U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–652 PDF 2006

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM MODERNIZATION: PRESENT AND FUTURE

(109–82)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 21, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Chew, Russell, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization, Federal

Aviation Administration ...................................................................................... 11

Dillingham, Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 11

Elsawy, Amr A., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for

Advanced Aviation System Development, the Mitre Corporation ................... 11

Pearce, Robert, Acting Director, Joint Planning and Development Office, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization ................................... 11

Waters, Hon. Maxine, a Re[resentative in Congress from the State of California .......................................................................................................................... 8

Zinser, Todd, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S.

Department of Transportation ............................................................................ 11

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Riss, of Missouri .......................................................................... 41

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 109

Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr., of New Jersey ................................................................... 155

Waters, Hon. Maxine, of California ........................................................................ 159

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Chew, Russell ........................................................................................................... 42

Dillingham, Gerald .................................................................................................. 112

Elsawy, Amr A ......................................................................................................... 146

Pearce, Robert .......................................................................................................... 42

Zinser, Todd ............................................................................................................. 164

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Chew, Russell, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization, Federal

Aviation Administration:

Responses to questions ........................................................................................ 57

Responses to questions from Rep. Costello ........................................................ 69

Responses to questions from Rep. Pascrell ........................................................ 76

Responses to questions from Rep. Honda .......................................................... 84

Elsawy, Amr A., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for

Advanced Aviation System Development, the Mitre Corporation, responses

to questions from Rep. Costello ........................................................................... 150

Pearce, Robert, Acting Director, Joint Planning and Development Office, Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization:

Responses to questions from Rep. Mica ............................................................. 85

Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar ....................................................... 92

Responses to questions from Rep. Costello ........................................................ 105

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Thompson, Gerald L., statement and responses to questions from Rep.

Costello .................................................................................................................. 184

(1)

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

MODERNIZATION: PRESENT AND FUTURE

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

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

AVIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon, and I would like to welcome everyone

to today’s Subcommittee hearing of the House Aviation Subcommittee.

The order of business today is going to be opening statements by

members; I will lead off. We have one member witness that we will

hear from.

I understand there are going to be votes at 2:30, so maybe we

can get opening statements and members’ comments taken care of,

and we may even get into the introduction of our first full panel.

So, with that, I will begin. I have got a few comments I would

like to make, and then I will yield to other members.

Of course, the topic of today’s hearing is air traffic control modernization, looking at both the present and future. And this Subcommittee first addressed the topic of today’s hearing, air traffic

control modernization, nearly a quarter of a century ago, during

the first term of the Reagan administration, and since then the

Federal Government has spent a whopping $44 billion taxpayer

money on a seemingly and sometimes Don Quixotic quest to upgrade our Nation’s air traffic control system. However, we still

have a system today that relies on costly ground-base and sometimes 30-year-old technology that sometimes we think might be

best suited for display in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum

down the street.

Until recently, the ATC modernization effort has been plagued by

costly overruns, scheduling delays, and mismanagement, making

this one of the worst acquisition programs in the history of the

United States Government. However, I have a caveat and I want

to take this opportunity to commend our FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, and also give accolades to our air traffic organization

and chief operating officer, our COO, Russell Chew, and I think we

are going to hear from him shortly, for both of their leadership.

I have said before in some of these ATC modernization hearings,

I feel like it is Groundhog Day; I keep living the day over and over

again. But they have put a halt to some of the programs that we

see in some of the dog chasing the tail, and now we are seeing
2

some of our modernizations gain on-time performance and also

looking at some reasonable budget costs.

However, if we can’t sustain this progress and make significant

strides in modernizing the balance of our future ATC system, then

I am afraid that the next decade we may see a meltdown of our

Nation’s air traffic control system. Such a meltdown would cripple

our Nation’s economy, which could lose in excess of $30 billion annually due to people and products not reaching their destinations

within the time periods that we take for granted today.

The need for ATC modernization is paramount. FAA’s recent

forecast conference could not have made it any clearer. Air transportation demand that is coming will demand even greater capability than we have today, of course. According to the FAA, domestic

air passenger traffic will nearly double—in fact, I think this is

wrong, I think it is going to more than double—annually by 2015,

and by 2015 we will expect, again, a doubling in our passenger

count, and by 2025 they are looking at in excess of 1.5 billion passengers annually.

While I am dismayed that our existing ATC system may be incapable of meeting air traffic demand in the near term, it is in fact

a testament to the 50,000 employees of the FAA that our ATC system has been and continues to be the largest and safest in the

world. It is now averaging only one fatal accident per five million

flights, an incredible record.

In light of these significant future demands on the national airspace system, Congress, in 2003 directed the FAA to develop a

comprehensive plan for next generation air traffic control systems,

also known as NGATS. NGATS, in essence, moves air traffic control from earth to the sky and space by replacing antiquated and

costly ground infrastructure with orbiting satellites, onboard automation, and data link communications.

Under the leadership of Mr. Chew—who is, again, I think, one

of the finest public servants I have had to deal with and most capable people in any of the Federal agencies—I have seen this ATO

plan starting to resemble a performance-based, value-driven organization, and that is I think what Congress envisioned. Both the

GAO and the DOT Inspector General found that the ATO has made

significant progress in meeting costs, schedule, and performance

targets for its major ATC acquisition programs.

And some of this isn’t easy. There is a lot of pressure from members not to make the consolidations, the improvements, and gain

technology, sometimes replace antiquated systems and unneeded

personnel. It is a tough fight, but he has persisted, Marion Blakey

has persisted.

I am pleased with the bold cost-cutting and productivity initiatives the ATO has implemented on the operation side, and I am

hopeful that the transition to a satellite-based ATC system will

open up other opportunities for even more significant, albeit politically unpopular, cost-saving initiatives, including the consolidation

of major air traffic control facilities. The consolidation of regional

offices and the decommissioning of ground-base navigational aids

can take place without, I believe, any degradation to safety.

However, in light of political opposition to such initiatives—and

we saw some of that on the floor recently, and it is also evidenced
3

by the reaction to FAA’s proposal to consolidate certain radar stations or TRACONs—I believe that we need to consider maybe another method of handling this, since it is a political hot potato. I

have gotten my hands burned, and it is difficult for people in political office to respond to some of these consolidations upgrades and

necessary revisions, so I am proposing that we look at a base realignment and closure type commission, a BRAC type process, in

the next FAA reauthorization bill. Maybe it will take some of the

politics, hopefully, out of that process.

While I am pleased that the FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office, the JPDO, has led an interagency effort towards planning and development, and they have been successful in establishing a time line for NGATS, I have two primary concerns. First, the

JPDO’s goal of completing NGATS by 2025, in my opinion, is too

late, and that is because, again, the dramatic growth we are seeing

in air travel and that we have expected to continue, and I see no

reason for a change over the next decade. Despite the expenditure of, again, some $44 billion in taxpayer

dollars on ATC modernization initiatives, the GPS-based navigation system in one of the cars I rented recently is in fact more sophisticated than some of the 60-year-old radar technology being

used to navigate some of our aircraft today. In light of the FAA’s

dismal track record on overall ATC modernization—and, again,

this spans almost three decades or more—we need to consider increasing the role of industry as a means of expediting the development and implementation of NGATS.

Ironically, our European friends have adopted a more industrydriven approach to their air traffic modernization, called SESAR,

which warrants, I think, a closer look by the Subcommittee.

My second concern is twofold: how much will NGATS costs and

then, of course, the big question is how we are going to pay for it.

ATO estimates that NGATS will cost between $15 billion and $18

billion. That is on top of the $44 billion we have already spent. We

will hear more about that in testimony today.

Finally, FAA also predicts that a funding gap between the FAA’s

capital accounts and NGATS requirements of between $500 million

to $1.2 billion will exist over the next five years.

It is important to note that most of the FAA’s existing $2.5 billion capital account, which is about half a billion dollars short of

the amount authorized by Congress, goes mostly for existing ATC

system running, not for NGATS-related programs that we are planning.

In light of the $44 billion spent to date on ATC modernization,

we owe assurances to the American taxpayer that NGATS will be

a cost-effective system that will safely accommodate rising air traffic demands for decades and decades to come.

With those comments, I am pleased to recognize our Ranking

Member, Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be very brief and

put my statement in the record. We have our colleague, Representative Waters, waiting to testify, and I know that we have at least

one or two opening statements here.

First, let me thank you for calling the hearing today. Our air

traffic system today is fundamentally based on radar tracking and
4

ground-based infrastructure from the 1960’s. Much of the FAA infrastructure is well passed its useful life. The increase in regional

jets, the growth of point-to-point service, and the anticipated influx

of very light jets are placing new and different strains on the system. It has been estimated that consumers could lose as much as

$30 billion annually if people and products cannot reach their destinations within the time periods expected today. Modernizing and

transforming our air traffic control system is a national priority.

Yet, despite its importance, there is a major serious disconnect

between the rhetoric and the resources being applied to this effort.

For example, funding for the FAA’s ongoing airspace redesign efforts, which is the key to enhancing capacity and reducing airline

fuel costs, have been cut by almost 70 percent this fiscal year. For

a third consecutive year, the Administration is proposing to fund

the FAA’s capital account at $2.5 billion, well below the level authorized in VISION 100.

At the same time, this Subcommittee has been informed of preliminary FAA data indicating that the initial capital cost of the

Next Generation System could be approximately $4 billion more

than the FAA’s current five year capital plan. By starving the

FAA’s capital account, the Administration is slowly setting the

transformation effort up to fail.

While the JPDO is a multi-agency effort, coordination between

JPDO and the FAA is particularly important. However, both the

GAO and the DOT Inspector General, as we will hear today, will

testify that the JPDO does not have the authority to leverage key

human and financial resources from the FAA. I look forward to

hearing and asking questions concerning whether they believe the

current level of coordination between the FAA and JPDO is adequate. If not, Congress should consider formally restructuring the

relationship.

Going forward, we will clearly need the talent, energy, and knowhow of the American air traffic industry to develop our Next Generation System. However, the Government must maintain its ability to effectively manage and control its contracts. Given the long

history of cost overruns on large-scale, highly complex air traffic acquisitions, I see the value in a phased incremental approach. An

incremental approach to acquisition has been what the FAA Chief

Operating Officer, Russ Chew, has attempted to do within the

agency, and I look forward to hearing his testimony today.

For many years, GAO has consistently reported that failing to involve the air traffic controllers in the technology development process has led to costly reworks and delays. The IG notes in his testimony that the need for focused human factors research has important safety implications. Common sense tells us that the people

that will be using the new technology should be involved in its development. I am very concerned that the GAO is now reporting

that no current controllers are involved in the next generation effort. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this issue as

well.

Additionally, the JPDO success at transformation depends largely on its ability to forge consensus with system users. Increasingly,

the aircraft itself is becoming a part of our critical infrastructure,

and airlines will be asked to make costly investments in equipment
5

to take advantage of our new system. It may be time for Congress

and the Administration to engage in a discussion about providing

incentives for airlines to make the costly investments.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I have a number of questions for them, and I yield back

the balance of my time.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you especially for calling this hearing. I think this is a really crucial issue

that has to be addressed, and addressed soon.

I recall we had a hearing about 1997, 1998 to identify the most

crucial issues, and at that time it was airport capacity, or everyone

assumed it was. I differed with that and commented that within

the decade the biggest concern was fuel prices, which in fact is

what happened. I think we will be able to resolve that problem, but

not very easily.

