) coordinating the R&D, systems-engineering, and integration
activities of the partner agencies and industry; (2) overseeing multi-
agency projects; (3) overseeing, with FAA, the selection of products or
outcomes of R&D that would be moved to the next stage of a
demonstration project through the Joint Resources Council (JRC);\2\ (4)
overseeing the fundamental research activities that support the long-
term strategic investments of NextGen by managing a portfolio of
research conducted by NASA, academia, federally funded R&D centers, and
industry; and (5) maintaining a modeling and simulation capability for
testing and evaluating alternative NextGen concepts that provide input
to such oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FAA's Joint Resources Council establishes and manages
acquisition program baselines which define cost, schedule, performance,
and benefit parameters for programs over their full life cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. With the upcoming change in Administrations, do you foresee
difficulties maintaining program continuity during the transition? Does
NextGen have enough traction among its partner agencies to maintain
momentum in the months ahead?
A1. There is a risk that the upcoming change in Administration will
contribute to difficulties in maintaining continuity for NextGen. As
FAA begins to implement new systems and transition to NextGen, it is
possible that other demands of a new Administration will compete for
the attention of FAA's senior leadership. Moreover, FAA, which
currently has an Acting Administrator, and its partner agencies face
the loss of today's leaders as the new Administration makes its own
appointments. Although FAA has implemented many of the financial,
management, and acquisition improvements in recent years that will be
needed for the transition to NextGen, FAA's new leaders will need to
sustain this commitment to provide a firm foundation for continuing to
implement NextGen.
It remains to be seen whether NextGen has enough traction with
JPDO, FAA, and the other partner agencies to maintain momentum in the
coming months. JPDO, however, has established some practices that are
important to institutionalizing collaboration among the partner
agencies. For example, a memorandum of understanding, signed by the
Secretary or another high-ranking official from each partner agency,
defines the partner agencies' roles and responsibilities. In addition,
some NextGen goals and activities have been incorporated in the
agencies' key planning documents such as FAA's NextGen Implementation
Plan, and JPDO and OMB have developed a process for identifying
NextGen-related research projects in the partner agencies' budgets.
Nonetheless, this is a complex multifaceted, multi-decade project and
the partner agencies' participation in NextGen can be expected to
evolve and vary over time as its requirements change and agencies'
mission priorities change.
Q2. JPDO is a planning and coordinating body that relies on the
cooperation of its federal partners to provide the expertise and
resources needed to accomplish NextGen. With slightly more than four
years of experience, how would you rate the effectiveness of the JPDO,
especially with regard to engaging and sustaining the cooperation of
the participating federal agencies? What concerns, if any, do you have
about JPDO's effectiveness following the reorganization?
A2. JPDO has made progress in obtaining the cooperation of
participating federal agencies, but the extent of participation has
varied. Interagency partnerships mature slowly because it takes time to
forge working relationships and establish accountability. While FAA and
NASA have been the most involved in the planning and coordination of
NextGen, the other agencies are also participating. The Department of
Defense, for example, is transferring to NextGen the technology it has
developed for sharing information across networks, establishing an
office to coordinate its NextGen activities, and collaborating with FAA
and the Department of Commerce to develop and implement NextGen's
weather forecasting capability. The Department of Homeland Security is
participating by contributing ``in-kind'' services in the form of
personnel and research. Furthermore, JPDO has been successful in
helping to establish mechanisms to sustain cooperation among the
participating federal agencies. In June 2008, a memorandum of
understanding was signed by the Secretary or another high-ranking
official from each partner agency, defining each agency's role and
responsibilities. In addition, as part of the annual budget request,
JPDO prepares an Exhibit 300 form for NextGen, which allows JPDO to
present OMB with a joint business case for the partner agencies'
NextGen-related efforts.\3\ This business case is used as input to
funding decisions for NextGen research and acquisitions across the
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 300 of OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission,
and Execution of the Budget (Nov. 2, 2005), sets forth requirements for
federal agencies for planning, budgeting, acquiring, and managing
information technology capital assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since ATO was reorganized in May 2008, JPDO has been housed within
the new NextGen and Operations Planning Office and the JPDO Director
reports through the Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations
Planning to ATO's Chief Operating Officer. Previously, the JPDO
Director reported directly to both the Chief Operating Officer and the
FAA Administrator. Now that JPDO is no longer a separate, independent
office within FAA and its head no longer reports directly to the FAA
Administrator, its organizational position within FAA has declined.
This reorganization does not address the concerns of some industry
stakeholders that JPDO's reporting status might keep it from
interacting on an equal footing with ATO and the other partner federal
agencies. In 2007, we reported that it was important for JPDO to have
some independence from ATO to counter the perception that it was a
proxy for ATO and, as such, not able to act as an ``honest broker''
between ATO and the partner federal agencies. We pointed out that, to
address this issue, the JPDO Director could report directly to the FAA
Administrator.\4\ Nonetheless, we believe it is too early to tell
whether the reorganization has diminished the effectiveness of JPDO,
especially in terms of its ability to sustain the cooperation of the
partner federal agencies, or if the new governance structure will be
acceptable in practice and address the concerns that have been raised.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of JPDO will have to be measured by the
efforts of the partner agencies to implement policies and procedures,
conduct research, and acquire systems that support NextGen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO, Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on the
Future of Air Traffic Control Modernization, GAO-07-928R (Washington,
D.C.: May 30, 2007).
Q3. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) program is
fundamental to NextGen. What are the major risks with ADS-B in terms of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
capabilities, schedule, cost, and industry acceptance?
