Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

FAA’S APPROACH TO SWIM HAS LED TO 

COST AND SCHEDULE UNCERTAINTY AND 

NO CLEAR PATH FOR ACHIEVING 

NEXTGEN GOALS

Federal Aviation Administration

Report Number: AV-2011-131

Date Issued: June 15, 2011
U.S. Department of

Memorandum

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Office of Inspector General

Subject: ACTION: FAA’s Approach to SWIM Has Led to 

Cost and Schedule Uncertainty and No Clear Path 

for Achieving NextGen Goals

Federal Aviation Administration

Report Number AV-2011-131

Date: June 15, 2011

From: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Aviation and Special Program Audits

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10

To: Federal Aviation Administrator

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) successful transition to its Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) depends on developing and 

implementing the System Wide Information Management (SWIM) program. FAA 

plans to spend about $284 million through 2015 to implement the first of three 

stages of SWIM. As envisioned, SWIM will form the basis for a secure network 

that manages and shares information more efficiently among all air traffic systems

that will comprise NextGen. Key benefits expected from SWIM are streamlined

data communications and real-time information that will improve air traffic

management, enhance airspace capacity, reduce flight delays, and decrease costs 

for FAA and aviation users. 

We initiated this audit because FAA identified SWIM as a key transformational 

program1

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

for NextGen. Our audit objectives were to (1) determine the 

development and implementation status of SWIM and (2) assess the risks facing 

SWIM’s successful deployment. We conducted this audit in accordance with 

government auditing standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. Exhibit A details our audit scope and methodology.

FAA is still in the early stages of developing SWIM but has increased the costs for 

the program’s first of three segments by more than $100 million and delayed its 

 1 We have an ongoing review of FAA’s Transformational Programs; SWIM is one of six of those capital programs 

that FAA is developing and implementing.
2

completion by at least 2 years. Undefined requirements among the seven 

programs that will serve as implementation platforms for SWIM are driving these 

cost increases and schedule delays. Five of the program offices have not finalized 

their own system requirements, much less their plans to implement SWIM 

capabilities. For example, SWIM is intended to enable data sharing with the En 

Route Automation Modernization Program (ERAM)—the primary NextGen tool 

for processing flight data in the National Airspace System (NAS). However, FAA 

does not plan to fully integrate SWIM capabilities with ERAM for another 4 years. 

FAA also has yet to develop an implementation strategy for the two remaining 

SWIM segments and is considering other alternatives given the cost and schedule 

slips experienced to date. 

SWIM will likely remain at risk of further cost increases and schedule delays

because FAA has not established clear lines of accountability for overseeing how 

SWIM is developed and managed. Rather than pursue an overarching SWIM 

infrastructure, FAA decided it could best achieve SWIM’s diverse benefits and 

save development costs by delegating significant responsibility and funding to the 

seven NAS program offices to design and implement SWIM. However, in doing 

so, FAA also left the SWIM Program Office with no authority over the other 

program offices’ costs, schedules, and requirements related to SWIM. Each 

program office determines when and how SWIM software will be upgraded on its 

system with little or no input from the SWIM Program Office. Because the SWIM 

Program Office is not filling the typical role of setting long-term programmatic 

priorities, it will be difficult for FAA to develop an end-state transition strategy for 

SWIM and ensure that SWIM aligns with NextGen goals such as reducing 

aviation costs. Without a consistent vision of SWIM’s requirements and clearly 

defined program priorities, the true cost and timeline to deploy SWIM and the 

realization of expected benefits is unknown. 

Our recommendations to FAA focus on actions needed to effectively implement 

SWIM and address program challenges and risks.

BACKGROUND 

FAA began developing and implementing SWIM in June 2007. SWIM is 

software that will provide FAA with a more effective process for sharing air traffic

information to support current and future NAS programs. FAA plans to

implement SWIM in three segments but has only approved funding 

(i.e., baselined) for the first segment.

Segment 1 (originally planned between 2009 and 2013): FAA expects this 

segment to provide users with more air traffic management system information 

sharing, including airport operational status, weather information, flight data, 

status of special use airspace, and airspace restrictions. FAA is still defining 
3

Segment 1 requirements. Rather than developing a separate SWIM infrastructure, 

FAA is developing and implementing SWIM capabilities within seven FAA 

systems that comprise Segment 1, as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Seven NAS Programs Implementing SWIM Capabilities

Air Traffic Management Systems

• En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM): The SWIM ERAM service will provide 

flight data and updates to airspace users for filed/active flight plans, and adapted arrival 

and departure route status. Capabilities for five of the seven systems are planning to 

utilize ERAM for support.

• Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS): The SWIM TFM service will provide a means 

for airspace users to subscribe to information on traffic flow constraints, such as ground 

delays, and ground stops.

• Terminal Data Distribution System (TDDS): The SWIM TDDS service will consolidate 

data from four terminal systems that provide information such as pre-departure clearance 

data to controllers and visibility of runway conditions to pilots.

• Aeronautical Information Management (AIM) /Special Use Airspace Management 

System (SAMS): This SWIM service will improve the current Special Use Airspace (SUA) 

process by providing better knowledge of when airspace used jointly by FAA and the 

military is safe for civilian aircraft to enter.

Weather Systems

• Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS): The SWIM ITWS service provides a realtime picture of aviation-impacting weather near airports (wind shear, lightning, storm cells) 

with a 1-hour weather forecast.

• Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS): The SWIM CIWS service provides 

weather-avoidance routing/re-routing and automated 2-hour weather forecast.

• Weather Message Switching Center Replacement (WMSCR): The SWIM WMSCR 

service adds a new capability to automatically distribute pilot reports of crucial weather 

observations by pilots to en route controllers. 