But I do agree that the greatest problem we face at the moment

is air traffic control, and the entire system, as far as I am concerned, has to be redone. A lot of developments will be taking

place. First of all, we can increase airport capacity with a modern,

well operated air traffic control system without building any additional airport runways.

Secondly, with the new electronics available, we can replace a lot

of the human factor in air traffic control. But we have to do it

right. And we have to recognize the vulnerability of that system,

particularly to acts of war, because if we develop an air traffic control system based on satellites, we have to recognize how vulnerable the satellites are in moments of war.

So we have a lot of things to discuss, a lot of things to worry

about, and, unfortunately, have not done well in adapting over the

decade that I have been on this Committee. And I have seen a lot

of money wasted on attempts at air traffic control which simply

haven’t worked, and it is time that we zero in on the right solution

and then proceed with it.

I look forward to the testimony that we will hear, Mr. Chairman,

and I hope that we will gain enlightenment on these subjects.

Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. If there are others.

Mr. MICA. Other members seek recognition? Ms. Norton?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this

hearing. I am sorry I have another hearing as well and won’t be

able to stay for the full hearing, as important as it is.

Every time we look at FAA, its mission gets more and more complicated. It gets complicated by technology which keeps racing

ahead of us; it is complicated by 9/11 and all that entails; and, of

course, it is complicated by these aging facilities, which become

even more important to update in relation to these other two factors.

We brag, I think justifiably, that we have the safest air control

system in the world. I believe that. But it is a labor-intensive sys-
6

tem, and I hope we don’t forget that. That under-describes our dependence on air traffic controllers.

We have just been through a very controversial labor dispute in

the midst of all the rest of this. It was unfortunate that that happened. While the agency is thinking about modernization, as it

must, I certainly hope it thinks about modernizing its labor relations as well. We need those controllers. We need them to be the

very best, as they always have been, and it is very hard to be one

of them today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, not unlike my colleagues, I thank you

and Mr. Costello for having scheduled this hearing. And in the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I won’t take but very little time.

But for what it is worth, someone said to me the other day that

airports today have become what bus stations were 45 or 50 years

ago, that is, extremely crowded, consistent delays in takeoffs and

landings, and it just brought to mind that air traffic is going to continue to be a very significant portion of our day-to-day living, and

we need to address these problems and hopefully assuage the discomfort and the difficulty that is being felt by many air traffic customers and clients.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Modernization of the air traffic control system has been a subject

of inquiry by this Committee ongoing for over 20 years, years that

I chaired the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee and then

the Aviation Subcommittee. In partnership with, first, Mr. Gingrich

and then Mr. Klinger, we have vigorously overseen and inquired

into the need for keeping our air traffic control technology the best

in the world and ahead of the state of the art and ahead of the

growth of aviation in this Country for safety and for efficiency purposes.

There is a tendency to think of air traffic control as a static activity; you put it in place and then you come back 10 years and you

change it out. That is not true. FAA has installed, Mr. Chairman,

over 70,000 pieces of technology in the past 15 years to keep ahead

of the state of aviation, of the growth of aviation, of the needs to

reconcile weather with travel and with efficiency and with effectiveness. Air traffic control is not a snapshot but, if you will, a

movie, continuous progression over a period of time. To keep it progressing requires research, development, testing, and funding.

The FAA, on the one hand, is criticized because it didn’t put

technology in place fast enough; on the other hand because it

moved too quickly and didn’t sufficiently test. I think FAA gets it

just about right. My experience over these 20-plus years is that the

FAA is very cautious, isn’t going to put anything in place until it

is fully checked out, until controllers are comfortable with the technology they are putting in place.

And FAA has also learned something over the years: of involving

the air traffic controllers and the system specialists who have to

maintain the equipment at the very earliest stage, as you are de-
7

signing the system, not after it is all designed, engineered and the

equipment purchased or the contracts let. But, rather, get them involved early on, as learned with STARS, when it took way too long

from the time you push a button on the control panel for the image

to appear on the scope. You can’t have a .25 second wait; you need

that information now when you have an object traveling at 500

miles an hour, 7 miles in the air, when there is no curb to pull

over, lift up the hood and see what is going wrong.

So I appreciate all that is moving along in FAA. I used to get

a monthly report on all the systems, but FAA isn’t doing that any

longer, unfortunately. The newest development is that of the Chief

Operating Officer, Russ Chew, who has had a great career at

American Airlines and has brought the advantage of his experience

in the private sector to help FAA identify costs, the third leg of this

modernization triangle that we need to untangle. Nothing will kill

modernization faster than an underfunded system, an inadequately

funded system.

We are going to need the continued modernization in order to

cope with the growth of aviation, as you, Mr. Chairman, pointed

out in your opening statement and as Ranking Member Costello

did. Very light jets, more regional jets, more point-to-point service,

shifting from short-haul, under 300 miles, to long-haul service that

is far more valuable for the airlines, it is going to put new strains,

new stresses on the system.

We have to evaluate, once again, the en route structure that is

way out of date. FAA is working on putting in place a much more

streamlined en route system, but they are way behind in doing it;

consolidating TRACONs and accommodating this growth. And in

this regard, it is important to keep in mind that the Southern California TRACON handles more air traffic than all of Europe combined. That is an awesome responsibility. An awesome responsibility for us on the Subcommittee, for the FAA to maintain that technology ahead of the growth of aviation, to accommodate that

growth.

I look forward to this hearing, the information we will develop

from it, and thank you and Mr. Costello for calling the hearing.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Further opening statements? Mr. Petri?

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be very

brief. I just want to commend you and thank you for having this

very important hearing on a subject that has been before this Committee for many years now. There is nothing going on as far as the

Federal role in aviation that is more important than to get this

right, and I thank you for this oversight hearing. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Additional members seek recognition?

Mr. LoBiondo?

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing. As the Chairman has so ably pointed out, we are

managing an air traffic control system with technology and procedure developed in the 1970’s or before that are not suited to the

traffic demands of today. As a result, more and more flights are delayed, thousands of gallons of fuel are wasted, and airlines are losing money, and the flying public is inconvenienced.
8

In order to keep our aviation system safe and efficient, we need

to step up our investment in the next generation of air traffic systems. Sinking more and more money into keeping legacy systems

operational is severely undermining our ability to make the investments we need to make in modernization. As we move to reauthorize the trust fund next year, I look forward to working with the

Chairman and the Committee to free up money for modernization

efforts through operational savings and creative financing methods.

Finally, as we move forward with the next generation of air traffic control systems, I expect that the FAA’s technical center, which

is located in the second congressional district of New Jersey, will

play the central role in development of this technology. I have received assurances that will be the case, and I intend to monitor the

issue closely to ensure the FAA follows through.

Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman for his interest

and action on this very serious issue.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo.

Any other members seek recognition from the Subcommittee?

[No response.]

Mr. MICA. No further opening statements from members of our

panel.

We do have one member witness today, and we are pleased to

have joining us from California’s 35th District Representative Maxine Waters. And we will grant her the customary five minutes.

So, welcome, and you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Costello, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I thank you for allowing me to testify during this hearing on

‘‘Air Traffic Control Modernization: The Present and the Future.’’

My congressional district is home to Los Angeles International

Airport, the fifth busiest airport in the world. It is also home to the

Western Pacific Regional Office of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, commonly referred to as ATO. The modernization of our Nation’s air traffic control system is of tremendous importance to me

and my constituents, as well as the millions of travelers who fly

into and out of my district every year.

The FAA is proposing to restructure the ATO and three service

areas: Eastern, Central, and Western. Under the FAA’s proposed

plan, the Eastern Service Area Office would be in Atlanta; the Central Office would be in Forth Worth; and the Western Office would

be in Seattle. The six regional offices that would be adversely affected by this reorganization are in Anchorage, Boston, Chicago,

Kansas City, New York, and Los Angeles. I believe that this plan

represents a step backwards in the agency’s mission to provide the

safest, most efficient airspace system in the world.

The FAA maintains that the restructure will yield savings of

$360 million to $460 million over 10 years. I question these optimistic projections. Despite requests, the FAA has failed to disclose

the analysis that support these projections.
9

Congress cannot assess the agency’s estimates without being

given access to the full report of the ATO Structure and Process

Evaluation and proper time to review it. I would also recommend

a third-party review or audit of the projected savings.

Under the proposed restructure, the relocated ATO employees

would spend more time in travel and less time doing their jobs.

More air travel by the ATO employees themselves would be needed

to support and administer California, Arizona, New Mexico, and

Nevada projects and facilities from a Seattle office. That will result

in less work, more travel expenses, and diminished safety margins.

Although I have seen varying estimates, approximately 400 ATO

employees nationwide would be reassigned to the three new service

area offices. At least count, about 86 employees in the Los Angeles

Regional Office will be given directed reassignments to an office

1500 miles away. Their choice will be to leave LA or to leave the

FAA.

The reorganization plan affects highly trained and qualified employees, the FAA needs to make the national air system as safe

and as efficient as possible. It is not just secretaries and bookkeepers affected by the restructure; civil and electrical engineers

are being given the ultimatum. These engineers are the men and

women of our government’s air traffic system who work with radars, navigation equipment, communication systems, and other

technology that keeps planes in the air moving safely to their destinations.

Under the plan, there would be a dramatic loss of intellectual

capital from the FAA. The loss of civil and electrical engineers who

would choose early retirement or resignation, rather than relocation, would strain the administration of air traffic, airspace, and

engineering activities in the Western Pacific Region. This brain

drain would adversely affect the safety of the flying public.

Southern California is among the world’s busiest airspaces and

serves more passengers than any other region in the United States.

Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control, which provides radar air traffic approach control services to all arriving and

departing aircraft for most airports in Southern California, is the

busiest approach control in the world.

Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Oakland, and Southern California are among the fastest growing sites of air travel in the

United States. All of these airspaces and facilities are currently

served by the Los Angeles Regional Office. Under the proposed restructure, they would all be served by Seattle.

An ATO Service Area office needs to be close to Southern California facilities to provide immediate and expert attention. A Service

Area Office 1500 miles away will result in neglect of these huge

and critical facilities. Experience tells us that facilities located near

headquarters and regional offices receive better programs and

quicker services than outlying facilities. Distancing the service operations away from Los Angeles is folly.

When a controller in a tower flips a switch to turn on a radar,

that radar had better turn on. If it doesn’t, someone from the regional office had better respond quickly. Neither the controller, the

pilot, nor the air passengers will find solace that a repair has been
10

delayed because the closest Service Area Office is over 1500 miles

away.

In conclusion, we all know that our Nation’s need for air travel

will continue to grow in the coming decades. This growth in air

traffic will require trained and experienced FAA employees. These

employees will be able to provide the best possible service if they

are located near important air travel hubs like LAX.

Modernizing the FAA should not be done at the expense of FAA

employees or those who depend on their services. If the Subcommittee believes that the FAA should invest more resources in

modernizing facilities and equipment, then the Subcommittee

should seek an increase in resources for the FAA. Cutting FAA administrative services in order to increase funding for modernization

is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I would urge the members of this Subcommittee to support the

existing nine regional offices of the ATO and exercise your oversight responsibilities to ensure that the FAA does not implement

this reduction in force. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Aviation to ensure the continuing safety and efficiency of air travel at LAX and throughout the United States.

And I have full testimony that I will submit for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the lady’s entire statement will be

made part of the proceedings.

We do have about two minutes, if any members have any questions for Ms. Waters. No?

And I will say we have looked into the issues you have raised.

We do have an initial response from FAA we will be glad to share

with you and make part of the record also.