A3. ADS-B is a satellite-based aircraft navigation system that allows
aircraft to broadcast their position to air traffic controllers, other
aircraft, and ground systems. FAA plans to implement ADS-B over the
next 15 to 20 years as a key NextGen system. FAA awarded a contract
worth up to $1.8 billion for acquiring the ground infrastructure for
ADS-B in August 2007 and is developing an ADS-B rule-making, scheduled
for issuance in 2010. FAA's initial deployment plans focus on areas of
the Nation that do not have radar surveillance, such as Alaska and the
Gulf of Mexico, and individual airlines, such as United Parcel Service,
which is installing ADS-B on all of its Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.
Several risks are associated with implementing ADS-B including the
cost to industry to equip, incomplete specifications for ADS-B
capabilities, and broadcast frequency congestion concerns. Full use of
ADS-B depends not only on government efforts, but also involves
decisions by the aviation industry about what equipment to purchase and
when to purchase it. With ADS-B, for example, an official of RTCA's\5\
ADS-B working group noted that the cost and expected benefits of
equipping aircraft to take full advantage of ADS-B is a key issue for
the aviation industry. The official said that equipping existing
aircraft to communicate with the ground stations may not be cost
prohibitive for regional and large commercial airlines, but further
equipping these aircraft so they can use ADS-B's full capabilities
could require cost-prohibitive modifications. Consequently, the
official noted that carriers plan to install equipment to use ADS-B's
full capabilities only as they order new aircraft. He also said that
carriers could have full-capability ADS-B installed on new aircraft
that they are ordering now, except that specifications do not yet
exist. In addition, the official believed that some air carriers were
hesitant to equip with ADS-B because of concerns that FAA might not
follow through with the deployment of full ADS-B capabilities. We have
reported\6\ that a demonstration of NextGen capabilities, such as ADS-
B, and of efficiencies resulting from their use would give airlines an
incentive to equip their aircraft with NextGen technologies. They could
then lower their costs by reducing their fuel consumption and decrease
the impact of their operations on the environment. Our research
indicates that by establishing benefits early in a program's
development, demonstrations can increase stakeholders' confidence in an
initiative. A demonstration of ADS-B could provide incentives for the
aviation community to equip aircraft with compatible technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops
consensus-based performance standards for air traffic control (ATC)
systems. RTCA serves as a federal advisory committee, and its
recommendations are the basis for a number of FAA's policy, program,
and regulatory decisions. RTCA includes an ADS-B working group within
its air traffic management advisory committee. The ADS-B Working Group
includes representatives of air transport, avionics manufacturers,
business aviation, Department of Defense, and general aviation.
\6\ GAO-08-1078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, concerns have been raised about broadcast frequency
congestion related to ADS-B. FAA plans to establish two data links for
the system. Commercial aircraft and other aircraft operating at high
altitudes would send their position to ground stations by transmitting
on 1090 MHz while general aviation would use Universal Access
Transceivers operating on 978 MHz. On September 26, 2008, FAA's ADS-B
Aviation Rule-making Committee called for an urgent study of congestion
on 1090 MHz, indicating the frequency is becoming crowded in some
airspace with high-density air traffic.
Question submitted by Representative Laura Richardson
Q1. In your testimony you referenced closing and consolidating
systems, what do you mean?
A1. To fully realize NextGen's capabilities, FAA will have to
reconfigure its air traffic control (ATC) facilities to make them
compatible with new technologies and procedures. According to a senior
ATO official, the agency plans to report on the cost implications of
reconfiguring its facilities in 2009. However, FAA has no comprehensive
plan for reconfiguring its facilities. Until the cost analysis is
completed and a reconfiguration plan has been developed, the
configurations needed for NextGen cannot be implemented and potential
savings that could help offset the cost of NextGen will not be
realized. Some FAA officials have said that implementing plans for
facility maintenance and construction that are based on the current ATC
system and do not incorporate the configurations needed for NextGen
could, without reconfiguration, significantly increase the cost of
NextGen. Additionally, some of the capacity and efficiency enhancements
expected from the implementation of NextGen may be curtailed if the
system's infrastructure needs are not fully addressed.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. In your statement, you recount FAA's difficulties in implementing
the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) program.
You say that the original program for 172 sites costing $940 million
became one for just 50 sites costing $1.46 billion. So let's look at
the math. We reduce the number of sites by two-thirds and pay 50
percent more. Why should such a performance by FAA give the Congress
any confidence that NextGen won't suffer the same cost problems?
A1. FAA modernization projects, including STARS, have a long history of
cost growth, schedule slips, and performance shortfalls. These problems
have translated into reduced benefits to FAA and airspace users,
reliance on costly interim systems, and loss of confidence in FAA's
ability to manage large-scale acquisitions. As we have noted in reports
and testimonies, it will be important for FAA to avoid these problems
in developing various NextGen efforts.
The development and implementation of NextGen is a high-risk effort
that will require sustained oversight. It will be a top management
challenge for the next Administration. To help reduce risk with
NextGen, we have made several recommendations to FAA, including the
following:
Reporting NextGen costs to Congress and stakeholders
along three vectors, which include developmental efforts,
adjustments to existing projects, and NextGen implementation.
Determining what skill sets and expertise with
respect to software development, contract oversight, and
systems integration that will be needed to manage NextGen.
Funding targeted human factors research to ensure
that the changes envisioned for pilots and controllers can be
safely accommodated.