Source: SWIM Final Program Requirements, Segment 1, May 23, 2007.

Segment 2 (between 2012 through 2016): FAA expects this segment to provide 

services to support NAS-wide flight planning activities; improved flight arrival,

surface, and departure flow; and restricted and regulated airspace capabilities. 

Additionally, this segment will provide NextGen users with universal access to 

aviation weather data (in latitude, longitude, altitude, and time). The SWIM 

Program Office is currently conducting the Segment 2 investment analysis to 

determine cost, schedule, and performance parameters. A final investment 

decision is planned for September 2012.

Segment 3 (between 2016 through 2019): FAA expects this segment to allow 

for enhanced communications and surveillance to reduce separation between 

aircraft in the oceanic air traffic environment and improve airport surface traffic 
4

management. In addition, this segment will provide more timely and informed 

decision-making based on shared situational awareness between airspace users. 

SWIM IS EXPERIENCING SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASES AND 

SCHEDULE DELAYS

Cost estimates for Segment 1 of SWIM have increased significantly while 

estimated cost savings have decreased. Further, FAA has no executable strategy

to finish deploying SWIM and achieve user benefits for this segment. When FAA 

made its final investment decision in July 2009, the estimated cost to complete 

Segment 1 had increased by approximately $105 million since 2007 (from about 

$179 million to about $284 million). FAA has also reduced the expected cost 

savings for Segment 1 by approximately $168 million and delayed completion 

from 2013 to 2015. Further delays are likely as the seven NAS program offices 

implementing SWIM have yet to fully define their specific program or SWIM 

requirements. Table 2 shows the increase in estimated cost to complete 

Segment 1. 

Table 2. SWIM Annual Cost Estimates for Segment 1

(Facilities and Equipment Funds - Dollars in Millions)

Source: OIG analysis of FAA’s Joint Resources Council SWIM documents (*Total does not compare to 

Table 4 due to rounding).

Note: FAA provided cost estimates to complete SWIM in 2007 and 2009. However, in 2007, the Agency 

only baselined cost estimates for the first 2 years, and in 2009 all costs estimates were baselined. 

NAS Program Offices’ Undefined Requirements Have Delayed SWIM 

Implementation for Segment 1 and Increased Development Costs

FAA is at least 4 years away from finalizing requirements to fully realize SWIM 

capabilities; many of these requirements depend on the successful development 

and implementation of other NAS systems. Until the seven NAS programs needed 

to implement SWIM have defined requirements, delays with SWIM’s overall 

development will continue. For example, a critical component of SWIM’s success 

is the ERAM program, as four of the other NAS programs implementing SWIM 

are planning to use ERAM for support. Without ERAM, the more efficient flight 

data management envisioned for SWIM will not be possible; therefore, defining 

and completing ERAM modernization requirements must be a top priority. 

Because of its central role, the ERAM program has received funding from the 

FAA’s Estimated Cost 

to Complete

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

June 2007 $46.3 $58.3 $42.2 $25.2 $6.9 $178.9*

July 2009 $39.7 $58.3 $84.5 $42.8 $35.9 $15.0 $7.3 $283.5

Total Cost Variance $-6.6 0 $42.3 $17.6 $29 $15.0 $7.3 $104.6
5

SWIM Program Office to modernize and enhance ERAM flight data processing 

and external interfaces with terminal air traffic control (ATC) and the Traffic Flow 

Management (TFM) systems (see exhibits B and C for a detailed list of SWIM 

capabilities enabled through all seven systems and cost and schedule status). 

Table 3 provides examples of requirements for the five NAS programs that must 

be finalized to implement SWIM (see exhibit D for a complete list of the 

challenges all seven programs must overcome to implement SWIM capabilities).

Table 3. Requirements That NAS Program Offices Must Finalize To 

Implement SWIM Capabilities

FAA Systems Challenges to Finalizing Requirements

ERAM FAA is 4 years away from finalizing requirements to fully implement 

SWIM/ERAM capabilities. For example, FAA has yet to finalize requirements 

to replace two key interfaces that share flight data with airspace users and 

terminal and tower facilities. FAA does not plan to complete this activity until 

FY 2014. FAA also does not plan to start the final phase of exchanging SWIMcompliant information with the TFM and terminal facilities or complete 

SWIM/ERAM upgrades for the 22 en route facilities until FY 2015. 

TDDS FAA is undertaking a major development effort to implement SWIM terminal 

capabilities on a new system known as the Terminal Data Distribution System 

(TDDS). It is uncertain when FAA will deploy TDDS to the 38 planned sites for 

Segment 1 because the Agency has yet to establish a contract agreement and 

fully define all requirements.

TFM FAA has yet to develop requirements for a new TFM service to provide NAS 

users with information from terminal facilities because of its dependence on 

TDDS, which has yet to be developed. This service is not expected to be 

implemented until FY 2014.

SAMS FAA has not established firm requirements to upgrade ERAM with SWIM’s

capability to exchange Special Use Airspace data with other Air Traffic 

Management systems. FAA does not plan to implement this capability until 

FY 2014. 

WMSCR FAA has not established firm requirements to upgrade ERAM with the interface 

to record Pilot Reports and send them to the WMSCR system. FAA does not 

plan to implement this capability until 2015. 

Source: OIG analysis of SWIM Implementing Program documentation

As a result of the changing requirements with these programs, SWIM Segment 1

development costs have increased significantly over original estimates. For 

example, the estimated costs to upgrade ERAM with SWIM increased by 

85 percent, from $63.4 million to $117.7 million. Likewise, costs for TDDS more 

than doubled, from $16.5 million to $33.9 million.2

 2 When upgraded with SWIM, ERAM is expected to provide flight data and updates to clients for filed/active flight 

plans, and adapted arrival and departure route status. TDDS is expected to consolidate data feeds from four terminal 

systems that provide information such as pre-departure clearance data to controllers and greater visibility of runway 

conditions to pilots. 