And then also I would like to extend to you we will have some

of the people who have made these decisions on our panel. I can

ask for unanimous consent, if you would like to come back and sit

on our dias, and at the end of questions by the members of the

panel, we would be glad to have you participate.

Unfortunately, we do have about six minutes left for two votes,

so what we are going to do is we are going to recess the hearing

for 20 minutes. We will return at approximately 3:00. At that time,

I expect to see all the witnesses at attention and ready to testify.

So the Subcommittee will stand in recess until that time. Thank

you again.

[Recess.]

Mr. MICA. The Subcommittee will come to order.

We do have our first panel, and that consists of Mr. Russell

Chew, Chief Operating Officer of the ATO of the Federal Aviation

Administration; Mr. Robert Pearce, Acting Director of the Joint

Planning and Development Office of FAA; Mr. Gerald Dillingham,

Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the U.S. General Accountability Office; Mr. Todd Zinser, Acting Inspector General of

the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; and Mr. Amr ElSawy, Senior Vice President and General

Manager, Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, with

The MITRE Corporation.

And I will introduce each of you now. We will hear firs from Mr.

Russell Chew, Chief Operating Officer of the ATO of FAA.
11

I think most everybody has been here. If you haven’t been here

before, if you have any lengthy statements or material you would

like made part of the record, please request so through the Chair.

We will give Mr. Chew a little bit more time because he has got

more to chew on.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MICA. But the rest of you we will try to keep you to the five

minutes and then get to some questions.

So, with that, let’s hear our COO, Mr. Russell Chew. Welcome,

and you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL CHEW, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ROBERT PEARCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, JOINT

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION; GERALD

DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; TODD

ZINSER, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

AMR A. ELSAWY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

MANAGER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, THE MITRE CORPORATION

Mr. CHEW. Thank you. And we have submitted a more lengthy

written testimony.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the entire statement will be made

part of the record.

Mr. CHEW. Well, good afternoon, Chairman Mica, Congressman

Costello, and members of the Subcommittee. Bob Pearce and I

want to thank you for the opportunity to testify about our Nation’s

future air traffic system.

You have been with us every step of the way—even before the

enactment of the VISION 100 Century of Aviation Act—and we are

most grateful for your continued leadership and commitment to

this historic effort.

Bob is going to talk to you about the JPDO’s vision. I am going

to talk to you about the actions we take today and how it affects

the air transportation system of tomorrow.

The Air Traffic Organization was created in 2004 as a result of

your efforts, and today we can report real results. We are focusing

on operations, costs, productivity, and sound fiscal management,

and by operating more like a well-run business, we are able to field

new technologies on time and on budget. In fact, last year, 92 percent of our schedule goals were met for 31 of our major programs

and 97 percent of our major acquisition programs met budget goals.

In addition to holding the line on cost, we must continue to maximize the efficiency of today’s airspace, while working on the system

of the future. Our work in the last year has reduced fuel costs for

our airline customers, increased capacity, increased and improved

safety, all while beginning the transition to the satellite-based system of tomorrow.

In 2005, we doubled the capacity of our high altitude airspace

with a program we call DRVSM and launched a new tool called

URET—and completed that this year—that allows pilots and con-
12

trollers to maximize the airspace, predict potential conflict between

the airplanes earlier, and allow them to use more efficient flight

paths.

The increase in high altitude airspace allows us to offer more of

our airline customers access to fuel-efficient routes, saving airlines

about $5 billion over the next 10 years. That estimate could be conservative in light of current oil prices. Estimated savings to the

aviation industry from URET in 2005 were 25 million miles in aircraft travel, and about $175 million in operating expenses.

And we have expanded Area Navigation, what we call RNAV.

Those are procedures to airports, including Atlanta, Dallas/Fort

Worth, Las Vegas, Washington-Reagan National, Washington-Dulles, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, Reno, Cleveland, and Ft. Lauderdale. These RNAV procedures provide flight path guidance that

is communicated directly to the aircraft’s avionic systems, requiring

only minimal air traffic instructions.

Now, this significantly reduces the routine controller-pilot communications, allowing more time on the frequency for pilots and

controllers to handle other safety-critical flight activities. But

RNAV procedures also use more precise routes for takeoffs and

landings, which saves fuel. In fact, airlines operating out of the

world’s busiest airport, Atlanta, expect to save more than $39 million a year thanks to RNAV.

Now, we are also implementing RNP, which is Required Navigation Performance. Now, RNP uses onboard technology that allows

pilots to fly more direct point-to-point routes. That technology is reliable, accurate, and reaches all aspects of the flight, departure

enroute, arrival, and approach. For example, in 2005, we partnered

with Alaska Airlines to implement new RNP procedures for their

approaches at Palm Springs International Airport, which is located

in very mountainous terrain. Now, under the previous conventional

procedures at Palm Springs, planes could not land unless the ceiling and the visibility were at least 2300 feet in terms of height and

three miles of visibility.

With the new RNP procedure, air carriers with properly

equipped airplanes can now operate with a ceiling and visibility as

low as 734 feet and just one mile of visibility. This lower landing

minima has allowed Alaska Airlines to ‘‘save’’ 27 flights between

January and November of 2005, and these flights, which would

have otherwise had to divert to Ontario, California, had an added

distance of about 70 miles.

Traffic Flow Management, what we call TFM, is the ‘‘brain’’ of

the NAS and is the reason that we could handle more traffic at our

major airports in 2005 than in 2000, without the long delays that

made the summer of 2000 the worst on record. The TFM system

is the Nation’s single source for capturing and disseminating traffic

information for the purposes of coordinating traffic across the aviation community.

As the NAS is impacted by severe weather, congestion, and/or

outages, the TFM system provides timely information to our customers to expedite traffic and minimize system delays, and we estimate that TFM provides about $340 million in benefits to our customers every year through delay reductions. We are also currently

introducing the new Airspace Flow Management technology to re-
13

duce the impact of delays incurred during the severe weather season of the summer. Now, combined with the modernization of our

en route systems, these systems will allow for flexible routing

around congestion, weather, flight restrictions, and help controllers

to automatically coordinate flights during periods of increased

workload.

The future of satellite navigation is here with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B. ADS-B will replace groundbased radar systems ultimately and revolutionize air navigation

and surveillance, and has the potential for broad operational applications for both pilots and controllers. We requested $80 million in

fiscal year 2007 for the ADS-B program and, on June 7th, Bob and

other members of the FAA Joint Resources Council approved a

number of key initiatives as the program moves forward. This

transformational technology is one of the key building blocks of the

Next Generation Air Transportation System.

Meanwhile, the ATO has continued to improve its organizational

structure, yielding considerable operational improvements and cost

savings. The ATO completed the outsourcing of the Flight Service

Stations, the largest non-Defense outsourcing ever in the Federal

Government, which will save about $1.7 billion over ten years.

Further organizational realignments are underway, with the

ATO staff support in the nine FAA regions being consolidated into

three service areas, which we expect to result in over $460 million

in savings over the next ten years. Overall, ATO executive staffing

has been reduced by over 20 percent, and management has been

reduced by about 10 percent.

But the largest percentage reduction is occurring in the non-safety positions. For controllers, we met our goal of 2 percent productivity improvement in the en route service unit and a 4 percent improvement in productivity in the terminal service unit. These

achievements translated into lowering our labor costs by 1.5 percent from 2004, even as ATO provided a 5.1 percent salary increase.

To stay on target, we needed a detailed business strategy. Our

new business score card, which we call the Strategic Management

Process, is what was fully implemented in fiscal year 2005 and how

we accomplished these. We are using the score card to formulate

our fiscal year 2008 capital budget, and the ATO has specific initiatives to drive our operation.

There are four areas: achieving organizational excellence, enhancing financial discipline, increasing capacity where needed, and

ensuring a viable future. The JPDO is partnering with us on this.

These goals include a well defined metric set that have the focus

of safety, efficiency, productivity, and cost; and they are communicated to every level of our workforce—from vice presidents to the

technicians and controllers in the field—so that everyone understands the direction we are headed and the targets we are shooting

for.

So, now, that concludes mine, and it is over to Bob for the JPDO.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will hear next from Robert Pearce, who is the Acting Director

of the JPDO of FAA.

Welcome, and you are recognized.
14

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Costello,

distinguished members of the Subcommittee, under the leadership

of Transportation Secretary Mineta, FAA Administrator Blakey,

and the entire Senior Policy Committee, the JPDO announced

STARS as the focal point for coordinating transformation of the air

transportation system across the Federal Government, as well as

with the private sector. And with a strong partnership with Russ

and the entire ATO, I have great confidence that we can achieve

the kind of transformation envisioned by this Subcommittee.

Our vision for the Next Generation System is not limited to increased capacity. It is one which encompasses the whole experience

of the air traveler, from the moment the passenger arrives at the

curb of his departure airport to their exit from their destination

airport. So the Next Generation System includes security, safety,

efficiency, and environmental compatibility. And as we assess the

constraints facing this system, we have found that focusing on just

one aspect—air traffic control, environment, airport security—will

not get the job done. Each element of the system is indelibly tied

to others and all must be addressed; otherwise, we shift the problem, we don’t solve it.

So the transformation will involve researching and adopting new

technologies, changes in policy, adjustments to roles and responsibilities, and organizational change. It is important to understand

we are doing this large and complex job in a public-private partnership. Individuals from the agencies are working together with

about 200 private sector individuals from the newly formed NGATS

Institute, and between government and industry I think we have

assembled a very incredible team.

JPDO is achieving accomplishments towards this transformation.

Last year, the JPDO brought the 2025 vision into focus, and

through careful analysis we showed we are on track to achieve two

to three times the capacity of today’s system. This year we have defined the operational concept and enterprise architecture that adds

meat to the bones of that vision. The block-to-block, or air traffic

portion, is undergoing review right now by our stakeholders, and

the curb-to-curb version that will include security in airports is

under development right now. These documents help create a real

target for us to aim at and help organize the many technical and

policy issues that we have to face over the next several years.

But just defining that future vision certainly is not enough, and

we have not stopped there. We have also created and released a

roadmap that lays out the pathway, including time lines and transition sequences and so forth, that get us to the 2025 system.

Based on the roadmap, we developed an initial portfolio of modernization, research, policy efforts that need to be performed, and

we are busy adding detail to that, including analyzing costs and

benefits to that roadmap. In fact, we are holding some investment

analysis workshops with the private sector through the Institute to

make sure we better understand the benefits and costs, and so that

we can optimally sequence the transition to NGATS.

I have to say the benefits assessments are clearly showing that

NGATS is worth the effort and will deliver enormous value to the

Nation. Last year, the JPDO conducted its first preliminary interagency review, where it identified examples of how interagency col-
15

laboration could really deliver next generation capabilities now, not

in the 2025.

As a result, we moved ahead with plans to accelerate development of key NGATS projects like ADS-B and SWIM, which, as

Russ said, are in the 2007 presidential request and have been approved through the Joint Resources Council. The re-plan of the

NASA aeronautics program also reflects the longer term research

needs of NGATS.

I would like to pause for a minute on ADS-B. As Russ mentioned,

ADS-B is a significant project for the future, and it is intended to

eventually replace radar surveillance in the NAS with a cooperative surveillance system that is aircraft broadcasting on their GPS

defined location. Ultimately, it is a much cheaper and more accurate system. But for it to make sense, it is both the hardware, the

avionics on the aircraft, the transceivers on the ground, as well as

the applications, such as pilots doing self-separation between aircraft in low-visibility conditions, that create the benefits.