Developing and reporting on a new set of metrics for
measuring progress with NextGen initiatives that focus on the
delivery of a new capability with respect to enhancing
capacity, boosting productivity, or reducing Agency operating
costs.
Developing an interim architecture for the 2015
timeframe to help bridge the gap between current systems and
NextGen.
FAA has concurred with these recommendations and is taking action.
We will continue to monitor FAA's efforts in these areas.
Q2. How successful has the JPDO been developing conceptual and
technical descriptions of what NextGen will consist of? How about in
developing a plan for the coordinated implementation of a transformed
future system?
A2. The JPDO has been successful in developing conceptual and technical
descriptions of NextGen. These are outlined in the NextGen Concept of
Operations and Integrated Work Plan. JPDO plans call for a system that
relies heavily on satellite-based systems, data link communications for
pilots and controllers, new automation systems, and robust and secure
information sharing. However, planning documents remain at a very high
level and are unconstrained and not mature enough to translate into
specific requirements for new automation or data link communication
systems.
The JPDO has not been successful thus far in developing a
coordinated implementation plan for NextGen. FAA and the JPDO have much
work to do to develop a realistic transition plan for Congress and
airspace users. This is important because NextGen will require airspace
users to purchase and install a wide range of avionics at an estimated
cost of $15 billion. This is why we believe FAA needs to assess
``implementation bandwidth'' to determine what reasonably can be
accomplished with respect to equipage as well as controller and pilot
training in given timeframes.
Q3. Your statement characterizes the JPDO foundational documents such
as the Enterprise Architecture as not yet mature enough to drive
investment decisions or generate requirements for major NextGen
acquisitions. You said that JPDO officials told your office that it
will take a year or more for the documents to be effective tools for
driving agency budgets, setting priorities, and managing research
efforts.
a. In your opinion, is JPDO's response reasonable?
b. Should we expect these foundational documents to take time
to mature as advocated by the JPDO?
c. Does this further complicate the research that needs to be
done?
A3. As we noted in our statement, some progress has been made with key
NextGen foundational documents, such as the NextGen Enterprise
Architecture and Integrated Work Plan. However, they remain at a high
level and, as FAA points out, are unconstrained with respect to cost.
As was noted by the National Research Council, these efforts reflect a
lack of top-level system engineering and clearly established
priorities. We agree with the National Research Council's assessment.
FAA's statements that it will take a year or more for the planning
documents to mature enough to drive investment decision, set
priorities, and manage research appear reasonable. It is an unfortunate
but accurate assessment of progress to date. We recognize that many
stakeholders are frustrated by a lack of progress with the NextGen
Enterprise Architecture and overall efforts to move forward with
NextGen. Therefore, we believe that FAA should take steps to accelerate
these efforts where possible.
We note that it is reasonable to expect these documents to take
time to mature and be modified as NextGen concepts and requirements are
more clearly defined. Further, these documents will have to be adjusted
to reflect the results of ongoing research projects.
Without question, the lack of maturity of the NextGen Enterprise
Architecture and Integrated Work Plan complicate the execution of
research needed for NextGen. We think FAA and the JPDO need to
establish research priorities to help decision-makers understand which
investments need to be made first from the wide range of operational
improvements discussed in planning documents. As noted in our
statement, FAA should provide this Committee with a clear understanding
of how it will prioritize research and development, address various
research gaps, and update priorities when research results become
available or when national priorities change.
Q4. Your office recommended earlier this year that FAA develop an
interim architecture or ``waypoint'' that is manageable and executable
for what is expected in 2015. The OIG report says that FAA concurred
with this recommendation. Please describe the key attributes that would
make this interim architecture both manageable and executable.
A4. We recommended that FAA develop an interim architecture in the 2015
timeframe to reduce risk and help bridge the gap between the current
system and the vastly different NextGen. This interim architecture
should have a number of attributes to help make it manageable and
executable.
First, the interim architecture should clearly define the expected
benefits for stakeholders and FAA. Currently, FAA does not articulate
the expected benefits of NextGen investments in planning or budget
documents. The benefits should focus on enhancing capacity and reducing
delays and operating costs.
Second, the interim architecture should show a clear path for how
existing systems will transition to NextGen and identify what
adjustments will be needed. This is important because over 30 existing
systems form platforms for NextGen. Thus, the pace of NextGen will be
dictated by progress with existing systems. An integrated approach to
software development and integration will be essential to reduce the
potential for cost growth, schedule delays, and shifting requirements.
Third, the interim architecture should highlight and publish the
timeframes for making the procedural changes needed to get the expected
benefits from new systems or a combination of systems. For example, FAA
will need to make sure that new procedures that rely on data link
communications for controllers and pilots, new routes that rely on on-
board aircraft avionics, and new automation capabilities for boosting
capacity are in place at specific locations.
Q5. What is the impact of FAA's reorganization on the NextGen
development and implementation effort? Can you elaborate on what you
characterize in your statement as ``friction'' between the ATO and
JPDO?
A5. As stated in our testimony, it is too soon to evaluate FAA's recent
reorganization on NextGen development and implementation. While FAA
believes the change will help with implementation, it gives the
appearance that the JPDO has been significantly reduced in stature and
importance. We do have some concerns that could impact NextGen
implementation.
First, the roles and responsibilities of the JPDO and
ATO are not clearly defined. According to FAA, the JPDO will
focus on long-term planning and interagency cooperation while
the ATO's new NextGen Implementation office will concentrate on
short-term efforts. However, it will be difficult to establish
clear demarcation lines because implementing NextGen
capabilities depend heavily on modifying existing modernization
projects. In addition, both offices will have considerable
modeling and simulation capabilities for assessing NextGen
initiatives.
