NEXT GENERATION 

AIR 

TRANSPORTATION 

Collaborative Efforts 

with European Union 

Generally Mirror 

Effective Practices, 

but Near-Term 

Challenges Could 

Delay Implementation

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2011 

GAO-12-48 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-48, a report to 

congressional requesters 

November 2011 

NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION 

Collaborative Efforts with European Union 

Generally Mirror Effective Practices, but Near-Term 

Challenges Could Delay Implementation 

Why GAO Did This Study 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) is leading development of the 

Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen), which will 

transform the current radar-based air 

traffic control system into a satellitebased system. At the same time, the 

European Union (EU) is developing a 

similar transformation effort, known as 

the Single European Sky Air Traffic 

Management Research (SESAR) 

programme. Interoperable NextGen 

and SESAR systems and procedures 

will be important for aircraft to 

seamlessly transition from one system 

to the other. 

As requested, this report discusses 

(1) the efforts that FAA has taken to 

ensure the interoperability of NextGen 

with SESAR and (2) how those efforts 

compare with effective interagency 

collaboration practices. To address 

these issues, GAO reviewed 

agreements between the U.S. and the 

EU concerning collaborative research 

on air traffic management and 

documents related to NextGen and 

SESAR; reviewed the literature on 

effective collaboration; and interviewed 

FAA and EU officials. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO recommends that FAA improve 

its dissemination of information to key 

stakeholders on the efforts taken and 

planned toward NextGen/SESAR 

interoperability. After reviewing a draft 

of this report, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) agreed to 

consider our recommendation. DOT 

and the European Commission 

provided technical comments, which 

we incorporated as appropriate. 

What GAO Found 

FAA and the EU are working collaboratively toward NextGen/SESAR 

interoperability. In 2006, FAA and the European Commission established a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that allowed reciprocal participation in 

meetings, which provided each with an awareness of the other’s plans. The 

MOU also continued a long-standing agreement that fostered collaborative 

research and helped develop some of the central concepts of NextGen and 

SESAR, such as data communications and satellite-based surveillance. 

Additionally, FAA and the EU conducted demonstrations of NextGen/SESAR 

procedures and technologies that produced useful results at the airports involved 

in the demonstrations. In March 2011, FAA and the EU signed a separate 

Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) that established a formal collaborative 

structure for NextGen and SESAR. Outside of formal agreements, U.S. and EU 

standards bodies have formed joint committees to develop common standards 

for NextGen and SESAR systems. Additionally, FAA and the EU are working 

with an international standards organization to facilitate global interoperability. 

FAA’s efforts toward interoperability generally mirror effective collaborative 

practices, but mitigating stakeholder skepticism about NextGen/SESAR benefits 

will nevertheless be a challenge. FAA and EU officials share a common goal—

interoperability. Having a common goal is a characteristic of effective 

collaborative efforts. Also consistent with effective practices, the 2011 MOC 

provides a strategy for working together and provides the means to operate 

across U.S.-EU boundaries. The MOC also defines roles and responsibilities, 

leverages resources, and provides for monitoring and evaluating results. Some 

U.S. and European stakeholders expressed skepticism about whether those 

benefits will ever be realized, while others were unaware of the MOC’s details, 

such as its structure and governance for achieving interoperability. Although FAA 

has long collaborated with Europe, it has not disseminated information about 

these efforts in public documents, such as its strategic plans and performance 

reports. With the 2011 MOC’s signing, FAA has an opportunity to include in its 

public documents the details of the MOC’s structure for collaboration and 

governance. Such information could reduce skepticism on both sides of the 

Atlantic about realizing the future benefits of NextGen and SESAR and, in turn, 

reduce airlines’ hesitancy to equip with NextGen’s advanced technologies. 

Collaborative Efforts Under Way to Achieve Interoperability 

•Shared goal of interoperability

•Defined roles

•Joint working groups

•Decision-making structure

•Leverage resources

Sources: GAO and Map Resources (maps).