And the reason I bring this up is because I think it is instructive

as to how we need to go about doing the transformation. Fielding

more capable infrastructure while researching ever-more advanced

applications is what is going to deliver the performance and deliver

the transformation. So it is definitely a process, an evolutionary

process of building a little and delivering performance.

This year we are building on the success of that first program

review, and we have provided guidance to the agencies and are

working with them right now in the 2008 budget. Our strategy this

year is to fully understand the Federal investment and to make

sure we do the realignment and fill the gaps that are necessary to

accelerate implementation.

We are also working closely with Russ and the ATO in restructuring the Operational Evolution Plan. This effort is going to provide a very efficient way for Russ and I to make sure that the FAA

commitments to modernization and change are aligned in the

NGATS vision.

We are also working internationally. We have active collaboration now with China, Japan, and Europe. NGATS has to work globally, and we are committed to making that a reality.

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the

Subcommittee on this critical endeavor. This concludes my testimony. I look forward to comments, and thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Our next witness is Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the GAO.

I want to take just a moment to commend Mr. Dillingham and

his team of professionals at GAO for some of the work they have

done for the Subcommittee and for me recently. One of those is the

impact of the unmanned aerial systems and also very light jets,

their impact on our national airspace system, and also for their

work on reviewing the cost of airport infrastructure projects and

improvements needed to accommodate the new Airbus 380.

I do appreciate your work on those issues for me, and, again,

your fine team of professionals, and recognize you now for your testimony. Welcome, sir.
16

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Mr. Costello, and

members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to share with you the preliminary results of our studies of the

ATO and the JPDO that you have asked us to undertake for this

Subcommittee.

With regard to the ATO, the ATO has undertaken many initiatives to address the long delays and tremendous cost growth that

plagued the modernization program for the past two decades. For

example, ATO has instituted a revised acquisition process that includes more senior management oversight and accountability. As

you have heard Mr. Chew say, one result of this and other initiatives is that, for the first time in recent history, ATO has met its

goals for acquisition performance for each of the past two years. To

its credit, ATO has also made improvements in its financial management of the ATC modernization program.

Mr. Chew also mentioned that the ATO expects to realize hundreds of millions of dollars through cost savings initiatives such as

consolidating regional office administrative functions and contracting out flight service station operations.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that, based on well-designed business

and safety cases, these types of initiatives could be expanded to include decommissioning additional legacy navigation aids and consolidating some air traffic control facilities. These kinds of initiatives have the potential to generate significant savings without

compromising the safety or efficiency of the system.

Mr. Chairman, along with the successes, there are some challenges on the horizon for ATO. The first challenge for ATO is that

of institutionalizing the progress that has been made in operating

as a performance-based organization. This is key to extending this

progress beyond the current FAA and ATO administration.

Second, ATO must continue to do what is necessary to meet its

established goals for costs, schedule, and performance for its major

acquisitions. And, third, ATO must ensure that it has access to the

personnel and skills that will be necessary to implement NGATS,

keeping in mind that NGATS will be one of the Government’s most

comprehensive and technically complex undertakings in recent

times.

Mr. Chairman, this brings me to JPDO and NGATS. The JPDO

has also made notable progress in planning for NGATS. Its efforts

have included extensive collaboration among the partner agencies,

private sector stakeholders, and the international aviation community. The JPDO has also established a robust suite of models to

support the technical planning needed for NGATS.

However, there are some critical issues that need to be addressed. High on the list is the appointment of a director for JPDO.

JPDO has been without a permanent director for nearly six

months. Permanent leadership is critical to maintaining program

momentum and stakeholder commitment. Another challenge is that

JPDO lacks any real authority over agency budgets, and largely relies on part-time and pro bono staff. This situation could become

a serious problem in the relative near term as JPDO’s need for

staff and fiscal resources increases.

Mid-range technology development presents another challenge.

At this point, it is unclear which Federal agency or private sector
17

entity will plan, conduct, and pay for the research to develop a

given technology from a basic level to a level that could be demonstrated in the national airspace system.

Another challenge is the timing of the development and refinement of the enterprise architecture. The enterprise architecture is

the blueprint for NGATS and will identify the technologies that

will constitute the system, as well as their development and implementation sequence. It will also be the basis for estimating the

total cost of NGATS.

To date, only preliminary cost estimates are available. One of

these estimates indicates that the cost to both continue to operate

the current NAS and transition to NGATS will require an increase

of about $900 million each year over FAA’s current appropriation.

This means that FAA will need a budget of at least $15 billion each

year between now and 2025. Mr. Chairman, this could be a low estimate.

It is important that the money is available when needed. Our

work on the current modernization program has shown that when

ATC technologies receive fewer resources than called for in the

planning documents, and those resources are not made available

when needed, it was a contributing factor to significant delays in

getting the technologies into the national airspace system, as well

as significant cost increases.

Mr. Chairman, these are all important and difficult challenges,

but because this transformation is critical to the Nation’s economic

well-being, failure or significant delays in implementation cannot

be an option. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your testimony.

Now we will hear from Mr. Todd Zinser, Acting Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Costello, members of

the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today

and we commend the Subcommittee for holding this important

oversight hearing.

While there is considerable debate about how to finance FAA,

there is almost universal agreement that changes are needed to

meet the demand for air travel. At this Subcommittee’s request, we

examined progress to date with the JPDO. Today I will limit my

testimony to three points and request that my full statement be

submitted for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. ZINSER. First, some perspective on FAA’s fiscal year 2007

budget request and key modernization projects. FAA is requesting

$2.5 billion for its capital account, which is $50 million less than

last year’s request and more than $500 million less than the authorized level. This is the fourth year that funding requests are

below authorized levels. As we noted before, increasing operating

costs have crowded out the capital account. Most of FAA’s current

capital account focuses on keeping things running, not new initiatives, and only about 55 percent of the capital account actually goes

for air traffic control systems.

I would like to highlight two ongoing multi-billion dollar projects

that will be critical to the Next Generation System.
18

First, ERAM, with a price tag of $2.1 billion, replaces the brain

or central nervous system at facilities that manage high altitude

traffic. This year is critical for ERAM because FAA plans to spend

$1 million a day on the program, but, more importantly, if not kept

on track, there will be a cascading impact on FAA’s ability to deliver future systems.

Second is FAA’s FTI program. It is an effort to replace and reduce the cost of FAA’s entire telecommunications system for air

traffic control. It has a life-cycle cost of $2.4 billion. We have concerns about the FTI program and whether or not it can be delivered on time. We have made recommendations to FAA to help FTI

get on track. FAA has agreed with our recommendations and we

will be following up to make sure this important program gets

done.

My second point is that while the JPDO has made progress, considerable work remains to align agency budgets and plans. Central

to the JPDO’s mission is the alignment of agency resources. This

is a complex task since each agency conducts research for its own

mission. We looked at three of the JPDO’s eight integrated product

teams and found a lot of coordination, but so far little alignment

of budgets. We found product team leaders have no authority to

commit agency resources and often have no products other than

plans. The JPDO expects to do much more in time for the fiscal

year 2008 budget, but right now it is hard to assess alignment because JPDO’s progress reports do not provide details of ongoing research projects and budgets at other agencies.

My third point focuses on the actions needed to shift from planning to implementation. Mr. Chairman, right now the key questions for the JPDO to focus on what the new office can deliver,

when, and how much it will cost. Our prepared statement outlines

nine actions that we believe will help shift JPDO initiatives from

a research agenda to implementation. I will briefly touch on a few

of them.

One is leadership. The position of the JPDO director is currently

vacant. FAA needs to find the right person, a leader whose stature

and experience is commensurate with the mission at hand. Getting

to the Next Generation System is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. I am not sure what the appropriate analogy is—the

Apollo program of the 1960’s or the Navy nuclear submarine program of the 1950’s—but NGATS will require an extraordinary effort from all of us, and it is too important to the Nation to not

apply our best talent and effort.

Two is getting Congress reliable cost information. Last year, the

Administration promised this Subcommittee that they would provide some clarity on the cost this year. That has not been accomplished. This will be critical in the upcoming debate about how to

best finance FAA. Cost data is needed in three vectors: research

and development that will be needed, adjustments to existing

projects such as ERAM, and cost to implement NGATS initiatives.

Three is developing and implementing mechanisms for alignment. The JPDO is working with OMB to develop an integrated

budget document that provides a single business case. As part of

this, the JPDO has promised to provide OMB in the next several

months with an architecture for the Next Generation System, as
19

well as a list of programs and other agency budget it intends to leverage.

Four is risk management with the Next Generation System.

Given FAA’s past track record with modernization projects and potential investments for NGATS, the JPDO and ATO need to articulate what they intend to do differently and what skill sets are

needed. There is a lot of discussion right now in FAA and industry

about whether a lead systems integrator would be needed to help

integrate new and ongoing systems and manage the transition.

Models for a lead systems integrator vary throughout the Government. Questions about the roles, responsibilities, and costs would

need to be examined for such an approach.

Mr. Chairman, once requirements have been established, the

JPDO will have to put together a focused human factors effort that

integrates NASA and FAA human factors research. And that concludes my statement, and we would be happy to answer any questions that the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will hear from our last witness, Mr. Amr ElSawy, Senior Vice

President and General Manager for the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development with the MITRE Corporation.

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. ELSAWY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Costello, members

of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me. I have submitted a

statement I would ask to be included for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. ELSAWY. Mr. Chairman, in addressing the Committee today,

I will focus on the opportunities that lie ahead for the JPDO efforts

and how they have the potential for changing the way that air traffic management services are provided in the United States and

around the world. Specifically, I want to address how those

changes would be reflected in the architecture of today’s system

and what we must do now to plan for the transition to the Next

Generation Air Transportation System.

Any updates that we make to the architecture of an operational

system require coordination and synchronization of changes that

involve people, procedures, and systems. We must have a clear understanding of the capital and the operating costs related to the

implementation of those changes, and today, in an era of limited

resources and increasing demand, we must also understand, as we

have heard from the other witnesses, the resultant productivity,

cost, safety, capacity, and efficiency benefits.

The changes that are needed to address the projected future demands on the air transportation systems cannot and will not happen all at once. History has taught us that ‘‘big bang’’ approaches

of the planning and development of systems do not succeed, and

that those responsible for the operation must drive the change to

the future.

For example, NASA’s aviation research programs and results will

need to be ready to transition into an FAA development program

that is adequately funded to mature the research and work with

industry on operational integration. The FAA must have a clear

understanding of the readiness of the research results and a serious, funded, plan for the inclusion of that research into an oper-
20

ational safety-critical system. Any gaps in the handoff between the

research and implementation will significantly undermine the success of the JPDO initiative.

Today, traffic levels and delays have returned to levels seen prior

to September 11th of 2001 in many areas of the Country. Those

areas include airports in Chicago, Atlanta, Washington area, New

York area, Las Vegas, South Florida. There have also been increases in traffic in smaller airports in many areas of the Country.

Beyond this year, commercial and general aviation will continue

to see changes. The NAS will likely continue to see traffic growth,

changes in traffic patterns between major airports and metropolitan areas, and changes in the mix of aircraft that make up the

traffic. In addition, unmanned aircraft systems, very light jets, and

commercial space launches will need to be accommodated in the future NAS, each bringing its own challenges for the operation of airspace, controller workload, and system complexity. Projections developed by DOT, FAA, and MITRE indicate that, by 2013, 16 airports and 7 metropolitan areas will need additional capacity to

meet the expected demand.

In order to meet the needs of this dynamic marketplace, the FAA

and the aviation community need to reach rapid consensus on the

key enabling capabilities and to implement changes in technology,

procedures, avionics, and policy that can, together, increase operational efficiency and productivity.