Second, while the Senior Vice President for NextGen
will be responsible for managing NextGen demonstration
projects, major efforts for essential NextGen platforms, such
as ERAM and Terminal Modernization, will continue to be managed
by other ATO vice presidents. We also note that airports--which
play a key role in NextGen--are managed by an FAA office
outside of the ATO. Thus, budgetary authority for FAA
modernization efforts remains fragmented.
Third, the new structure will be challenged to deal
with complex, cross-cutting agency issues that will need to be
resolved. For example, we think it will be difficult for an
office within the ATO to work out agreements with DOD, DHS, or
NOAA on major decisions affecting surveillance, airspace
security, and weather systems.
Further, there has been--and continues to be--friction between the
ATO and JPDO that is due in part to vastly different planning horizons.
The ATO is an organization that operates the National Airspace System
24 hours a day, seven days a week. The ATO does this very well but it
has a short planning horizon. The JPDO, on the other hand, is focused
on introducing cutting-edge technologies and transforming the National
Airspace System by the 2025 timeframe. It will be important to
reconcile these differences to successfully implement NextGen.
Q6. You indicated in your statement that FAA needs to focus attention
on airport issues and how NextGen technologies can unlock already
congested airports. Can you elaborate on how FAA would do that and how
it differs from that already accomplished in it's planning documents?
A6. A top priority for NextGen should focus on enhancing capacity at
already congested metropolitan areas, such as the New York airports. An
important metric for NextGen is to what extent efforts can increase
airport arrival rates under various weather conditions.
Currently, FAA planning documents and budget requests do not detail
how individual NextGen efforts can specifically increase airport
arrival rates and thereby boost capacity. It would help decision-makers
and stakeholders if FAA would show how individual NextGen efforts; like
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, data link communications
for controllers and pilots, and new ground automation systems; can
boost airport capacity. This information will help target solutions to
specific airports, set expectations, and help shape consensus among
stakeholders about how to move forward with NextGen.
Q7. In response to a question from Ranking Member Hall on OMB's
coordination and alignment of research budgets among participating
federal agencies, you noted the ``great'' difference between the budget
request submitted by the Department of Commerce for NOAA on weather
capabilities and what FAA had expected. What was the magnitude of the
difference and what was the basis for FAA's expectation?
A7. The Department of Commerce has the lead role in developing the 4-D
Weather Cube, which is expected to provide a single authoritative
source for weather observations and analysis. This tool is also
expected to provide a common picture of weather for all airspace users.
However, there are significant differences between FAA and NOAA
regarding how new weather systems will be used.
An internal JPDO assessment found that there is disagreement on
synchronizing weather observations, forecasts, and dissemination
efforts. This threatens current plans to implement the 4-D Weather Cube
in the 2013 timeframe. The assessment also noted that several policy
and funding issues need to be addressed; specifically, most of the
Department of Commerce efforts that the JPDO expects to rely on are not
funded.
Development for the 4-D Weather Cube is estimated to cost more than
$300 million and implementation costs, though uncertain, have been
estimated at three times as much as to develop the cube. It is
difficult to assess FAA's expectations because the Agency has not
finalized NextGen weather-related requirements. FAA and Commerce are
working to resolve issues and reach some level of agreement in time for
the FY 2010 budget submission. The development of the 4D Weather Cube,
funding levels, and the evolution of requirements will require
sustained oversight.
Q8. In your statement, you note FAA's difficulties with its ADS-B
Notice of Proposed Rule-making and call on FAA to ``develop a realistic
plan for implementing ADS-B and realizing the air-to-air benefits of
the technology.''
a. What are the components of a realistic plan?
b. Do the air-to-air benefits you have in mind require both
ADS-B ``out'' and ``in'' capabilities?
A8. A top priority for the next Administration will be developing a
realistic plan for implementing ADS-B. Currently, there is no consensus
regarding how to move forward with ADS-B.
The elements of a realistic plan for ADS-B include a clear, lucid
articulation of requirements, benefits, and costs for airspace users to
purchase and install new avionics. This plan should also include
milestones for completing a number of critical efforts, including the
following:
Modifying existing controller automation systems.
Finalizing technical requirements for ADS-B ``Out''
and ADS-B ``In.''
Certifying ADS-B related equipment on the aircraft in
the United States.
Approving separation standards for using ADS-B to
manage traffic.
Completing controller training programs for relying
on ADS-B systems.
The air-to-air benefits of ADS-B are significant but rely on both
ADS-B ``Out'' and ADS-B ``In.'' FAA's proposed rule only mandates ADS-B
``Out,'' or the broadcast of information to ground systems. The
potential for ADS-B ``In'' relies on the fact that information on
nearby aircraft will be delivered to the cockpit. This gives the pilot
a second set of eyes, thereby enhancing situational awareness and
safety in the air and on the ground. Therefore, we believe FAA needs to
accelerate efforts to finalize requirements for ADS-B ``In.''
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. With upcoming change in Administrations, do you foresee
difficulties maintaining program continuity during the transition? Does
NextGen have enough traction among participating agencies to maintain
momentum in the months ahead?
A1. It will be a challenge to maintain program continuity during the
upcoming transition. This is the case for major initiatives across the
Federal Government. In our forthcoming report on the top management
challenges facing the department, we will highlight the importance of
managing and reducing risk with NextGen. It will be important for FAA
and the JPDO to complete several actions, including establishing
funding priorities for NextGen.