United

States

NextGen

European

Union

SESAR

View GAO-12-48. For more information, 

contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-

2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Letter 1 

Background 2

FAA and the European Commission Are Working Collaboratively 

on Components Common to NextGen and SESAR 8

FAA’s Efforts Generally Mirror Several Effective Collaborative 

Practices, but Mitigating Stakeholder Skepticism Is a Challenge 16

Conclusions 26

Recommendation for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments 27

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 32

Tables 

Table 1: Key Organizations and Their Roles Supporting NextGen 

and SESAR 5

Table 2: U.S. and EU Characteristics 7

Table 3: Annex I Appendixes and Coordination Plans 13

Figures 

Figure 1: Flight Profile in NextGen Environment 3

Figure 2: Collaborative Structure and Governance under 2011 MOC 

Annex I 12

Contents 
Page ii GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Abbreviations 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast 

AIA Aerospace Industries Association 

ATO Air Traffic Organization 

CARATS Collaborative Actions for Renovation of Air Traffic 

Systems 

CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services Organization 

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency 

EU European Union 

EUROCAE European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment 

EUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air 

 Navigation 

Data Comm Data Communications 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

GBAS Ground Based Augmentation System 

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICB Industry Consultation Body 

IFATCA International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers’ 

 Associations 

MOC Memorandum of Cooperation 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

SESAR Single European Sky Air Traffic Management 

 Research 

SJU SESAR Joint Undertaking 

SWIM System Wide Information Management 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 3, 2011 

Congressional Requesters 

Every day, hundreds of flights either leave the United States bound for 

destinations in the European Union (EU) or arrive at U.S. airports from 

Europe. Current air traffic management procedures have changed little in 

the last 50 years but have enabled airlines to seamlessly transition 

between different airspaces using the same avionics equipment. 

Recognizing that that these procedures cannot accommodate anticipated 

increases in air traffic, aviation experts on both sides of the Atlantic are 

developing new paradigms for managing that growth. In the United 

States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) leads the development 

of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to transform 

the current radar-based air traffic control system into a satellite-based 

system. At the same time, the EU is developing a similar transformation 

effort, known as the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management 

Research (SESAR) programme.1

 As these modernization efforts proceed, 

international collaboration will be critical to developing interoperable air 

traffic management systems and procedures that allow aircraft to 

continue to seamlessly transition between U.S. and European airspace. 

As requested, this report discusses FAA and EU efforts to ensure that 

NextGen’s systems and procedures interoperate with those of SESAR. 

We address the following questions: (1) What efforts has FAA taken to 

ensure the interoperability of NextGen with SESAR? and (2) How do 

those efforts compare with effective interagency collaboration practices? 

To obtain an understanding of the collaborative efforts taken toward 

interoperability, we reviewed agreements between the United States and 

the EU concerning collaborative research on air traffic management and 

documents related to NextGen and SESAR, including key planning 

documents, research action plans, and status reports. We also 

interviewed FAA and EU officials, as well as stakeholder associations 

representing airlines, airports, and airframe and equipment manufacturers 

in the United States and Europe to obtain their perspectives on the 

 

1

Other countries, such as Japan and China, are also modernizing their air traffic 

management systems. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

collaborative effort. We surveyed the literature on effective collaborative 

practices and compared FAA’s efforts with practices that our past work 

has shown can lead to effective collaboration.2

 (See app. I for additional 

information on our scope and methodology.) 

We conducted this performance audit from January to November 2011 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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. 

NextGen and SESAR, when fully implemented, will represent a significant 

departure from current air traffic control procedures, in which aircraft fly 

over fixed, ground-based navigational aids, and pilots respond to voice 

commands from air traffic controllers. NextGen and SESAR envision an 

airspace system in which network-based information and automation 

optimize an aircraft’s operation in all phases of flight—-from flight 

planning at the start to landing and taxiing to the gate at the end—to 

reduce delays and maximize airspace capacity, while reducing 

environmental impact and fuel consumption.3

 See figure 1 for an 

illustration of how NextGen is envisioned to work. 

 

2

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

3

Aircraft will fly more direct flight paths and smoother, more rapid descents, reducing 

noise and other environmental impacts. 

Background 

NextGen and SESAR 

Procedures Will Differ 

Significantly from Current 

Air Traffic Control 

Procedures 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Figure 1: Flight Profile in NextGen Environment 

NextGen and SESAR envision trajectory-based operations, which would 

use technological advances in communications, navigation, and 

surveillance, some of which are still under development. 