We believe that the following actions are the foundation for the

Next Generation System and should be funded and started now:

First, to take advantage of aircraft capabilities and avionics to

implement the FAA’s roadmap for performance-based navigation.

This is a significant change because it is equivalent to adding precise navigation lanes in the sky without requiring additional

ground-based equipment. Mr. Chew talked about the importance of

RNAV and RNP.

Second, accelerate the implementation of the airspace changes to

be more flexible and to accommodate the expected growth in traffic

and new airspace users such as unmanned aircraft systems. Again,

this has the real effect of streamlining traffic flows into congestion

areas and providing more efficient arrival and departure paths for

all users. Small investments by the FAA result in a significant benefit for the users and the system as a whole.

Third, emphasize the enhancement of automation and decision

support tools to enable controllers to handle more traffic by presenting them with automated conflict-free problem resolutions,

thereby increasing system capacity and productivity and improving

safety and the quality of service provided to the customers. With

the on-schedule completion of the software development of the En

Route Automation System, now is the time to plan and fund the

next increment of the automation capabilities and NGATS extension.

Third, to develop a firm plan for the implementation of air-toground data link that will enable controllers and pilots and their

respective ground and onboard aircraft automation systems to exchange digital messages that yield efficiency, productivity, and

safety improvements.
21

Fourth is to improve the traffic management capabilities that

Mr. Chew talked about.

Fifth, to transition to Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system.

Sixth, to use advanced simulation technologies to train the new

controller workforce.

Seventh, to maintain a strategic view of the investment in airport infrastructure and runways.

And, finally, to develop and implement policies that enable improved access to airports through the use of modern and improved

avionics and procedures instead of ground-based infrastructures.

Mr. Chairman, these actions will position us to meet the increasing demand and improve the overall productivity and efficiency of

the system. Implementing these changes will keep the United

States as innovators and leaders of the global aviation community.

Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank you, and I thank all of our panel of witnesses.

We will turn to some questions now, and I had offered to let Mrs.

Kelly go first. She is ready. Mrs. Kelly?

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask Mr. Chew and Mr. Pearce. I want to talk with

you about a serious concern that I have with the FAA’s treatment

of Stewart International Airport in my district. A new tower came

online last Friday. We have been waiting a long time for this new

tower, and I appreciate the FAA’s assistance in making that happen.

What I can’t appreciate, however, was the FAA’s decision to tell

Stewart officials last week they couldn’t take the radar they have

from the old tower and put it in the new tower. Since then, the controllers in the new tower at Stewart have been landing planes with

no radar whatsoever because of a glitch in the software of the new

radar system.

An air traffic controller up in New York is quoted in our local

newspapers as saying the action by the FAA was, and I quote, ‘‘asinine.’’

To refresh your memory, Mr. Chew, the FAA itself decided to install the TARDIS radar system in the Stewart tower after they had

conducted a special evaluation of the airport’s needs in November

of 1999. Following that, the DOT Inspector General examined the

FAA’s actions and determined that TARDIS was assisting the controllers at Stewart. This recent decision has put us in a situation

where the FAA is prohibiting the use of equipment, onsite equipment that they themselves installed and the IG has said assists

our controllers at Stewart. I think it is absurd, Mr. Chew.

So while we are having a hearing down here in Washington

about FAA’s plans for the future, back in my district the FAA has

forced Stewart Airport to return to the past, back to the pre–1999

radar standards in the air traffic control tower, back to binoculars.

Can we end this stalemate right now? Can the FAA give Stewart

Airport and its controllers the permission that they need today to

move the radar system from the old tower to the new tower until

they get what they need in the new radar system from you later

this year?

Mr. CHEW. Yes.
22

[Laughter.]

Mrs. KELLY. That was easy. Mr. Chew, I hope you really mean

that.

Mr. CHEW. I do.

Mrs. KELLY. I would have preferred to have gotten that confirmation last week, when I wrote a letter to the FAA, but I do appreciate your efforts.

Mr. CHEW. I don’t want to impugn the people who are trying to

make those decisions. When we found that the software glitch that

you spoke of would take several months to rectify, that is when the

decision was changed. But we do appreciate the situation that

Stewart is in, and we will support that.

Mrs. KELLY. I am somewhat concerned still about the time line

for the new radar system that is coming online. The RACD–2 was

supposed to be delivered and installed before that new tower was

opened, and I know they held back on opening the new tower, hoping that system would be in.

Now, since you will now allow us to move the TARDIS system

there, I hope that the airport officials will be hearing that it won’t

be until November that we get that new system. I want to make

sure that the FAA doesn’t use the existence of this TARDIS as an

excuse to push back the delivery date for the RACD–2. I think that

is very important for the safety of our people at Stewart.

Mr. CHEW. Yes. In fact, it was the desire to move ahead to the

new system that was really the original genesis for saying let’s not

move the old system. So I will get an answer for you for that and

we will get back to you.

Mrs. KELLY. As soon as possible, I think that will be helpful. But

if you will allow us to move the TARDIS system, that is a big plus,

and I am very grateful for your answer of yes. Thank you.

I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. She quit while she was ahead, huh?

[Laughter.]

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. ElSawy, let me ask you a few questions,

please. There has been a lot of discussion, both the Chairman mentioned in his opening statement and others have talked about the

comparison between the design and implementation of the Next

Generation system versus what is going on in Europe. So tell me,

in your judgment, are we behind what they are doing, as far as design and implementation in Europe? Can you make the comparison

for us?

Mr. ELSAWY. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I think the short answer

is no. If you think about progress and how we are making progress,

it is really made through implementation of capabilities And let me

just take you through where we are in the United States.

First of all, GPS. Satellites are up, they are running. We have

one of the most accurate augmentation systems in the world providing global coverage and enabling access to over 5,000 airports in

the United States, providing access to rural communities. That is

unique to the United States. Other countries are trying to emulate

and copy that, which I think is going to be very effective for reducing the cost of the infrastructure in the future.
23

The implementation of the airspace changes, the RNAV, RNP implementations that are going on today; the implementation of the

conflict probe in 20 centers in the United States is first in the

world and the decision to move ahead with the implementation of

ADS-B to allow a completely different generation of applications to

be implemented; the way that we run traffic based upon VFR capacities in the airports versus IFR capacities; the cost of our system.

In short, I think that we are making a lot of progress in building

the foundations necessary for the future. The Europeans are in fact

ahead in terms of building a governance structure to manage their

planning activities, but I don’t think that in terms of implementation that they are ahead.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. The corporation that you work for

made an analysis of our Government using an LSI, and I wonder

if you might talk a little bit about the analysis that your corporation did and the potential risk associated with using an LSI and

what recommendations that you would have should the Government decide to go in that direction.

Mr. ELSAWY. Certainly. Thank you.

Let me just refer to my notes. A couple of points I think are very

important. In looking at complex acquisitions, we realize that, as

we looked at acquisitions across the Government, a couple of things

characterized failed programs: certainly, that the requirements

were unrealistic, too complex, or too rigid and unstable; that there

was a lack of operating systems engineering and architecture established; that there was insufficient weight given to the prior performance in contractor selection; there was an insufficient commitment to ensure adequate and stable funding; and that program

management did not adequately anticipate risk.

And we believe that successful programs, first of all, require a

strong government program office that is capable of having a peer

relationship with the prime contractor or the systems engineering

and program management; there has to be careful attention paid

to foundational elements, including the architecture and the standards; and there has to be an emphasis on risk management and

risk reduction.

The bottom line is that the Government really cannot and is unable to transfer its risk to a lead systems integrator or prime systems integrator. The Government has to know what it wants specifically. The successes that you have mentioned in the FAA,

whether it is in the free flight program with the implementation

of URET or the traffic management advisory system or the implementation of ERAM, really demonstrate that you have to know

what it is that you want, you have to be able to manage the risk,

you have to maintain the requirements, and you have to have

strong government oversight.

So, without those things, I don’t think any model would work,

and certainly the LSI model, as we have seen around the Government and the DOD, has lots of issues. My understanding is that

DOD is also going to complete a comprehensive analysis of their experience, which will be available in September of 2006.

Mr. COSTELLO. In your written testimony you call upon the FAA

to accelerate their implementation of airspace changes. You heard
24

me and others talk about the 70 percent cut in the airspace redesign program. I wonder if you might talk a little bit about the, in

terms of potential capacity, the benefits in fuel savings for airlines,

how significant is the FAA airspace realignment or redesign program and how significant are the setbacks, taking into consideration the 70 percent funding cuts?

Mr. ELSAWY. And I think that, again, without referring to specific programs, we believe that the airspace changes are probably

perhaps among the single most important changes and the cheapest changes that can be done to the system, because an efficient

airspace structure enables runways to be used more efficiently; enables departure and arrival routes to be established more efficiently.

As we have seen in Atlanta, it enables us to implement new procedures and to, in fact, coordinate the traffic flows in and out of

major areas. Los Angeles was the same way. Florida, the Florida

airspace optimization project was a perfect example where, with

changes in procedure and airspace structure, small investments by

the FAA yielded tremendous investments and benefits to the specific airlines.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a few other questions for the other panelists, but I have run out of time, so hopefully you will come back

for a second round.

Mr. MICA. OK. We will come back.

Let me pop a few out here.

I heard some different figures on cost. Two critical things in all

of us getting to more modern system in the next generation is cost.

I think—well, one of the witnesses was talking about $900 million

additional dollars. Was that Dillingham? Fifteen billion dollars

over—and that was supposed to be a low estimate. That is correct?

What does that get us and where does that get us?

And then after you, Mr. Chew.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think I should preface my

comments by saying right now all of these estimates are soft, to say

the least. What is missing is the enterprise architecture, which is

due out soon, which will in fact tell us what kind of technologies

are going to be involved and give us a better handle on costs.

Mr. MICA. So you are just guessing about a billion more a year.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Well, we are not guessing, we are reporting

what some studies have in fact said.

Mr. MICA. Does that give you a full architecture to begin implementing next——

Mr. DILLINGHAM. You need a full architecture to be getting closer

to a cost that you can count on. I don’t think FAA or JPDO would

stand behind any numbers at this point. And when I said it was

a low cost, even those low estimates aren’t including some of the

things that would normally be included. So the need to have these

workshops that they are planning over the rest of the summer will

be also part of the input that goes into it. But clearly it is going

to be an expensive proposition.

Mr. MICA. So we talked about some implementation, 15 and 6—

we might do it by 2021 as opposed to 25? Is that in this calculation

or is that just a coincidence, the 15 years you picked?
25

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I am sorry, I am not sure what you are referring to.

Mr. MICA. I thought you said it would take about 15 years, about $15 billion.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. That is the schedule for the end of NGATS or

NGATS being in place. Of course, as soon as NGATS is in place,

the next NGATS is going to start as well. So that is just a time

frame, and with that an annual $15 billion.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chew, people are accusing you of robbing Peter

to pay Paul with really not much money. Right now, very small

amounts or no money is going into sort of Next Generation and

some of these other projects. Actually, we cited two. We are, what,

$2.4 billion, $2.5 billion capital. How do you respond to those

charges? And then—obviously, this is going to take more money,

and we don’t know exactly how much. That has been testified to.

And at some point you are going to have to come up and tell us

how we are going to get there. But obviously that is going to take

significant additional capital contribution. Do you want to comment?

Mr. CHEW. Yes. As far as robbing Peter to pay Paul—I will take

that part first—it is important to note that one of the things we

have done since we started the ATO was to do a very complete review of our major capital programs. We have, in fact, reviewed over

60 of them. That review has caused us to cancel and restructure

the capital programs to a savings in the last two years in capital

of over $450 million.