Congress has specifically 
6

expressed concern over how much money will be directed to the other program 

offices to support SWIM.3

Table 4. SWIM Segment 1 Program Cost Variances

 In fiscal year (FY) 2009, of the $41 million requested

for SWIM, FAA redirected $27.6 million to the seven NAS programs to 

implement SWIM capabilities for their respective systems. Table 4 outlines the 

increases in cost estimates for six of the seven NAS programs to implement 

SWIM capabilities.

NAS Programs Implementing SWIM 

Capabilities

Estimated Cost

(Dollars in Millions)

Percent Cost 

2007 2009 Growth

Terminal Data Distribution System 

(TDDS) $16.5 $33.9 105.5%

Weather Message Switching Center 

Replacement (WMSCR) $6.5 $12.8 96.9%

En Route Automation Modernization 

(ERAM) $63.4 $117.7 85.6%

Traffic Flow Management (TFM) $19.8 $29.2 47.5%

Corridor Integrated Weather System 

(CIWS) $0.8 $0.9 12.5%

Integrated Terminal Weather System 

(ITWS) $3.0 $3.2 6.7%

Aeronautical Information Management 

(AIM) $8.5 $7.1 -16.5%

SWIM Program Office $60.5 $78.7 30.1%

TOTAL $179.0* $283.5 58.4%

Source: OIG analysis of FAA’s Joint Resources Council SWIM documents (*Total does not compare to 

Table 2 due to rounding).

Many of these technologies are likely to see further cost increases with continued 

SWIM schedule delays. FAA originally planned to field SWIM segments in 

4-year increments but has already extended completion for Segment 1 from

4 years to 6 years. Segment 1 capabilities originally planned for deployment in 

2013 are now slated for 2015. Until FAA fully defines and finalizes requirements 

for the programs implementing SWIM, the program’s cost and schedule will 

remain uncertain. 

FAA HAS NOT ESTABLISHED CLEAR AUTHORITY FOR

MITIGATING RISKS AND SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTING SWIM

SWIM will likely remain at risk of further delays and cost increases because the

SWIM Program Office has no authority over the seven NAS program offices’

 3 Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Committee Report 110-418, July 14, 2008.
7

costs, schedules, and requirements for implementing SWIM. In deciding upon a 

decentralized approach to implement SWIM, FAA recognized that transitioning to 

a SWIM-enabled environment all at once would not be operationally practical, 

affordable, or provide a guaranteed level of safety for mission-critical systems 

with high-availability requirements. A decentralized approach is not necessarily 

cause for concern, but combined with evolving requirements, no clear end state, 

and unclear lines of accountability, it can significantly increase risks to the 

program’s successful implementation. Because the SWIM Program Office is not 

filling the typical role of setting long-term programmatic priorities, it will be 

difficult for FAA to develop an end-state transition strategy for SWIM; ensure that 

SWIM aligns with NextGen goals as promised; and address data integrity, 

performance, and security issues. 

SWIM Program Office Has No Authority Over SWIM Implementation, Cost,

and Schedule

The SWIM Program Office has relied on Program Level Agreements (PLA) with 

the seven NAS program offices to document and establish funding sources, design 

parameters, and implementation dates for developing capabilities. However, these 

PLAs have been ineffective tools for controlling SWIM development costs and 

schedules. FAA officials believed that this approach would save on initial 

development costs by building out the SWIM infrastructure through the seven 

NAS systems. Yet, SWIM program officials admitted they have no authority over 

when SWIM capabilities will be implemented. A primary reason is that the seven 

NAS program offices responsible for developing SWIM individually manage 

when and how their SWIM software is deployed. The SWIM Program Office 

could not justify the escalating development costs associated with six of the seven 

programs. 

Further, FAA did not establish PLAs with any of the program offices for 

Segment 1 deployment activities through the end of Segment 1 from 2012 through 

2015 for the majority of the systems involved. While the PLA process has 

limitations, FAA did not use them to gain commitment from the NAS program 

offices on schedule goals that could be achieved. As a result, in addition to 

driving their own costs, the NAS program offices do not provide deployment 

schedules, and their requirements are constantly changing. Our work has shown 

that this approach has significant risks. As we stated in September 2008, 

implementing SWIM in an incremental approach could leave the program with no 

clear end state and less cost visibility into what it would take to complete the 

program.4

 4 OIG Testimony Number CC-2008-118, “Status of FAA’s Effort To Develop the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System,” September 11, 2008. OIG reports and testimonies are available on our website: www.oig.dot.gov. 
8

FAA Does Not Have SWIM End-State Plans

Without a more centralized perspective on implementing SWIM, FAA lacks an

actionable roadmap to transition the NAS to SWIM through its end state. 

Specifically, FAA has not developed an overall architectural design that identifies 

all the NAS systems that will require SWIM technology. In 2007, Congress 

expressed specific concerns about this aspect of the program, stating that the value 

of SWIM lies in its overall architecture rather than in its connectivity to disparate 

systems. Congress directed FAA to explain how it will ensure connectivity 

between SWIM and other systems.