To maintain traction with NextGen and continue cooperation among
JPDO's partner agencies, the next Administration will have to emphasize
its commitment to a multi-agency approach. This will be important given
the cross-cutting nature of NextGen, resource constraints facing the
government, and the expected sharp competition for funds. As noted in
our statement, much work remains to be done to fully link and integrate
agency budgets and address research gaps for the development and
execution of NextGen.
Q2. The joint Planning and Development Office is a planning and
coordinating body that relies on the cooperation of its federal
partners to provide the expertise and resources needed to accomplish
NextGen. With slightly more than four years of experience, how would
you rate the effectiveness of the JPDO, especially with regard to
engaging and sustaining the cooperation of participating federal
agencies? What concerns, if any, do you have about the JPDO's
effectiveness following the reorganization?
A2. The JPDO has been effective in engaging and cooperating with
participating agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Department of Defense. The JPDO's efforts to
leverage research at other federal agencies are critical given that FAA
conducts very little long-term air traffic management research.
Central to making the JPDO an effective multi-agency vehicle is the
alignment of resources. This is a complex task, and the JPDO has no
authority to adjust or direct the research efforts of other federal
agencies.
As noted in our statement, we have seen progress with various
mechanisms of alignment, including the publication of a NextGen Concept
of Operations and NextGen Research and Development Plan. However, FAA
and the JPDO partner agencies need to address several fundamental
issues to ensure that research efforts are aligned and successfully
transferred to the NAS. For example, there are 27 ``disconnects'' or
``gaps'' that need to be addressed, which will fundamentally affect the
cost and schedule for NextGen. We provide details on these issues in
our statement.
It is premature to evaluate the effectiveness of the recent
organizational changes that places the JPDO within the FAA Air Traffic
Organization. However, it gives the appearance that the JPDO has been
reduced in stature and importance. We are concerned about the
fragmentation of budget authority and accountability as well as how the
new organization will deal with cross-cutting agency issues. We think
FAA will have to revisit how the Agency is organized once it has a
clearer picture of what it will take to deliver NextGen capabilities.
Q3. The ADS-B program is fundamental to NextGen. What are the major
risks with ADS-B in terms of capabilities, schedule, cost, and industry
acceptance?
A3. The implementation of ADS-B and cockpit displays offer significant
potential to enhance safety and boost capacity. However, the
introduction of this technology faces the following risks.
Stakeholder acceptance and aircraft equipage--FAA
plans to mandate ADS-B but unresolved questions exist about the
cost of new avionics and the lack of benefits.
Frequency congestion concerns--There are real
concerns that the frequency planned for large commercial
aircraft will become over crowded. This is particularly a
concern for high activity airspace in the Northeast United
States.
Finalizing requirements for ADS-B and cockpit
displays--FAA must finalize requirements for both ADS-B ``Out''
(the broadcast of information to ground systems) and ADS-B
``In'' (the display of information in the cockpit).
Integrating ADS-B with existing systems--FAA must
successfully integrate ADS-B with existing controller displays
and computers across the National Airspace System.
Addressing security concerns--Because ADS-B could
make the position of aircraft generally available, security
risks need to be fully explored and mitigated.
FAA published a notice of proposed rule-making for ADS-B in October
2007 and received over 170 comments from organizations or individuals.
FAA is reviewing the comments and working with industry to resolve
several complex issues and risks. We plan to issue a report on ADS-B
early next year.
Question submitted by Representative Laura Richardson
Q1. Has the gap analysis been conducted that you referenced on April
14, 2008?
A1. FAA is conducting the gap analysis as recommended in our April 14,
2008, report. According to FAA officials, the analysis of ``gaps''
between current systems and NextGen is expected to be completed by
February 2009. We will continue to monitor FAA's efforts in this area.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Paul G. Kaminski, Chairman and CEO, Technovation, Inc.;
AIA Member of NextGen Institute Management Committee
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. How challenging is the JPDO's role in consolidating and focusing
the research and development work of so many agencies without having
budgetary control over their work? How does this compare with your
experience at DOD?
A1. From my experience, I know how challenging budgetary control issues
can be, and this is especially so with a multi-agency endeavor such as
JPDO. Each JPDO partner agency has its own executive mission, and I
doubt that--given JPDO actions to date--providing direct JPDO budgetary
authority over partner agencies' R&D is realistic. However, some level
of oversight of participating agencies budgets for NextGen R&D to
support the critically needed planning, system engineering, and
integration of R&D efforts might be helpful.
Q2. In the transformed NextGen, I understand that roles and
responsibilities of key players will change dramatically. Pilots will
take more separation responsibilities and automation will enable air
traffic controllers to manage larger numbers of aircraft while
improving safety.
A2. Reallocation of airborne and ground responsibilities is an issue
that FAA had anticipated, and it directed its efforts accordingly. One
factor in this is the extent of equipage which will determine where,
when, and how responsibility will be delegated. Pilots and controllers
have to be consulted and trained for their new missions involving new
technology and new approaches to improve efficiency and safety. There
will also be new responsibilities in a world of substantially different
aircraft types such as Unmanned Aerial Systems.
Q2a. What are the key aspects from human factors research that FAA and
NASA need to get right before we can have confidence that this
delegation of decision-making duties is both feasible and safe?
A2a. In support of the relevant human factors research that you raised,
I believe that we need to develop the modeling and simulation
capabilities that I described in the briefing attached to my statement.