It is very important that when we invest in NGATS, when we

want to reach goals, that those goals are clear and simple. The

worst thing we could do is invest in the wrong thing. We need to

invest in the right thing. That means we have to make those investments carefully. And we don’t want to make them just because

we think it might be a good idea; we need JPDO to help us prove

that it is the right idea. And once we do that, what we are doing

now—and what you will hear about next week from the Administrator—is we are going to build a plan to get from the current national aviation system to NGATS; and that is a plan with milestones and achievements based upon the capabilities that the

JPDO sets before us.

But we have to understand that the emerging new markets,

things like very light jets, the UAVs, will add some uncertainty to

that number. So I think what we will end up providing you in the

long run is probably a number with some uncertainty around it,

maybe a range of numbers. Is it going to be expensive? Yes. But

can we economize on many of the current programs we have today?

Yes.

But the one thing about this architecture is this architecture has

to be complete. It has to include not just the next generation system, it also has to include what we are doing with our old generation system. And as you mentioned before, it has to include the

plan of how many people and facilities it is going to take to actually execute this over the next 20 years.

Mr. MICA. Just for the record, I didn’t mean to be critical of you,

I wanted to just throw out some of the criticisms I have heard and

that have been lodged against FAA and your actions, because from
26

the first day you took office I asked you to do exactly what you did,

make those critical decisions, call a halt to the dog chasing its tail

with these developmental programs that didn’t go anywhere, the

huge amounts of money we were spending and not getting hardware and tangible results for. So you have done an excellent job in

that regard. I just have to put that caveat in there.

My final question, and I do want to yield to other members.

Mr. Pearce, push-backs, have you seen any? Your success depends on a whole bunch of agencies working together. What is the

real story? Are we getting any push-backs? Be honest. Whole truth,

nothing but the truth.

Mr. PEARCE. It is a very complex undertaking. We have made the

most progress in really defining what I would say the core NAS

transformation, the ATC elements and so forth, and I think we

have developed an extremely good working relationship with sort

of the home organization, FAA, and understanding. In fact, the

reason——

Mr. MICA. But you don’t have any real teeth yet. This is the low

hanging fruit, and to get to where there are hard decisions——

Mr. PEARCE. Absolutely. What we need to do and what we are

doing is in fact laying out the architecture, laying out the kind of

putting the roadmap in place, and then, with the ability we have,

holding people accountable to those objective documents. So that is

what we are working in cooperation with the agencies, and we are

not getting push-back.

I would say that what we need is perhaps to move a little faster

with more application of people and other resources from the agencies so that we can get that document, those analyses in place. But

we are not getting push-back on the process or push-back on the

need or the willingness to align once that is in place.

Mr. MICA. Well, I can’t get into the European model, but if we

have another round, I have some more questions.

Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess, first, Mr. Chew. First, your reviews here look like we are

starting to change direction on acquisition. That is good. And as

you perhaps have heard, I mean, for years I have always said there

is only one agency worse than the Pentagon at acquisition, and

that was the FAA. And perhaps now you are at least up to their

level, and maybe hopefully better. So that is a good, promising

sign.

When are we going to get a nomination or director for JPDO? It

sounds like that is absolutely critical. Is there no one in the whole

wide world here? I mean, it has been six months. What is going

on?

Mr. CHEW. Yes. It is hard to get the right person. However, I am

pleased to say that we are well along that process. In fact, I am

conducting three interviews this week on this very position. So I

think that we had a false start in the beginning. Somebody who we

thought was possibly very interested didn’t work out at the very

last minute, so we lost some time there. But I think we are going

to be very, very close here; we have some good candidates on the

block and with at least three to six interviews coming up over the

next three weeks, I think we are going to be able to move quickly.
27

Mr. DEFAZIO. On STARS, my understanding is the original plan

was 170 sites, and you are apparently now limiting, or at least in

the short-term, deployment to 60 sites. What is going to happen to

the other 110 sites?

Mr. CHEW. Each one of those locations, as they—we don’t want

to change the system just to change it, but as they come up for a

need to change, that is when we consider whether or not that facility should be changed or should be included in a nearby facility

that may already have a STARS system. So there is considerable

improvement in both reliability of the system and the backup systems if in fact we do some of what has been termed co-locations or

consolidations of terminal radar facilities.

So those are actually done on a case-by-case basis and through

a very rigorous process of scrutiny on exactly what that would

mean. So that is what those systems would be. And, in fact, if that

system came up for replacement and it was determined that either

the adjacent facility was too far or wouldn’t work very well, then

it would be—we would actually have to deploy a STARS system to

that location.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you mean came up, meaning where they were

on the schedule for deployment of STARS, is that what you mean?

Because most of these people are working without modern equipment, as far as I know.

Mr. CHEW. No, it is actually a combination of capacity, the maintainability of the system that is currently there, how much traffic

they actually run, and whether that system that is currently there

really needs to be changed or whether it is very reliable, even in

its current state.

Actually, the current radar systems that we have in all the terminal facilities are not one system, they are in various states of

being modernized; some have new processors, some have new back

room displays and some have new front room displays.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. So we are not buying vacuum tubes from

Eastern Europe any more?

Mr. CHEW. No. Thankfully, we are not doing that any more.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I am glad to hear that.

One last question. And I understand that there is a problem, and

it might not—I guess I could both have Mr. Zinser address this and

you, but apparently the new communications contract is not going

well. I understand that we had some significant disruption in Chicago because of a failure of what seems to me like a fairly simple

thing, which is telecommunications. I understand we have some

DOD contractor involved in doing that and are not using one of the

operating companies. So what is going on there?

Perhaps Mr. Zinser raised whatever concerns he might have

about that and then you could respond.

Mr. Zinser?

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I think you are referring to the FTI program.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes.

Mr. ZINSER. In the report we issued, the main point that we were

making is that the project is schedule-driven, that is, it is a significant logistical undertaking. In our view, the FAA and the contractor were not implementing a schedule that was going to actually
28

result in all the cost-savings that they had projected. There are

four parts to it: there is installing the new equipment, accepting

the new equipment at each site, cutting over to the new equipment

from the old, and then disconnecting the old. They were planning

out the first and second part on basically a quarterly basis, and

there were some coordination problems with the old system and it

was falling behind schedule. And if you fall behind schedule on a

project like this, you are not going to get the expected cost savings.

The service disruptions that you are referring to did occur on

particular sites, and we have a review going on that right now to

kind of drill down on those and see what is happening.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK.

Mr. Chew?

Mr. CHEW. Yes. In fact, out of our new scrutiny that we placed

on these projects, it was very good that not only did we discover

this very early in the process of the cut-overs, but we appreciate

the Inspector General’s help, actually, in identifying some of these

areas we need to look at.

Let me just mention two things there. One is that the schedule

of installation was very aggressive. The good news is that was a

fixed price contract, so the contractor doesn’t get paid until the new

service is accepted at the site. But the savings doesn’t come until

we quit having two services and we disconnect the new service—

connect the new service and disconnect the old service.

So the good news on the new service acceptances is that we are

not only at, but we have now exceeded our 700 level per month on

acceptance. So the field is in fact ramping up and we are very

happy with that result so far.

The disconnects are more difficult, and the original disconnect

schedule was not based on cost-savings, it was based on convenience. So we are reordering the disconnect so that we can get the

savings earlier. And on that I am happy to report that we have also

been auditing this with our new finance department at ATO, and

I am very happy to say that so far the savings that we projected

for this program actually—and it is a small sample size, so we

don’t know how the average will end up, but are actually as good

or better than we project.

So I think that the taxpayer will be very pleased as this recovery

plan rolls out, and given what I have seen, I think we can expect

the savings that we see and the recovery plan, I think, is on track.

The next two months are critical for us, and we are very, very focused on getting this thing back on track.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYES. [Presiding] Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chew, I was very impressed with your very rapid, affirmative response to Mrs. Kelly’s question, and so it is very tempting

for me to ask for the use of an FAA plane and instructor so I can

get my instrument rating.

[Laughter.]

Mr. EHLERS. But, of course, I won’t do that, because that would

not be proper.
29

Let me, first of all, say that this is one of the most upbeat hearings I have had on this topic. I have endured some terrible hearings over the past decade on precisely this issue, and I think, from

everything I hear, I believe you are getting a handle on it, and it

sounds like it is progressing well. I am very concerned about the

lack of funding for the FAA at the current time, and I am very worried about starving the FAA and not permitting them to do a good

job on this, because I believe it is absolutely crucial.

And having made those editorial comments, I have very little

other to ask, because my questions are primarily technical, and it

would be more suitable to get those answered in a briefing, rather

than take up the time of everyone here.

So, with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that, at some other time, I will take up my questions with

you separately.

Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

Mr. Matheson is recognized.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know Mr. Costello talked a little bit earlier about the funding

of the airspace design, the situation with the funding there, and

wanted to get a sense from you of the impacts of this funding

shortfall and how it is affecting schedule. And I was interested—

and I know if you are going to be able to answer specifics—how

that is affecting the process that has been going on for a number

of years now regarding the FAA looking at airspace design in terms

of the Northern Utah Airspace Initiative, something started about

five, actually, six years ago.

First, I want to thank the FAA for briefing my staff on this in

May. It was very helpful to get some information on the project.

This is a project where the FAA has proposed a scenario, put it out

for comment. A couple of major airlines have expressed concerns

about the design, as has the Salt Lake City Airport Authority. It

is my understanding that the FAA, in response to the Salt Lake

City Airport’s alternative proposal, engaged MITRE Corporation to

do a study to look at the Salt Lake City Airport proposal, and I am

wondering if you know what the status is, where that MITRE

study is, and if there is an opportunity to review the MITRE study.

Mr. CHEW. I apologize, I don’t have that at hand, but I would be

happy to make sure that gets to you so we can initiate a discussion

on what can be done.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that. When we had—when my staff

was briefed by the FAA, one thing we were told is that the FAA

was in something called a strategic pause and would know what

the next steps of this overall process were going to be some time

in the second week of June. And I have also heard from the Salt

Lake Airport that they have received some conflicting information

about the timing of the status of the project. So with these funding

issues in doubt, I am wondering if you do have a sense of what the

status of the project is or schedule, if there is any insight you can

offer there.

Mr. CHEW. Well, I think the only insight I can offer is that, as

was mentioned before, the airspace redesign projects, while they

may involve some new displays and things, and so there is some

capital or F&E budget requirement, most of it is funded by the op-
30

erating budget. And as we all know, there were priorities in the recision that gave us some pause about which ones we could fund

this year.

Now, I will say that those projects that got pushed to the lower

part of the priority and that were suffering delays from this year

are back on the docket for doing it in 2007, and our submission of

a budget in 2007 is meant to put those back on track. Most all the

analytical work was already done for those; it was implementation

money and training and these things that are part of the operating

budget.

So if there is any delay, and I am not sure that is the case, but

assuming that there is a delay, my expectation is, given our budget

climate for 2007 and what our operating budget looks like, if we

get our request and there isn’t any kind of unanticipated recision

of some kind that is needed, that we can put these back on track.

Mr. MATHESON. I think that the one item I would leave with you

is that I am anxious to make sure that the FAA, even though it

came up with its original proposal for design, is willing to consider

alternative proposals by either the airport authority local groups

that would make traffic flow more efficient but at the same time

avoid noise impacts over wilderness areas, which the concern about

the current proposal and play, let alone densely populated areas

under the FAA’s proposal. So I would certainly encourage that

openness.