5

According to FAA, SWIM connectivity to other systems becomes critical as more

air traffic programs beyond the seven Segment 1 systems are upgraded with 

SWIM, because system complexity will increase. Overly complex systems will 

eventually limit the number of cost-efficient capabilities, which will ultimately 

impede user acceptance—a key component of achieving a successful end-state for 

new technology. However, FAA has not planned how users such as airlines, 

airline operating centers, or other agencies will upgrade their respective systems 

with SWIM capabilities for exchanging data so they can be compatible and begin 

using the new capabilities SWIM will offer. Industry experts noted that migrating 

legacy systems and operational environments to a SWIM-based infrastructure will 

typically be a gradual and painstaking process presenting planning/lifecycle 

challenges. 

 FAA submitted its report to Congress in 

January 2008; however, it did not sufficiently explain how FAA would ensure 

connectivity and integration with existing and planned air traffic systems.

SWIM Lacks Alignment with NextGen Goals 

FAA’s NAS Enterprise Architecture6

Reducing Aviation Costs: The SWIM implementation plan states that a key 

objective of the SWIM program is to help reduce FAA infrastructure costs by 

roadmap identifies numerous SWIM 

initiatives required to achieve NextGen goals, including reducing aviation costs 

(FAA’s and industry stakeholders’), expanding capacity, improving collaborative 

decision making, and increasing system predictability. With the exception of 

reducing aviation costs, these NextGen goals are associated with SWIM 

capabilities slated for Segments 2 and 3. However, SWIM program officials have 

yet to finalize the requirements to achieve them or define expected benefits for 

FAA and aviation users. Moreover, according to SWIM planning documents, 

aviation users will not realize key NextGen benefits in Segment 1; rather, only 

FAA cost savings realized by deployment of SWIM capabilities are planned.

 5 Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Committee Report 110-131, July 16, 2007. 6 An Enterprise Architecture describes the “current architecture” and “target architecture” to include the rules and 

standards and systems life cycle information to optimize and maintain the environment which the agency wishes to 

create and maintain by managing its information technology portfolio.
9

reducing the number and types of interfaces, systems, and potentially facilities that 

make up the NAS. Additionally, new systems will develop SWIM-compliant 

interfaces, saving future development costs. Table 5 outlines FAA’s planned 

SWIM cost savings per year.

Table 5. SWIM Projected Annual Cost Savings (Dollars in Millions)

FAA’s Projected 

Cost Savings FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

June 2007 $88.4 $87.1 $86.0 $87.9 $83.6 $13.5 $13.3 $459.8

July 2009 $55.5 $55.1 $52.4 $51.7 $51.8 $12.9 $12.8 $292.2

Decrease $32.9 $32.0 $33.6 $36.2 $31.8 $0.6 $0.5 $167.6

Source: SWIM Final Investment Decision Briefings (June 2007 and July 2009).

FAA has already reduced the expected cost savings benefits by $168 million (from 

$459.8 million to $292.2 million) through 2015, the end of Segment 1, because 

2 additional years will be required to complete Segment 1. Moreover, FAA could 

not support its reported annual cost savings of about $55 million for FY 2009 and 

FY 2010. One of the assumptions associated with these cost savings was that

ERAM and TFM program offices would agree to stop work on a capability 

planned for ERAM Release 1 to support the exchange of Special-Use Airspace 

(SUA) data. This is because, as planned, SWIM would provide the same 

capability at the same time. However, FAA’s original assumptions are no longer 

valid because the new interface for the SWIM SUA capability will not be 

deployed until 2014, at least 4 years later than originally planned.

Expanding System Capacity: FAA’s SWIM implementation plan also states that 

the program will enable information to be readily shared and used by all NAS 

participants. With more widespread use of better data, SWIM will improve 

strategic planning and flight trajectory management to allow better use of existing 

capacity in the en route (high altitude) environment. FAA’s NAS Enterprise 

Architecture states that FAA is planning to initiate trajectory-based operations, 

which will provide interactive flight planning during Segment 2 of the SWIM 

program. However, FAA has yet to define requirements or establish a transition 

plan for when SWIM will provide this new capability. FAA is not planning to 

approve a final Segment 2 performance baseline until September 2012.

Improving Collaborative Decision Making: A key NextGen and SWIM goal is 

to enable collaborative decision making, which means that once all airspace users 

have access to the same information, they can efficiently make real-time decisions 

and quickly reach agreements. However, FAA’s NAS Enterprise Architecture 

states that the Agency is not planning to implement the full collaborative decision 

making capability for SWIM until Segment 3 of the program. Requirements for 

this capability also have not been defined.
10

Increasing Predictability: SWIM is expected to improve coordination to allow

transition from tactical conflict management to strategic operations and make 

flight schedules more reliable. Also, SWIM is expected to provide the potential to 

increase automated information exchanges between systems (e.g., ERAM and

TFM) for the purposes of supporting and disseminating decisions rather than 

relying on current manual processes. A planned benefit of SWIM is to ensure 

consistent decision making based on the same data. However, FAA’s NAS 

Enterprise Architecture did not have any information outlining when the Agency 

would achieve this NextGen objective through SWIM.

Performance Issues with Data Integrity, Security, and Routing

While the SWIM software has a number of security directory services and system 

management capabilities, by itself, the software does not supply all the needed 

data integrity or security features. To provide these would require an Enterprise 

Service Bus (ESB7

Other security risks could be introduced to the program with the SWIM Program 

Office’s plans to use FAA’s Telecommunication Infrastructure (FTI) to route 

information between NAS systems and external users. FTI uses Internet Protocol

Security controls such as Virtual Private Networks to create authorized 

connections between external systems and FTI. FAA has not yet developed a 

similar protocol to ensure that those programs implementing SWIM technology 

and aviation users meet all the requirements necessary to protect the NAS systems.

Using SWIM technology can expose an organization to security risks that can 

compromise existing network-based internal controls. Web service-enabled 

networks such as FTI are more vulnerable to internal and external attacks. For 

example, in May 2009, we reported that Web applications used in supporting ATC 

systems operations that are not properly secured can create security risks.