These capabilities will allow us to validate our models by using live
demonstrations, to include ``humans in the loop'' so we can validate
operational performance in realistic environments. This will be
critical to development and implementation of the policies and
certification standards that are needed to obtain the efficiency and
safety benefits associated with the enhanced automation enabled by new
technology and new system approaches.
Q2b. Are the needed R&D programs in place and adequately funded to get
that research done?
A2b. Many of the R&D programs are in place. But I believe additional
programs are needed to fill voids and, most importantly, we need a
better integration of our modeling and simulation capabilities and
related demonstrations across the entire NextGen domain. It will be
important for this Committee to review the next budget for modeling and
simulation capabilities in this context.
Q3. You advocate bolstering demonstration with modeling and simulation
to gain a better understanding of benefits and limitations from
anticipated technology improvements. Since FAA does not currently have
a significant indigenous modeling and simulation capability, when do
you see the agency being capable of performing such research? Or should
this research be carried out by NASA or another entity?
A3. FAA, as the implementing agency that does near- and mid-term
planning, should direct and coordinate NextGen modeling and simulation
activities, and oversee the validation of models and simulations with
demonstrations. From my extended and ongoing discussions with FAA, the
agency officials are very aware of current limitations in this arena.
There is extensive modeling and simulation capability at the FAA
Technical Center in Atlantic City. I have met with the Director of that
facility, and look forward to making a visit in the near-term to obtain
a better understanding of the capabilities and limitations. NASA also
has capabilities which should be exploited. Representing AIA, I am
continuing to explore ways to assist FAA's expansion and refinement of
its capabilities (both internally and externally) by working with NASA,
DOD, and industry. The briefing that I provided along with my statement
outlines the approach which I believe is needed both to execute the
development and implementation of NextGen and to exploit the
substantial long-term benefits that can be provided to the Nation.
Accelerating NextGen applications is the goal, and my proposal would
enhance current FAA efforts.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. With the upcoming change in Administration, do you foresee
difficulties maintaining program continuity during the transaction?
Does NextGen have enough traction among its particular agencies to
maintain momentum in the months ahead?
A1. Since the FAA restructuring bringing closer coordination with JPDO,
NextGen is now better positioned to maintain program continuity during
an Administration transition. This more efficient integration of JPDO
and FAA allows NextGen implementation and near-term planning to be
aligned with NextGen R&D and daily air traffic operations into a
cohesive whole. This integration will effectively support FAA--the
implementing agency--in its responsibility for meeting a challenging
R&D and implementation timetable.
JPDO partner agencies are already working with FAA to leverage
applicable R&D and facilitate technology transfer in a timely manner.
With continued NextGen near-term planning as it transitions to
implementation, JPDO participating agencies will be reassured by
integration with the implementing agency that will enhance
productivity. This closer FAA role will ensure that planning and R&D
are prioritized and directly relevant to near-term operational
applications. Additionally, partner agencies' participation will be
under the rigor and structure of the implementing federal agency to
ensure planning is productive and relevant, valuable and appropriate.
Q2. The Joint Planning and Development Office is a planning and
coordinating body that relies on the cooperation of its federal
partners to provide the expertise and resources needed to accomplish
NextGen. With slightly more than four years of experience, how would
you rate the effectiveness of the JPDO, especially with regard to
engaging and sustaining the cooperation of the participating federal
agencies? What concerns, if any, do you have about JPDO's effectiveness
following the reorganization?
A2. The JPDO was tasked with an extremely challenging mission and has
made a start with issuance of the requisite planning documents.
However, these documents do not yet provide the level of detail and the
decision-making foundation that were expected and needed by government
and industry stakeholders. Consequently, we have lost time and, aside
from participating agencies' own planning, JPDO's planning needs more
definition. External organizations that have reviewed JPDO documents,
such as the National Research Council and the FAA Research,
Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), have expressed
concern that the documents do not sufficiently define R&D for agencies'
action. This concern was amplified by the recently released JPDO
Integrated Work Plan that was officially re-characterized as a
``planning tool,'' i.e., not a plan, and presented as one of several
approaches to achieve NextGen. However, it was expected that this
document would integrate and direct NextGen activities. Participating
agencies and companies have been generally disappointed with JPDO
progress, with the belief that their efforts have been less than
productive. JPDO working groups, led by government and industry co-
chairs, have asked that their work be integrated under a unified lead,
as most complex development projects are. It was only now, when FAA has
been receptive to this request, that their request may be met. This is
illustrative of the value that can accrue to JPDO's efforts under
closer coordination with FAA: Industry believes that, under closer FAA
guidance, it's efforts can be integrated and directed by established
planning goals.
I would like to remind the Committee that I would be pleased to
provide any further assistance that could be of value, including an
informal presentation of my plan to accelerate NextGen development and
applications.
How to Accelerate NextGen: What needs to be done
By Dr. Paul G. Kaminski
To accelerate NextGen implementation, there are clusters of essential
modifications that must be realized:
NextGen foundational programs need near-term
demonstrations linked with modeling and simulation, and
validated by testing;
The demonstrations can then be expanded and extended
in an integrated environment;
We need to begin now with operational demonstrations
(building on existing FAA Test Beds) with stay-behind
capabilities that are then replicated and integrate; and
We need to build an acquisition and system
engineering base for people to gain domain experience at test
bed demonstration locations.
We also need to attain consensus on selection criteria for near-
term demonstrations. I suggest criteria such as capacity enhancement,
energy efficiency, improved safety and/or security, environmental
impact, implementable within the next five years, and a favorable
benefit/cost ratio.