I have some specifics that are probably better for me to give you

in written form, just like Dr. Ehlers, so if I could just submit some

written questions to you as well, I will yield back the balance of

my time.

Mr. MICA. [Presiding] Thank you.

And Mr. Costello moves that we keep the record open for at least

a period of two weeks for additional questions to be submitted, and

we would appreciate response from the panelists.

Mr. Hayes.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chew—thank all of you all for being here. Sorry

I missed the early part—if you had to prioritize the top two or

three ATC modernization upgrades the FAA can make over the

next three to five years, what would those be?

Mr. CHEW. I think we are doing them, actually. It was mentioned

by Mr. Zinser that ERAM was an important program for us to

watch. ERAM, or En Route Automation, will become our future

platform for what is the real brain, the guts of how we keep airplanes separated today.

Now, the good news is that has been somewhat modularized, so

it is on schedule and, in fact, may be slightly under-budget right

now. So we are very, very focused on that program and deploying

that one, and we don’t want to impose new requirements on it as

they come up or that program could suffer. So what we are doing

is, as we look at what is planned for the future, we are looking at

what phases of the post-initial deployment will be needed for that.

FTI is another one, because we have program alongside ADS-B

in modernization that we call the Systemwide Information Management System. That, in fact, is this notion of information sharing,

much like the Internet of today. FTI is not just important from a

cost-saving perspective. FTI lays down the infrastructure for the
31

Internet for aviation system, which would connect airplanes and

airlines and business jets and even general aviation into the system.

And once you plug that into the system, we can create applications that are valuable to making the system running better and

create it better for the customer using the system. So I think that

is a very—not only getting FTI on track, but being able to make

use of that FTI system with the new Systemwide Information Management System, what we call SWIM.

So those two programs are very important, along with FTI, and

those are not only on our radar screen, we are monitoring those

very, very carefully.

All of our programs are part and parcel to what is happening

with that. With ADS-B on the horizon, we have retimed and scaled

back our future long-term radar needs, because we believe that as

we develop those requirements over the next year, ADS-B, that

program will tell us exactly how many radars we will need in the

future, if any. And I suspect there will always be something there,

at least for the next 10 or 15 years. But all those programs are

working in concert with each other, and an integrated plan of how

that all fits together, along with how many facilities we will have,

things like that, is part of all of our focus with JPDO and further.

So I would put those three up at the front.

Mr. HAYES. Having said all that, that is a lot of good expensive

cockpit management, sophisticated equipment. What happens to

the VFR guy in all this? What are your long-range plans for VFR

and those good folks?

Mr. CHEW. Well, the VFR and the general aviation customer is

extremely important to us and the growth of that industry. We

don’t anticipate that some of these very, very difficult and very

high-tech requirements will be required by every airplane in the

system, because there will be need for some of these VFR airplane,

whether it is for recreational use or non-recreational use, to have

use of airspace without those constraints. It is the really, really

busy metropolitan areas that will become the most constrained,

and they are the ones, and those areas, that will need the most

technology and modernization to be applied to it.

So we see differing requirements for different segments of aviation.

Mr. HAYES. So VFR will still be a big part of what you do and

not going to be phased out as a result of—a lot of this high-tech

equipment keeps your head down in the cockpit, which is not always a good thing.

Mr. Chairman, they didn’t announce they were opening Reagan

National before I got here, did they?

Mr. MICA. No, but one thing that hasn’t been announced, but we

will be having a meeting that we talked about, and I think it will

be around the 17th, not the first week we get back, and we will

have two of the three principals committed to talk about that and

some other pending issues.

Mr. HAYES. I want to make sure I didn’t miss it. I thank you and

I yield back my time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Costello, did you want to take a quick shot?
32

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, Mr. Oberstar is coming in. Let me just

ask——

Mr. MICA. Well, we could adjourn now.

Mr. COSTELLO.—a couple of quick questions.

We could, but I don’t think that would be a good idea.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Zinser, let me say that in your prepared

statement you note that you have seen cost estimates and we know

that the JPDO, in industry workshops, have talked about cost, they

have thrown some figures out. I wonder what sort of funding gap—

we have heard others talk about the funding gap. I wonder what,

from your perspective, what the funding gap is and when can this

Subcommittee expect to see cost estimates from the FAA?

Mr. ZINSER. Mr. Costello, I guess I would say a couple of things

about the cost estimates. I think that the numbers that you have

heard today are in the ballpark. There are a couple of things going

on right now that are very important. One is the work that is being

done to try to build a single business case so you can see what all

the different agencies are doing, what they have ongoing, and what

this program can leverage in terms of the work already going on

in other agencies. I think that that has some dollar implications.

Mr. COSTELLO. So the numbers we have heard today, they are in

the ballpark?

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. My concern is that you have to find out

what you are going to spend it on. The ATO does deserve all kinds

of credit for not going out and wasting money on projects that we

don’t need. However, if you give an agency a bunch of money before

you know what you are spending it on. We are asking for trouble

and the money could be wasted.

Mr. COSTELLO. Agreed.

I yield the balance of my time in this round, the next five minutes, to Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the questioning that he has offered.

At the outset of my remarks, I referred to the cooperation and

ultimate involvement of air traffic controllers in developing STARS

very early on, after a number of stumbles. FAA, in a previous administration, realized that they needed to engage controllers in the

design, in the—before the engineers got in and said this is the way

it is going to be, consult with the controllers and say how do you

think it ought to be. There is certain expertise they have, certain

expertise that engineers have.

But then as I reviewed Mr. Zinser’s testimony and a letter that

just recently came to my attention from GAO to our colleague,

Sheila Jackson-Lee. I am troubled. The IG statement says the

union that represents controllers is not yet participating in JPDO

efforts for a variety of reasons, but needs to be. History has shown

that insufficient attention to human factors can increase the cost

of acquisition and delay much needed benefits. We have demonstrated that in numerous hearings in years passed.

Problems in the late 1990’s with FAA’s STARS were directly

traceable to not involving users early enough in the process, which

I just referred to. And then the IG goes on to say that FAA expects

the controllers’ role to change from direct tactical control of aircraft
33

to one of overall traffic management. I know that is still somewhat

theoretical, but one of some concern as to how well thought out

these changes are.

And the letter from GAO, which was signed by Dr. Dillingham,

said that the controller who had been acting as liaison was among

the controllers who returned to his facility, and since that time no

active controller has participated in planning for NGATS.

Mr. Chew, aren’t we missing an opportunity here? Why aren’t

controllers being actively engaged in this process?

Mr. CHEW. Mr. Oberstar, I actually share your exact perspective

on the need to get the people who have to use the system to be part

of it, whether it is a controller or a technician who touches that

equipment.

Now, the good news is that while we have canceled our liaison

program, what is important is that we involve the controller, not

necessarily the union. The air traffic controller gives us two really

important parts, and one of them is the human factors piece that

goes into this of any new system.

Now, the JPDO, which is right now modeling what kinds of

things we will need in the future, isn’t even close to that at this

time, so the involvement of the actual human in the loop in design

is yet to happen as that concept of operation is developed. Now, as

that idea matures into something that we want to actually test

with people attached to it, then it becomes very important to do

that, and we in fact, in things that we do today, even without a

liaison program, do involve actual air traffic controllers in the process, even though it is not in the liaison program.

For instance, the Houston terminal and en route airspace redesign this year, we included air traffic controllers in that design

process. We also included them in this year’s productivity evaluation in terms of workload of the current system. And we are testing

some new en route simulation training devices that MITRE helped

to develop, and we are using actual air traffic controllers in that.

So I just want to differentiate between air traffic controller and

the union, because the liaison program was a union program to involve air traffic controllers, but we have other mechanisms to involve them, and we very much value that involvement.

I will say that the liaison program was very, very inefficient, especially when you need someone for just a little bit of time. Where

we have massive programs where you touch the controller like the

DSR program, which was a whole replacement of the display system that the controller sees, the keyboards and things, that is already done and that is over, so those aren’t needed anymore. But

any time we develop a new one, where there is an interface that

really requires hands-on, I would agree with you.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I am glad to hear your response, rather extensive, but whether involvement of controllers is through the

union, NATCA, or through controllers just as—whether tower or

TRACON or en route controllers—as individuals is very, very important. I remember in the development of the software for STARS,

there were many problems that developed where the contractor had

to go back and change things because FAA had not engaged controllers in evaluating what the engineers had designed, and that

led to delays, to cost increases.
34

I note in your testimony the reduction in deployment of STARS

from the planned 170 to 60 sites, and I know there is some consolidation going on at the smaller TRACONS, which was a problem

that surfaced in the course of the transportation appropriations bill

last week. Nobody had an idea of what was going on, why these

consolidations. Had there been a briefing for the Committee—not

necessarily a hearing, but a briefing—so that we understand what

you are doing, that confrontation on the floor could have been

avoided.

But tell me. So you have picked 60 sites. On what basis? I know

we have the top 50, but some of those top 50 are not among the

60. So what goes into the 110? Are they left with ARTS III? Is it

ARTS IIIE? Is it a color ARTS? What are you going to have in

those 110 and how are you making that decision?

Mr. CHEW. So the decision on exactly what they need in the future—the reason we took the STARS program and we broke it into

useful segments was because we had some that knew we had to do,

they were critically needed for either the capacity of the radar system or it was getting so old it wasn’t maintainable.

Because the radar systems throughout the rest of the 110 are at

different stages, both in terms of modernization—Are we going to

build a new tower there? Is that an old display with a new processor? Is it an old processor with a new display?—each one of those

is considered and prioritized according to that. So it is a function

of how much is needed, how much traffic is there, whether the traffic forecast can be supported by the system there.

And that is what is part of the next phase. In fact, we renamed

the STARS program because it isn’t just about putting the new

STARS there; we have actually found that some of the older systems that are currently there have been upgraded to the point they

are extremely reliable. For instance, some of our busy sites, while

we were developing STARS, the Common ARTS system in four of

the cities, the major cities, have been upgraded to the point that

if we put STARS in there, there may have been no discernible benefit for a long time. So we made a lot of——

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, that is what some of the controllers at MSP

were saying to me at the TRACON, that if you put OLLEY in,

which was an L3 color, and just bracket it on to their existing system, that you would have the equivalent of STARS.

Mr. CHEW. That is right. So, in fact, when that would become a

candidate that needed replacement for whatever reason, whether

the building was getting old or the system was getting old, we

would evaluate what the best value is to the system in putting that

in, rather than just saying, well, let’s just make it STARS because

we have it.

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, we need to have a much longer conversation

about that matter so we can better understand how you are making these decisions.

What is the relationship between growth in operations and decisions you are making in the JPDO and in the development of your

new system? For example, what has been the growth in operations?

I am not talking about passengers, but growth in operations—

which is important for air traffic control—in the en route, in

TRACONS, in towers? And within those categories are some facili-
35

ties growing faster since 2001 than others? Will aircraft equipment

changes have different effects at differing facilities?

For example, the four passenger jet that we are going to be seeing in large numbers produced in the United States can be operated at ever-smaller runways—ever-shorter runways, I should say.

And that may increase operations in some areas where you haven’t

had increases and not at others. So what assessment have you

made of growth in operations, at the various three major facilities,

approach control, towers, en route centers, and do you notice disparities within facilities that require equipment upgrades?

Mr. CHEW. It is very different than it was 10 years ago. Post–

9/11, the marketplace has changed, and there have been new business models that have emerged. So what you are seeing is that the

airports that were crowded before, some of them are becoming even

more crowded even faster, and some are not growing at all. Probably the most recent example of high growth and all of a sudden

no growth was Washington Dulles, because of a new carrier entrant there that suddenly spiked the number of operations, and

now that operations is down.