) or general framework for security. FAA is not using an ESB 

for Segment 1 of SWIM but is considering using one during the transition to 

Segment 2. Industry experts caution that FAA’s plan to provide a secure 

information web through SWIM may not be successful without a central ESB 

capability for NAS-wide message exchange. 

8

CONCLUSION

The guiding tenet of FAA’s vision for NextGen is transitioning from air traffic 

control to air traffic management to increase the capacity and efficiency of the 

Nation’s aviation system. This will require revolutionizing communication across 

the NAS, while effectively planning and overseeing the significant investments 

required. Because SWIM is a key component of this plan, FAA must take steps 

 7 ESB services provide a common backbone upon which global information is transacted and managed securely. 8 OIG Report Number F1-2009-049, “Review of Web Applications Security and Intrusion Detection in Air Traffic 

Control Systems,” May 4, 2009.
11

now to establish clear accountability and authority for SWIM’s implementation.

Otherwise, the program will be left without an overall blueprint or achievable end

state. These steps are critical to mitigate risks of further cost increases and 

schedule delays and obtain promised benefits for NAS users. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that FAA:

1. Finalize SWIM requirements for Segment 1 and establish firm cost and 

schedule commitments.

2. Provide the SWIM Program Office with the proper authority to ensure SWIM 

capabilities will be implemented within the established schedule.

3. Strengthen the PLA process so the SWIM Program Office can have sufficient 

authority to enforce SWIM’s Segment 1 implementation.

4. Define requirements through SWIM’s end-state by:

a. developing an overall architectural design for the SWIM program 

identifying all the NAS systems that will be required to implement

SWIM technology.

b. defining their respective costs and schedules for implementing planned 

capabilities. 

5. Align SWIM implementation strategy with the Agency’s NextGen goals, 

develop a realistic plan that coordinates the two, and define when planned 

NextGen benefits will be realized.

6. Follow up with NAS program offices and users implementing SWIM 

technology to determine whether they are meeting all the requirements 

necessary to protect NAS systems from exposure to security risks.
12

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We discussed the results of our review with FAA’s Senior Vice President for 

NextGen and Operations Planning, and SWIM Program Manager and provided 

FAA with our draft report on April 15, 2011. We received the Agency’s formal 

response on May 12, 2011. FAA’s complete response is included as an appendix 

to this report. In its response, FAA concurred with all six of our recommendations. 

FAA’s planned actions meet the intent of our first recommendation. FAA stated 

that PLAs are typically updated annually, but we are requesting that FAA provide 

us with target action dates for when the PLAs are finalized so that we can track the 

Agency's progress. 

For recommendations 2 and 3, FAA stated that the SWIM Program Office was 

given more authority to ensure SWIM capabilities will be implemented within the 

established schedule through FAA’s Joint Resources Council (JRC) process. FAA 

also stated that the Deputy Administrator will assume direct oversight 

responsibility for NextGen activities and that differences between the SWIM 

Program Office and other programs regarding SWIM implementation will be 

adjudicated at this level. While this is a step in the right direction, it is unclear to 

us how the JRC process and direct oversight of the Deputy Administrator for 

NextGen activities will sufficiently strengthen the PLA process itself. The intent 

of our recommendations was that FAA provide the SWIM program office or 

another FAA entity with greater authority to effectively manage requirements, 

cost, and implementation schedules by improving controls over PLAs. 

Accordingly, we are requesting that FAA provide us with more details and 

completion dates for its planned actions for recommendations 2 and 3. 

For recommendations 4, 5, and 6, FAA stated that it would complete actions to 

address our concerns by September 30, 2012, in preparation for a Final Investment 

Decision for Segment 2 of SWIM. FAA also indicated that cost, schedule,

requirements, and an overall architecture design for Segment 3 of SWIM will be 

finalized in preparation for a Final Investment Decision on September 30, 2014. 

Accordingly, we consider these recommendations resolved but open pending 

completion of planned actions. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED

FAA’s proposed actions for recommendations 4, 5, and 6 are responsive, and we 

consider them addressed but open pending completion of the planned actions. For 

recommendation 1, we are requesting that FAA provide us with target dates for 
13

updating PLAs annually. For recommendations 2 and 3, we are requesting that 

FAA provide us more details on how it plans to strengthen the PLA process. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FAA and various stakeholder

representatives during this audit. If you have any questions concerning this report, 

please contact me at (202) 366-0500 or Kevin Dorsey, Program Director, at (202) 

366-1518.

#

cc: FAA Deputy Administrator

FAA Chief of Staff

FAA Director, Audit and Evaluation

Anthony Williams, AAE-001

Martin Gertel, M-1
14

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted 

Government Auditing Standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions

based on our audit objectives. We conducted this review between September 2008 

and April 2011. 

To assess FAA’s efforts to develop and implement Segment 1 of the SWIM 

program we identified the cost, schedule, and performance issues associated with 

the program and identified the risks associated with FAA’s decision to develop 

SWIM using a decentralized approach for Segment 1 and a centralized approach to 

transition into Segment 2. We examined the Program Level Agreements that 

placed the authority to develop and implement SWIM capabilities under the 

control of the Implementation Programs.

We interviewed FAA program officials representing the seven FAA systems 

implementing SWIM capabilities. We also met with NextGen program officials 

from the Office of Requirements and Governance and the Office of Evolution and 

Coordination.