The carefully selected demonstrations will provide us with the
information to link foundational programs with enabled NextGen
applications and criteria.
Foundational Programs
ADS-B
RNP/RNAV
Surface Management System
SWIM
DataComm
Enabled Applications
CDAs/Tailored Arrivals
Closely Spaced Parallels
CDTI assisted approaches
Criteria
Capacity enhancing
More energy efficient
Improved safety/security
Environmentally sound
Implementable in the next five years
Favorable benefit/cost ratio
The selected FAA test beds and demonstrations will undergo the
iterative cycle of planning, design and model, build, test and
evaluate, adjust, redesign and refine modeling and simulation, build
more, integrate results, and then start over. As I call it, ``build a
little, test a little.''
A tested capability (capability ``A'') is established in one
location and integrated with another location (after testing). This
linkage can be expanded to achieve a strategic system engineering model
with a regionally linked capability. Another capability is then added
to one location and the same process begins with the second capability,
adding it as a second capability layered on top of the first one and
linked regionally.
This iterative process continues, adding capabilities, expanding
the regional linkage, and adding participating users as they see the
value of capability equipage.
Appropriate modeling and simulation is key to accelerating
progress: it provides the systems engineering foundation needed to
support and integrate acquisition; it helps establish priorities for
achieving the best payoff, and helps define policies and procedures to
achieve the objectives (energy and operational efficiency,
environmental improvement, improved safety and security; iterative
modeling and simulation enables systematic improvements, promotes a
common understanding of complex new capabilities, their value added,
and mutual interaction; when validated by testing, modeling and
simulation demonstrate the value proposition and link incremental
improvements to the business case; and data from modeling and
simulation supported by demonstrations will yield the rationale and
business case to replace unnecessary legacy systems.
There are specific requirements to execute this acceleration of
NextGen capabilities. These requirements are a strategic systems
engineering foundation (enabled by modeling and simulation) to refine
operational planning and requirements, set priorities, develop system
specifications, and support deployment planning; systems acquisition
experience and discipline to enhance JPDO planning and FAA
implementation processes; systems acquisition/integration management
expertise to manage JPDO working groups, and mature IWP and modeling &
simulation architecture; a systems acquisition manager under FAA ATO/
COO with subordinate program managers for major programs; consortia and
individual supporting industry contractors to implement NextGen (e.g.,
ADS-B contract consortium); and immediate start with operational
demonstrations of foundational technology programs with stay behind
capabilities, which will then be replicated.
In summary, as the first step, we need to build the ``Scaffolds''
(i.e., demonstrate and model the applications enabled by foundational
programs in an integrated approach) to support the NextGen Vision. Then
we must strengthen the scaffold's three ``Pillars'': 1) System
Engineering supported by robust modeling and simulation capability to
support the other two Pillars, and to refine the architecture and
integrate technologies; 2) System Acquisition and Integrated Management
at FAA and other implementing agencies; and 3) Deployment Planning to
include operational concepts, safety, procedures, training and
security.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ian A. Waitz, PARTNER Director; Jerome C. Hunsaker
Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Head, Department of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. The high cost of fuel has forced airlines to remove less fuel-
efficient aircraft from their fleets and reduce the number of flights.
In the near-term this should result in less fuel consumed and a
commensurate decrease in emissions. But airlines are also delaying
plans to purchase newer, quieter and more fuel-efficient replacement
aircraft. Does the new energy picture alter the thrust and urgency of
your team's 2004 report on aviation and the environment?
A1. The new energy picture increases the urgency of the need to jointly
address environment and energy issues for air transportation. Two-
thirds of every drop of petroleum is used by transportation. The
transportation sector is one of the fastest growing major economic
sectors with respect to CO2 emissions. And within the
transportation sector, aviation is the fastest growing mode of
transportation in many regions of the world. Aviation is also uniquely
challenged in terms of opportunities for improvement because of the
weight, volume, and safety constraints that come with flight (relative
to movement on the surface of the Earth). Further, while commercial air
transportation is an industry that is estimated to contribute three
percent to eight percent to the U.S. GDP, it is also an industry that
is very sensitive to a variety of economic drivers like the price of
fuel. As some support for this, note that the historical net operating
profits for the industry as a whole are around zero percent. Indeed,
the balance with regard to the adoption of more fuel-efficient aircraft
that you identify in your question is a reflection of this sensitivity.
Never before has there been a more opportune time to jointly promote
environment and economy through addressing the challenges of aviation,
environment, and energy.
Q2. In a February report to the Subcommittee, GAO reported that noise
reduction technologies may be limited by concerns about global warming
as advances in these technologies could make it more difficult to also
achieve reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. In your opinion,
are reductions in noise and emissions mutually exclusive or could high
fuel prices spur technological innovations we have yet to envision?
A2. There are many examples of trade-offs in aircraft and engine
technology where improving one thing (e.g., noise performance)
penalizes something else (e.g., fuel efficiency and GHG emissions).
This is true with many noise reduction technologies. There are also
examples of co-benefits, whereby changes to improve fuel efficiency
also reduce noise (or other environmental or performance issues)--as
was the case with the introduction of the high bypass ratio gas turbine
engine in the `70s and `80s. So there is not a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer
to this question that is always true. Nonetheless, it is true that most
design changes for relatively mature, well-developed technologies
exhibit negative trade-offs whereby improving one aspect of performance
(environmental, safety, economics, etc.) limits other performance
objectives. This is a result of aircraft being highly optimized systems
refined for specific performance objectives. I wish to emphasize that
these trade-offs are most acute for known, and relatively mature
technologies. Historically, new and innovative aircraft technology has
changed the equation (e.g., by enabling a beneficial step change in
several performance objectives at the same time). It is exactly this
type of innovation that is required and that should be the focus of
more robust, federally funded research and development programs in NASA
and FAA.