Now, when you are planning the system forward, both operationally, both for safety reasons and financially, you really do need

good forecasts, and to do that you need to study the different

emerging business models, for instance, the business models for the

very light jets. And we have been engaged in not only looking at

those new business models, but trying to find which business models make sense at what airports, and the airports—we are actually

looking at redoing our airports plan to engage some of these newer

models and to see whether or not our old perspective on the 35

largest airports or busiest airports needs to be revised in the future

so that we are more sensitive to these emerging needs of the local

communities and some of the smaller communities that suddenly

may be experiencing growth from the new business models. So that

is very important not us.

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I am encouraged to see that you are making

those evaluations, making those judgments. There are other factors, of course, with the A380 entering in service. O’Hare Airport

manager tells me that they are prepared, they are ready; their runway is going to be able to accommodate the new aircraft, they are

readying the terminal to accommodate passenger deplaning and

planing.

But what about the airspace? What have you seen of modeling

at Toulouse by Airbus of the wake vortex created by the 380, and

what will be the effect in the airspace of wake vortex and, therefore, on separation? We are not going to have hundreds of them flying in the airspace at one time, but we are going to have some, and

there is going to be a wake vortex effect. What is it and what effect

does it have on your operations?

Mr. CHEW. And, in fact, we are extremely aware of and plugged

into what the emerging requirement, yet to emerge requirement is

on what the wake vortex turbulence requirement of separation will

be for the A380. That is actually still in some controversy, but the

procedures for separating airplanes with needing longer wakes is

actually a very well defined procedure even today, as we have different wake turbulence separations for size airplanes, made easier
36

by the fact that there won’t be a lot of them all at once, which will

help us to accommodate that.

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, thank you. There are many more aspects of

these issues that I would like to pursue, but I realize time is——

Mr. MICA. And we will welcome questions.

I am going to do a quick couple of questions round, and then if

people have other questions, we will either get to them or submit

them.

Let me just touch on a couple of points. First of all, I have heard

the issue raised that there is not enough air traffic controller employee input into some of these technological changes. Now, I have

been out there and I have talked to some of the people about some

of the problems in delays in bringing about the new technology,

and part of it I viewed—and I think I discussed this with you—that

the tail was wagging the dog.

And I welcome the input. I think these are the people that have

to provide us with input because they work these systems day in

and day out. But at some point somebody has to make a damn decision, and that is what I have wanted you to do, and you have

done. So we are not turning this into just a continual go back to

the drawing board effort.

And, also, some of these technological changes do dilute some of

the need for having as many personnel, and some of them actually

provide better safety backups than the human factor. So I want to

see these technological improvements put in place with decisions

that are developed again with input, but not that being a delay factor. And you have done that, so I thank you.

This contract—Mr. DeFazio is gone—the telecommunications

contract. Didn’t he raise that? I was on the phone. OK. I want that

to move forward. There have been delays in that. I understand that

some of that went beyond the expectations.

If we have to have the Inspector General follow that—I don’t

want the vendors who now have the telecommunications service

and who benefit by not having the new installation by getting more

money from the old system and keeping the old system in place

that doesn’t do the job. In fact, if I have to, I will direct you to that

effort. And I have seen some of those people up here trying to

screw up the process, and that has got to stop too.

The benefit to that is having twenty-first century modern communications system that works and that is installed. That is the

first benefit, where the backup systems, redundancy, whatever.

And the second part of that is that we save money. And the quicker

is installed, we save money. So it may not be as much as we looked

at in the beginning, but we are going to get the damn system done,

and I expect tough oversight. And if I hear anybody trying to deepsix that, I will sic my dogs on them. All right.

I do have further questions about the schedule, and I do want

to submit them, because, again, I think it is time for us, as soon

as we get the schedule gel, and then we can look at the costs, I

think that it is important that we develop that time frame. I am

understanding that I am going to get a clearer picture of that, and

then basically a printout of where we are going and that we will

have accountable milestones, costs, and schedule. OK? All right, so

that will be the last thing that I require.
37

And I will submit the balance of my questions for the record.

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Dillingham, in your written statement you note that there

are no current controllers involved or working with the Next Generation Initiative, and I wonder if you might tell us why that is and

why is it important that the controllers be at the table and be involved with the Initiative.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Costello, I think this is, in part, what was

being discussed a few minutes ago in that there was a liaison program between NATCA, the controllers’ union, and ATO for technological developments, and that program was terminated in 2005

and the controllers were returned to the boards. At that point in

time, the controller who worked with JPDO was also a part of

those controllers that returned to the boards.

And I think Mr. Oberstar pointed out that it is very important,

especially from a human factors point of view, that you involve

those individuals that are going to be working that equipment, and

particularly in this JPDO NGATS environment, where there is

going to be a shift in the responsibilities of the controllers. It will

be a different air traffic management system and they will have

different responsibilities than they have now. So it is very important that the controllers or controller expertise be a part of the development of the system.

JPDO has indicated that—and Mr. Chew has also indicated

today that-when they need controller expertise, they will find that

expertise and they will have it and use it. We don’t, at this point,

know how that is going to happen, but we assume that there is a

way that it will happen.

But the Chairman makes a good point as well, in that you need

controller input, but you don’t need a situation where input is such

that it stops or delays the implementation of technology. So you

need to strike a balance, and it is very, very important.

Mr. COSTELLO. It is important that the controllers be at the

table.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good.

Mr. Zinser, you mention in your written testimony, you talk

about the human factor and the importance of workforce safety and

the implications that that has, and I wonder if you might comment

on that, as well as the relationship between JPDO and the FAA.

Do you believe it is adequate? And if not, what do you recommend

be done to strengthen it?

Mr. ZINSER. In terms of human factors and safety, these are

many issues that need to be analyzed and understood to get the expected increases in capacity the fundamental mission of the FAA

and the air traffic controllers is safety. Their job is to make sure

that the planes are separated and operated safely. We cannot lose

sight of that. Any changes you make in procedures or how traffic

is separated, is a safety issue. .

In terms of the relationship between the FAA and the JPDO, I

think the JPDO has done what they are supposed to have done at

this point—it is still evolving. The point we made about the FAA

finding leadership for the JPDO is very important, and I think that
38

the things that they have going on right now, such as working with

OMB to come up with their business case and coming up with the

architecture, are going to be very important steps. We are anxious

to see what they come up with.

Mr. COSTELLO. Final question, and then I have a comment for

Mr. Chew.

But, Mr. Pearce, the FAA consolidation, the facility consolidation

as a part of JPDO, is that a mandate or a mission that the JPDO

has taken on? Have you been given the responsibility? Is it a mandate of the JPDO, the facility consolidation?

Mr. PEARCE. No. I mean, there is no mandate on the JPDO to

do consolidations. It is certainly the role of FAA to look at that.

Our perspective is one of meeting the goals for the future of air

transportation, and if consolidation helps us along that way, then

that will certainly be a part of the plan. But consolidation in and

of itself is not a goal of the JPDO.

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you see the goal of accomplishing, tripling

the capacity by 2025 without consolidation?

Mr. PEARCE. The challenge of tripling capacity is finding the

right technologies and getting those technologies to the system that

allow the productivity of the controller, the automation, that interface to be there. Consolidation can certainly help in that regard in

terms of getting the right people together in the right facilities,

with the right automation and so forth, but it is not—like I said,

it is not a—we haven’t determined exactly the ways in which that

would need to take place and, like I said, it is not a goal, in and

of itself, to do consolidation. So we really do have to do the

architecting to see how the people interface with the automation

and then what the right level of those facilities are to come to that

determination.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you.

Mr. Chew, let me associate myself with the remarks made by the

Chairman in the job that you were doing. We have confidence in

what you are doing and will continue to work with you. Let me say

that in the transportation appropriations bill in 2006, and then

again this year, in the House version, the Congress encouraged the

FAA to move forward to install the ASDEX radar system at O’Hare

and to implement the RNAV arrivals and descent. Yet, I have been

told that the FAA has not taken any action to move forward on

these initiatives at O’Hare, although you have moved forward at

other airports with less traffic.

And I just want to tell you that we still have caps, as you know,

at O’Hare on a number of flights and the delays persist. I will be

following up with you with some written questions that I would ask

that you would respond as quickly as possible concerning those

issues.

And on a related topic, we are focused here today talking about

the year 2025, but there are steps that we can take today that will

and can dramatically impact capacity and the airline fuel costs

within a few years, and I would say that accelerating the deployment of RNAV and RNP procedures and supporting airspace redesign efforts are two prime examples. And, Mr. Zinser, let me say

that I will be in touch with your office to review the progress being

made on near-term solutions, and there is no question that it is
39

critical that the Congress keep these important near-term projects

on track.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Let me get Mr. Hayes.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Zinser, regrettably, your recent report on the status of FAA’s

telecommunications infrastructure, FTI, has been mischaracterized

by some interested parties. I wanted to confirm that your report

did not raise any safety issues involved with implementation of

FTI. Is that correct?

Mr. ZINSER. That is correct, sir. Our report did not include any

safety issues identified.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Let me just—everybody has had a final word here.

We were talking about where we were in JPDO, and one of the

things that was mentioned—I think someone raised a question

about Europe—in my opening statement I made some comments

we ought to look at it, and then they raised questions about it, and

then you commented, Mr. ElSawy, that, as far as organization,

they were ahead of us.

Don’t you see us needing to get to some point where we sort of

have some teeth in this and some organization that can make decisions and move forward? Because right now you don’t have that capability. You know, like I said, they are picking low-hanging fruit.

I mean, aren’t we getting pretty close to where we are going to

need that?

Mr. ELSAWY. I think, as I mentioned, in Europe, what they have

chosen to do is to basically let out a contract to a consortium of 32

companies of industry to do the initial planning for the JPDO or

for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, and they have

developed a fairly comprehensive governance model for how those

companies interact with each other.

I think in the United States, with the interagency agreements,

the work that the JPDO is currently doing on the concept of operations the development of the architecture, and then working with

the NGATS Institute really should focus on that activity of how industry will engage in the future, how the contracts will flow, and

then, at the appropriate time, what is the right balance between

industry participation and government participation. So I think we

are getting there.

Mr. MICA. The other thing is maybe in talking with Mr. Chew,

I don’t know when we come up with the cost, there will be costs

absorbed by other agencies, too. Looking at that whole picture, we

may get a better idea of how we may need to put some other authority together to make things happen.

Mr. ELSAWY. I think Inspector General Zinser really hit the nail

on the head in the sense that the budget process that drives the

JPDO governs the progress and governs our ability to really have

an integrated plan. This is a very complicated process; it is really

an experiment in government in the sense of coordinating the

budgets and the projects and the programs with multiple agencies,
40

multiple authorities, multiple years, different missions. So it is

fairly complex.

Mr. MICA. But then you have got the other part of the equation

is getting the compliance and setting some implementation. I

mean, there is cost involved to air carriers,——

Mr. ELSAWY. Absolutely

Mr. MICA. —to general aviation, to a whole host of folks. And we

are going to have to have some teeth, we are going to have to have

some deadlines, and we are going to have to have some implementation schedule that is going to be tough.

Well, again, we will have additional questions. A very interesting

hearing. We got some great witnesses today who provided us, I

think, at least with a good status report. Hopefully we can get the

balance of the blueprint in additional meetings and hearings.

There being no further business before the Subcommittee today,

again, we thank you, and this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189

Æ