We conducted site visits at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in 

Cambridge, Massachusetts to observe the Integrated Terminal Weather System

(ITWS) working prototype developed by VOLPE to distribute live weather data 

with an advance forecasting notice time of 1 hour. We observed real time ITWS 

weather demonstrations developed as a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)-

based prototype to provide interoperable services to allow different applications to 

exchange data with one another using an industry standard format. We visited and 

interviewed the staff at William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ to 

assess their support resources for the SWIM program. We also visited the two 

facilities at the Tech Center for SWIM− the SWIM Prototyping and Support 

Facility to gain an understanding of the Hardware and Software necessary to 

support the SWIM prototyping and evaluation activities, and the SWIM 

Integration Facility which releases versions of the service container software 

maintained in the SWIM Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS) products repository. 
15

Exhibit B. SWIM Planned Capabilities

EXHIBIT B. SWIM PLANNED CAPABILITIES 

NAS PROGRAMS CAPABILITIES SWIM SERVICES

Traffic Flow Management 

(TFM)

Flow Information 

Publication

Provide a means for airspace users to subscribe to 

information on traffic flow constraints, such as 

ground delays and ground stops. 

Runway Visual Range Provide runway visibility data used to report 

approximate distance a pilot is able to see down a 

runway. 

Reroute Data Exchange Provide aircraft reroutes for congested airspace, 

severe weather, facility outages, or emergencies.

En Route Automated 

Modernization (ERAM)

Flight Data Publication Provide flight data and updates to airspace users 

for filed/active flight plans, and adapted arrival 

and departure route status. 

Terminal Data Distribution 

System (TDDS)

Terminal Data 

Distribution

Consolidate data feeds from four terminal systems 

that provide information such as pre-departure 

clearance data to controllers and greater visibility 

of runway conditions to pilots. 

Aeronautical Information 

Management/Special Use 

Airspace (SUA)

SUA Automated Data 

Exchange

Improve the current Special Use Airspace (SUA) 

process by providing better knowledge of when a 

SUA is active or inactive, i.e., unsafe or safe for 

civilian aircraft to enter. 

Weather Message Switching 

Center Replacement System 

(WMSCR)

Pilot Reports (PIREP) 

Data Publication

Provide a new capability to automatically 

distribute weather-related pilot observations to

controllers to enhance safety and capacity.

Integrated Terminal Weather 

System (ITWS)

ITWS Publication Provide real-time picture of weather near airports 

(wind shear, lightning, storm cells) with a 1-hour 

weather forecast.

Corridor Integrated Weather 

System (CIWS)

CIWS Publication Provide weather avoidance routing/re-routing and 

an automated 2-hour weather forecast.

Source: SWIM Final Program Requirements Segment 1 (May 23, 2007), and other FAA sources.
16

Exhibit C. Cost and Schedule Status of Seven NAS Programs Implementing 

SWIM Capabilities

EXHIBIT C. COST AND SCHEDULE STATUS OF SEVEN NAS 

PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTING SWIM CAPABILITIES 

NAS Programs

No. of 

Systems

Upgraded with 

SWIM 

Capabilities

SWIM Services SWIM Funded

Initially 

Operational

Fully 

Operational

Cost Estimate

(in millions)

Air Traffic Management

En Route 

Automation

Modernization 

(ERAM)

22 FY 2012 FY 2015 $ 117.7

Traffic Flow 

Management 

System (TFMS)

2 FY 2011 FY 2014 $ 29.2

Terminal Data 

Distribution 

System (TDDS) 

38 FY 2012 FY 2015 $ 33.9

Special Use 

Airspace (SUA)

2 FY 2010 FY 2014 $ 7.1

Weather

Weather 

Message 

Switching 

Center 

Replacement 

(WMSCR)

3 FY 2012 FY 2015 $ 12.8

Integrated 

Terminal 

Weather 

System (ITWS)

1 FY 2011 FY 2011 $ 3.2

Corridor 

Integrated 

Weather 

System (CIWS)

1 FY 2011 FY 2011 $ 0.9

 Source: OIG analysis of SWIM planning and funding documents.
17

Exhibit D. NAS Programs Challenges Implementing SWIM Capabilities

EXHIBIT D. NAS PROGRAMS CHALLENGES IMPLEMENTING SWIM 

CAPABILITIES 

NAS PROGRAMS CHALLENGES IMPLEMENTING SWIM SERVICES

En Route Automated 

Modernization (ERAM)

Major modernization efforts required to successfully implement SWIM/ERAM 

capabilities: We found FAA has considerable development work that will be 

required over the next 4 years before all of the SWIM/ERAM capabilities are 

implemented. For example, ERAM program officials have only completed 

requirements to develop an interface with TFM. This will establish a standard 

SWIM interface to implement the capability to exchange pre-departure and 

rerouting information between the TFM and En Route domains once a flight plan 

has been filed. The SWIM reroute interface will automate what is currently a 

manual process. However, the FAA is not planning to start operating this capability 

until FY 2012. 

Moreover, in the FAA En Route environment there are two key interfaces that share 

flight data (e.g., the filed flight plan and the current state of the flight) today that 

will be replaced in SWIM Segment 1. The Host Air Traffic Management Data 

Distribution System (HADDS) provides a general purpose message-based interface 

for sharing flight data with airspace users, and Flight Data Input/Output (FDIO) 

which provides a point-to-point data interface with terminal and tower facilities. 

FAA is currently planning to complete the HADDS and FDIO replacement by FY 

2014, however, the agency has yet to finalize requirements for this key activity. 