 Communications between aircraft and air traffic control would change 

from primarily voice mode between pilots and air traffic controllers to 

data communications, known as Data Comm. Prescripted e-mail-like 

messages would replace routine voice communications between air 

traffic controllers and pilots. Data communications would also enable 

ground systems to communicate directly with the aircraft’s flight 

management system. 

 Navigation procedures used will be based on the performance 

capabilities of the aircraft, meaning that appropriately equipped 

aircraft and flight crews will be able to select their own flight paths, 

within limits, and use satellites rather than existing ground-based aids 

for navigation. The aircraft’s navigation system would alert the crew to 

deviations from the planned route. Each airplane will transmit and 

Integrated

flight planning

Allows immediate

access to

identical weather

information

through one data

source.

Enhanced

surface traffic

operations

Data

communications

expedite clearances

and reduce

communication

errors.

Surface traffic

management

Automation

optimizes taxi

routing by

reducing taxi

times and

enhancing safety.

Efficient

cruise

Reduced

separation

standards and

consideration of

weather conditions

allow aircraft to fly

most optimal path.

Streamlined

arrival

management

Equipped aircraft fly

precise paths at

reduced power from

descent point to final

approach. Time, fuel,

emissions and

holding are reduced.

Enhanced

surface traffic

management

Detailed taxi route

information sent via

data communications

to pilots prior to

approach. Pilot and

controller workload

reduced and safety

improved.

Streamlined

departure

management

Allows multiple

departure paths

from each runway,

thereby increasing

departure

capacity.

Source: GAO analysis of FAA information.

Flight planning Domestic / Oceanic cruise Push back / Taxi / Takeoff Descent / Final approach / Landing
 

Page 4 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

receive precise information about its position and the position of other 

nearby aircraft, as well as the time at which it and others will cross key 

points along their paths. 

 Surveillance would change with ground-based radars augmented, and 

gradually replaced, by a satellite-based system known as Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). According to FAA, this 

will allow the agency to retire, over time, up to 50 percent of 

secondary radar4

 and reduce associated maintenance costs. ADS-B 

provides more accurate information than radar. It reports data about 

the location of aircraft every second, compared with up to every 12 

seconds for radar, and FAA anticipates that ADS-B’s more frequent 

reporting, as well as the improved accuracy, integrity, and reliability of 

satellite signals, compared with radar, would enable controllers to 

safely reduce the mandatory separation between aircraft. This will 

increase capacity in the nation’s skies. ADS-B incorporates an 

aircraft-mounted transmitter and receiving units on the ground, about 

the size of a minirefrigerator, which can be placed nearly anywhere, 

such as on cell phone towers or on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, 

where radar coverage does not reach. ADS-B uses satellite signals 

along with aircraft avionics to transmit the aircraft’s location to ground 

receivers. The ground receivers then transmit that information to 

controller screens and aircraft cockpit displays on aircraft equipped 

with ADS-B avionics. 

The System Wide Information Management (SWIM) infrastructure would 

connect various networks and manage aviation-related information so 

that all aviation users—pilots, air traffic controllers, and aircraft 

dispatchers—have the same information.5

 Collectively, these systems, in 

 

4

Secondary radar transmits and receives area aircraft data for barometric altitude, 

identification code, and emergency conditions, which air traffic controllers use to verify the 

location of aircraft. 

5

Aircraft dispatchers are licensed airmen, certificated by FAA, who, among other things, 

analyze weather reports to determine the best routing for a flight; compute the amount of 

fuel required and the maximum allowable weight for takeoff and landing; prepare flight 

plans; and approve the dispatch release for a flight. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

combination with others, will transform air traffic control to air traffic 

management.6

FAA has the primary responsibility for developing, and managing the 

transition to, and implementing NextGen, while the SESAR Joint 

Undertaking (SJU) currently manages SESAR. However, several 

organizations support NextGen and SESAR. See table 1. 

Table 1: Key Organizations and Their Roles Supporting NextGen and SESAR 

Key player Role 

FAA The federal agency that implements NextGen systems and procedures and serves as 

the U.S. air navigation service provider, as well as the aviation safety regulatory 

authority. 