Q3. In light of the uncertainty associated with how greenhouse gas and
other emissions from aviation will be dealt with worldwide, how can the
JPDO address the concern that the NextGen initiative is honing in on
solutions without a clear idea of the problem?
A3. First, I concur fully with the concern. It is hard to make a case
that NextGen is honing in on the right solutions if they don't have a
clear idea of the problem. JPDO's understanding of the climate change
impacts of aviation is indeed insufficient. As noted in both my written
and oral testimony, this should be addressed by funding a scientific
research program that focuses on aviation and climate change (one
designed specifically to answer the needs of the decision-makers with
regard to technology, operational procedures, and policies). This is
especially critical because of the unique nature of aviation's impacts
on climate. In my mind, this is the single greatest failing of our
national aviation and environment research enterprise today. Climate
change is a critical concern that could greatly impact the industry and
human health and welfare, we have the talent to answer the important
questions and to plot a reasoned, intelligent path forward, yet the
work to answer the questions is not being funded. And the magnitude of
the funding required (perhaps $5M per year) is embarrassingly small
compared to the potential impact of even a single misplaced policy
decision on an industry that contributes so much to our well being and
economy.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. With the upcoming change in Administrations, do you foresee
difficulties maintaining program continuity during the transition? Does
NextGen have enough traction among its partner agencies to maintain
momentum in the months ahead?
A1. We are currently suffering because of inaction in advance of the
change in Administration: no new reauthorization for FAA, no new
reauthorization for NASA. Within these reauthorization bills are the
critical programs required to jointly address aviation and environment.
The programs are not going forward under the continuing resolution.
Important new programs have been put on hold--programs that were
already overdue. A related question is whether the momentum that
NextGen has now is sufficient. I believe it is not. So the current
momentum is insufficient, and it is being hurt further by inaction
surrounding the change in Administration.
Q2. The Joint Planning and Development Office is a planning and
coordinating body that relies on the cooperation of its federal
partners to provide expertise and resources needed to accomplish
NextGen. With slightly more than four years of experience, how would
you rate the effectiveness of the JPDO, especially with regard to
engaging and sustaining the cooperation of the participating federal
agencies? What concerns, if any, do you have about JPDO's effectiveness
following the reorganization?
A2. The first two to three years of JPDO as a whole were rough.
However, in the last year, I have seen progress being made, especially
with regard to coordination between FAA and NASA, which is particularly
important in the environmental area. And as I noted in my testimony,
within the JPDO, the Environmental Working Group has been a bright
spot. However, for the JPDO as a whole, if 1 were to assign a grade, I
would give them a C or a D for first couple years, and a B more
recently. There is room for improvement. I do not know how this will be
impacted by the reorganization of the JPDO.
Q3. You point out that the Europeans are beginning to leap ahead in
research on aviation's impact on climate. What are the implications?
Does Europe share their research findings broadly, as we do with
government funded R&D? Will it affect the competitiveness of American
products in the marketplace?
A3. The research findings from European research programs are shared
through journal publications and presentations at conferences. These
often come a year or two after the work is complete. There are
insufficient opportunities for non-EU engagement in the scientific
process earlier in the process as the work is being planned and carried
out. Such engagement is particularly important for promoting an
effective, mutually beneficial, international research enterprise. And
even if the sharing of results was immediate, it does not imply that
the questions being addressed in their research programs are the same
questions that we would want to address. We have different national and
local interests, and different opportunities with respect to addressing
these interests. Research by proxy for important national issues like
air transportation and the environment is not a strong approach in my
opinion.
Q4. You state that proposed funding levels for FAA's CLEEN (Continuous
Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise) program are insufficient to promote
needed technological advances. What level of funding do you consider
appropriate?
A4. We need to accelerate the technology, operations, and alternative
fuels programs in both NASA and FAA with an emphasis on programs that
bridge fundamental aeronautics research and industrial development
programs. FAA's CLEEN program funding should not be considered in a
vacuum without the context of funding for parallel NASA programs. I
believe that something on the order of $0.5B per year should be
invested in jointly addressing aviation and environment with
approximately 20 percent invested on the FAA side and 80 percent on the
NASA side. With respect to NASA funding, I am pleased to note that this
parallels recommendations made in various versions of the pending
reauthorization bills. With respect to FAA, it is a factor of two or
three higher than proposed in the pending reauthorization bills.
Q5. Based on research to date, have any estimates of the cost of
producing alternative fuels been provided if industry were to embrace
full-scale production?
A5. Yes, production cost estimates have been provided by researchers in
industry, governmental agencies, and academia for several potential
alternative fuels. However, because of the multiple potential
alternative fuels, there is a wide range of estimated production costs.
These production costs depend heavily on the choice of feedstock (e.g.,
coal, natural gas, solid biomass, and algal oil) and the process that
is used to convert the feedstock into an alternative fuel (e.g.,
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, or hydro-processing). The production costs
are currently estimated to be larger than those for petroleum, but for
fuel prices at or above those we have seen recently, production of
fuels from some of the alternative feedstocks appears to economically
attractive. Production cost estimates will always have uncertainties
associated with them; this uncertainty will decrease as more is known
about the processes.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record