Finally, FAA is not planning to complete SWIM/ERAM upgrades for the 22 En 

Route facilities and start the final phase of exchanging SWIM compliant 

information with the TFM and terminal facilities until FY 2015. However, until 

requirements are finalized considerable uncertainty exists with respect to when 

these capabilities will be implemented. 
18

Exhibit D. NAS Programs Challenges Implementing SWIM Capabilities

NAS PROGRAMS CHALLENGES IMPLEMENTING SWIM SERVICES

Terminal Data Distribution 

System (TDDS)

Major development effort required to achieve SWIM terminal capabilities: FAA is 

currently undertaking a major development effort to implement SWIM terminal 

capabilities. FAA needed to develop a new system known as the Terminal Data 

Distribution System (TDDS) to more effectively exchange terminal data with the 

En Route and TFM facilities which is currently exclusive to the terminal facilities. 

FAA has a contract with Raytheon to develop the TDDS system, and current plans 

are to complete development in FY 2012. The TDDS is currently planned to be 

deployed at large Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACONs) and major air 

traffic control tower facilities. The TDDS will consolidate data feeds from four

terminal systems that provide information such as pre-departure clearance data to 

controllers and greater visibility of runway conditions data to pilots. However, 

uncertainty exists regarding when FAA will deploy TDDS to the 38 planned sites 

for Segment 1, because the Agency has yet to establish a contract agreement and

fully define all requirements. Consequently, until TDDS is developed and 

deployed, considerable uncertainty exists regarding when SWIM terminal 

capabilities will be implemented. 

Traffic Flow Management 

(TFM)

Modernization work required to achieve SWIM TFM capabilities: The initial

capability that SWIM/TFM will provide is aircraft reroute information formatted in 

accordance with SWIM standards. This information will be sent to ERAM from 

TFM and is planned for completion by FY 2011. The TFM program will also 

develop new standards to support a service which describes current and planned 

traffic flow constraints in the NAS, but is not planned for completion until FY 

2013. The TFM system will also provide a new service to airspace users through 

the distribution of data collected from terminal facilities. However, requirements 

for this capability have yet to be defined because of its dependence on a new 

terminal program to modernize equipment controllers rely on to manage traffic in 

the vicinity of airports, which has yet to be developed. Moreover, this service is not 

expected to be implemented until FY 2014.

Aeronautical Information 

Management/Special Use 

Airspace (SUA)

Requirements to complete SWIM SUA capabilities: The SWIM SUA capability 

will provide a standard data entry user interface to accommodate the creation of 

digital designs of SUA assigned areas. The SWIM SUA capability will also ensure 

schedules and status are digitally managed in the NAS, and changes in SUA status 

are captured and distributed as they are made. While FAA is planning to initially 

start operating the SWIM SUA capability in Fiscal Year 2010, another 3 years will 

pass before this key flight data is accessible by other users in the NAS. We found 

that FAA is not planning to upgrade ERAM with SWIM capability to exchange 

SUA data with other air traffic management systems until FY 2014. We also note 

that ERAM and SWIM program officials have yet to establish PLAs or any firm 

requirements to meet this planned milestone date. 
19

Exhibit D. NAS Programs Challenges Implementing SWIM Capabilities

Weather Message 

Switching Center 

Replacement System 

(WMSCR)

Requirements to complete SWIM WMSCR capabilities: The SWIM WMSCR 

portion adds a new capability to automatically distribute pilot reports (PIREPs) of 

crucial weather observations by pilots to En Route controllers. Although WMSCR 

program officials reported that 3 WMSCR facilities will be upgraded with SWIM 

by FY2012, another 3 years will pass before this crucial weather data will be 

distributed to the wider NAS community. WMSCR can only redistribute the data 

after it receives the information from ERAM. However, FAA is not planning to 

upgrade ERAM with the interface to record PIREPs and send the automatic PIREPs 

to the WMSCR system until 2015. Moreover, ERAM and SWIM program officials 

have yet to establish PLAs or any firm requirements to meet this planned milestone 

date. 

Integrated Terminal 

Weather System (ITWS) Funding concerns to implement SWIM ITWS capabilities: ITWS promotes 

common situational awareness among all users, which is crucial to the collaborative 

decision making process necessary to reduce weather-related delays. FAA 

performed demonstrations with SWIM/ITWS capabilities in October 2008 and 

plans to publish 31 products by FY 2011. ITWS program officials are concerned 

because they will have to fund and support both SWIM/ITWS and the existing 

ITWS services until all users upgrade with SWIM.

Corridor Integrated Weather 

System (CIWS)

Users upgrading to implement SWIM CIWS capabilities: CIWS will work with 

SWIM to allow traffic managers to collaborate with dispatchers on routes to avoid 

during severe weather conditions; it will also help to avoid en route delays, which 

saves airline fuel costs. While the CIWS prototype was deployed in 2010, FAA 

officials could not tell us when or if Airline Operating Centers, the primary users of 

CIWS weather data, would upgrade their systems to utilize the SWIM data. 

Source: OIG analysis of SWIM Implementing Program documentation.
20

Exhibit E. Activities Visited or Contacted

EXHIBIT E. ACTIVITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA):

Headquarters

• System Wide Information Management Program Office Washington, DC

• Evolution and Coordination Washington, DC

• Requirements and Governance Washington, DC

System Wide Information Management Implementing Programs

• Aeronautical Information Management Washington, DC

• Corridor Integrated Weather System Washington, DC

• En Route Automation Modernization Washington, DC

• Integrated Terminal Weather System Washington, DC

• Terminal Data Distribution System Washington, DC

• Traffic Flow Management System Washington, DC

• Weather Message Switching Center Replacement Washington, DC

William J. Hughes Technical Center Atlantic City, NJ

Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center Cambridge, MA
21

Exhibit F. Major Contributors to This Report

EXHIBIT F. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

Kevin Dorsey Program Director

Name Title

Arnett Sanders Project Manager

Sean Woods Senior Auditor

Constance Hardy Senior Analyst

Katrina Knight Senior Auditor

Kiesha Henson Auditor

Arthur Shantz Technical Advisor 

Andrea Nossaman Writer/Editor
22

Appendix. Agency Comments

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS 

Federal Aviation

Administration

Memorandum

Date: 