European Commission The body that represents the common European interest to EU countries. It proposes 

legislation for the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to adopt, 

implements common policies, and manages the EU’s budget and programs. It is the 

signatory authority on collaborative agreements with FAA and oversees SESAR’s 

management. 

European Organisation for the Safety of Air 

Navigation (EUROCONTROL) 

An intergovernmental organization, made up of 39 member states and the European 

community. It supports its member states to achieve safe, efficient and 

environmentally friendly air traffic operations across the European region and 

provides technical expertise for building the Single European Sky.a

SJU A body created by the Council of the European Union to manage implementation of 

the European Air Traffic Management Master Plan and for carrying out specific 

activities aimed at developing the new generation of air traffic management systems. 

SJU is composed of EUROCONTROL, the European Commission, and 15 member 

organizations from the public and private sectors. 

RTCA A private, not-for-profit, U.S.-based corporation that develops consensus-based 

performance standards for air traffic control systems. It serves as a federal advisory 

committee whose recommendations are the basis for a number of FAA’s policy, 

program, and regulatory decisions. RTCA and the European Organisation for Civil 

Aviation Equipment (see below) are working together to develop joint standards for 

NextGen and SESAR. 

European Organisation for Civil Aviation 

Equipment (EUROCAE) 

The body that develops technical standards for European aviation systems in 

collaboration with international organizations and U.S. counterparts, when 

appropriate. 

 

6

With current air traffic control, controllers handle individual planes through various 

phases of flight. Under air traffic management, controllers would likely oversee a greater 

number of planes but with less direct communication with each pilot. Controllers would 

monitor air traffic as a whole and intervene when necessary to avoid problems. 

A Variety of Organizations 

Have Roles Supporting 

NextGen and SESAR 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Key player Role 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) A pan-European body that certifies aircraft and components; implements and 

monitors safety rules; performs inspections; and advises EU in drafting new 

legislation, among other things. 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) 

A specialized agency of the United Nations created to promote the safe and orderly 

development of international civil aviation throughout the world. It sets standards and 

regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency, and regularity, as well 

as for aviation environmental protection. ICAO serves as the forum for cooperation in 

all fields of civil aviation among its 190 member states. In this capacity, it is leading a 

series of meetings focused on coordinating NextGen/SESAR collaboration with other 

countries’ modernization programs. 

Sources: GAO analysis of FAA and EU documents. 

a

The Single European Sky is an initiative of the European Commission that provides a legislative 

framework to meet future safety, capacity, and efficiency needs at a European rather than at a 

national level. 

Within FAA, various departments share responsibility for international 

collaboration. FAA’s International Office conducts government-togovernment interface with the EU and signs formal collaboration 

agreements. FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) International Office 

collaborates with SJU on technical issues. FAA’s Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO) performs the long-term planning for NextGen 

and partners with other federal agencies. JPDO’s Global Harmonization 

Work Group focuses on ensuring the global interoperability of NextGen. 

FAA officials in the ATO International Office told us that although all three 

offices have different roles, relevant information is distributed among the 

offices. For example, the results of JPDO’s Global Harmonization Work 

Group are shared with ATO. Likewise, ATO has provided JPDO with 

information such as SESAR developments, including SESAR’s work 

structure and progress. 

The United States and EU differ in aviation governance and 

NextGen/SESAR management and organization. See table 2. 

United States and the EU 

Differ in Aviation 

Governance and 

NextGen/SESAR 

Management Structure 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Table 2: U.S. and EU Characteristics 

Characteristic United States EU 

Aviation governance Single agency governs aviation nationwide 27 sovereign states, each with its own 

regulator and air navigation service providers

NextGen/SESAR management structure Government centric, input solicited from 

industry 

A public/private partnership where EU 

government agencies and private sector 

entities have management roles 

NextGen/SESAR phases Near term: 2007 to 2015 

Midterm: 2015 to 2018 

Long-term: beyond 2018 

Definition: 2006 to 2008 

Development: 2008 to 2016 

Deployment: ongoing to 2025 

NextGen/SESAR management FAA Varies by phase (see text below) 

Sources: GAO analysis of NextGen and SESAR documents. 