To: Jeffery B. Guzzetti, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special 

Program Audits 

From: Clay Foushee, Director, Audit and Evaluations, AAE-1 

Subject: OIG Draft Report: FAA’s Approach to SWIM Has Led to Cost and 

Schedule Uncertainty and No Clear Path for Achieving NextGen Goals 

Federal Aviation Administration

The System Wide Information Management (SWIM) program is an advanced technology 

program designed to facilitate greater sharing of Air Traffic Management (ATM) system 

information such as airport operational status, flight data, weather information, status of 

special use airspace, and National Air Space (NAS) restrictions. SWIM supports current 

and future NAS programs by providing a flexible and secure information management 

architecture for sharing NAS information. The primary objective of SWIM is to improve 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) ability to manage the efficient flow of 

information. The SWIM program is an integral part of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) that requires FAA programs to provide more 

streamlined communications and efficient operations. 

Some of SWIM’s accomplishments over the past two years include: 

• Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS) capability operational September 27, 

2010; 15 CIWS products available. 

• Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) capability operational January 25; 

30 ITWS products available. 

• Aeronautical Information Management/Special Use Airspace capability: 

completed initial operating capability (IOC) December 16, 2010. 

• Joint Resource Council (JRC) Segment 2 Authorization to Proceed (ATP) 

November 17, 2010. 

• SWIMposiums held Sept 2009, September 2010. 

• NAS Service Registry/Repository (NSRR) operational July 2010. 
23

Appendix. Agency Comments

The following is provided in response to the OIG’s recommendation:

Recommendation 1: Finalize SWIM requirements for Segment 1 and establish firm cost 

and schedule commitments.

FAA Response: Concur. FAA agrees that finalized requirements are necessary for firm 

cost and schedule commitments by SWIM implementing programs (SIPs). Program 

Level Agreements (PLAs) between SWIM and SIPs are updated annually. Each year, 

PLAs are modified to include milestones that must be achieved by the SIP in order to 

meet SWIM cost and schedule commitments.

Recommendation 2: Provide the SWIM Program Office with the proper authority to 

ensure SWIM capabilities will be implemented within the established schedule.

FAA Response: Concur. With the SWIM Segment 2 JRC decision on November 17, 

2010, SWIM was given more authority. SWIM is now part of the JRC process and 

without approval from the SWIM program office, a program can be stopped from 

proceeding to its next JRC milestone. SWIM also has been integrated into the Enterprise 

Architecture Board and Technical Review Board.

As of April 14, 2011, the Deputy Administrator will assume direct oversight 

responsibility for the NextGen activities. Differences between SWIM and the SIPs 

regarding SWIM implementation will be adjudicated at this level.

Recommendation 3: Strengthen the PLA process so the SWIM Program Office can 

have sufficient authority to enforce SWIM’s Segment 1 implementation.

FAA Response: Concur. FAA agrees that the Program Level Agreement (PLA) process 

needs to embody sufficient authority to enforce Segment 1 implementation. Since the 

initial versions were written in 2008, PLAs have continued to evolve in order to 

strengthen SIP accountability for Segment 1 implementation. Differences between SWIM 

and the SIPs regarding SWIM implementation will be adjudicated as described in the 

response to Recommendation 2.

Recommendation 4: Define Requirements through SWIM’s end state by:

a. developing an overall architectural design for the SWIM program identifying all the 

NAS systems that will be required to implement SWIM technology

FAA Response: Concur. The SWIM Program Office works closely with NextGen and 

Operations Planning (AJP) to ensure that the evolution of SWIM, represented by three 

Segment Implementations in the NAS Enterprise Architecture roadmaps and System 

Views, is consistent with achievable SWIM program capabilities. Since January 13, 

2009, SWIM has been conducting service-oriented architecture (SOA) suitability 

assessments of programs before their JRC investment decisions. This process identifies 

NAS systems that need to include SWIM technology.
24

Appendix. Agency Comments

Requirements and architecture for SWIM Segment 2 will be finalized in preparation for a 

Final Investment Decision (FID) on September 30, 2012. Requirements and architecture 

for SWIM Segment 3 will be finalized in preparation for a Final Investment Decision 

(FID) on September 30, 2014.

b. defining their respective costs and schedules for implementing planned capabilities.

FAA Response: Concur. Costs and schedules for SWIM Segment 2 will be finalized in 

preparation for a Final Investment Decision (FID) on September 30, 2012. Costs and 

schedules for SWIM Segment 3 will be finalized in preparation for a Final Investment 

Decision (FID) on September 30, 2014.

Recommendation 5: Align SWIM implementation strategy with the Agency’s NextGen 

goals, develop a realistic plan that coordinates the two, and define when planned 

NextGen benefits will be realized.

FAA Response: Concur. SWIM implementation strategy will be aligned with NextGen 

goals and defined in more detail in preparation for a Final Investment Decision (FID) on 

September 30, 2012.

Recommendation 6: Follow up with NAS program offices and users implementing 

SWIM technology to determine whether they are meeting all the requirements necessary 

to protect NAS systems from exposure to security risks.

FAA Response: Concur. SWIM is prototyping an identity and key management (IKM) 

capability using VeriSign-provided security certificates to ensure that only authorized 

users have access to NAS systems. These security requirements will be finalized in 

preparation for a Segment 2 Final Investment Decision (FID) on September 30, 2012.