The differences in characteristics between the United States and the EU 

contribute to differences in how they manage their respective 

modernization programs. Whereas the United States manages aviation at 

the federal level, the EU, with its 27 sovereign member states, and their 

individual regulators and service providers, must consider interoperability 

among its member states, as well as with NextGen. These different 

governing structures contribute to differing management structures for 

NextGen and SESAR. NextGen’s management is government-centric, 

meaning that FAA has the lead responsibility for NextGen development 

and implementation but collaborates with industry on demonstrations and 

garners expert advice through industry participation on advisory 

committees. FAA has divided NextGen into three time frames. (See table 

2.) In the near and midterm, FAA is focusing on making the most of 

technologies and procedures that are already available and introducing 

innovations such as ADS-B. NextGen’s far-term objective is to fulfill the 

NextGen vision, including gate-to-gate trajectory based management. 

The EU has divided SESAR into three phases, but in contrast to FAA’s 

government-centric approach to NextGen, it has provided a participatory 

role for the private sector. EUROCONTROL managed the definition 

phase through a contract with a 30-member consortium of airlines, air 

navigation service providers, airports, manufacturers, and others. The 

definition phase ran from 2006 through 2008 and produced the European 

Air Traffic Management Master Plan. SJU, made up of EUROCONTROL, 

the European Commission, and 15 member organizations—including 

airport operators, air navigation service providers, manufacturers of 

ground and aerospace equipment, and aircraft manufacturers—is 

managing the development phase and following the master plan. SJU has 

contracts with its member organizations and issues task statements for 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

the work to be done. U.S. companies are participating in SESAR’s 

development phase, either as a member organization or as an associate 

partner. During the development phase, scheduled to continue through 

2016, new technologies and operational procedures will be developed 

and validated. During the deployment phase, the results of the 

development phase will be implemented. How the deployment phase will 

be managed has not been determined, according to SJU officials. 

In 2006, FAA and the European Commission signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to ensure coordination between the aviation 

modernization programs in the United States and the EU. According to 

FAA officials in ATO’s International Office,7

 the primary purpose of the 

MOU was to allow joint participation on committees. FAA was allowed to 

participate as an observer at bimonthly meetings of the EU’s Industry 

Consultation Body.8

 FAA attends these meetings to hear the discussion 

taking place with industry regarding the Single European Sky and to 

remain up-to-date. The EU participated as an observer in RTCA’s Air 

Traffic Management Advisory Committee and now participates on the 

 

7

Hereafter, we use FAA officials to mean FAA officials in the ATO’s International Office, 

unless otherwise specified. 

8

The Industry Consultation Body provides advice to the European Commission on the 

technical aspects of the Single European Sky. 

FAA and the 

European 

Commission Are 

Working 

Collaboratively on 

Components Common 

to NextGen and 

SESAR 

FAA and the European 

Commission Agreed to 

Collaborate on NextGen 

and SESAR and to 

Continue Existing 

Collaborative Research 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

NextGen Advisory Committee.9 Cross-participation in these meetings 

makes both parties aware of each other’s direction, operational plans, 

and solutions. Such awareness is one of the most significant enablers to 

developing interoperable systems, according to FAA officials. The MOU 

was updated in 2009 to take into account SJU’s role in the technical 

cooperation with FAA under the authority of the European Commission 

and to identify specific subjects of common interest to SESAR and 

NextGen. 

FAA and SJU officials also highlighted the Atlantic Interoperability 

Initiative to Reduce Emissions as an example of international 

collaboration. In 2007, the European Commission and FAA began 

collaborating to demonstrate how using NextGen/SESAR air traffic 

management techniques can lead to emissions and fuel savings. For 

example, demonstrations of the Optimized Profile Descent—a procedure 

whereby an aircraft descends as smoothly as possible, considering local 

limitations, rather than descending and leveling off in steps as is 

commonly done today—at Miami and Atlanta International airports saved 

between 40 and 60 gallons of fuel per flight and between 800 and 1,090 

pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per flight. Tests at Honolulu and 

Anchorage International Airports showed that use of Optimal Profile 

Descent could save a total exceeding 8 million gallons of fuel and 167 

million pounds of CO2 annually at those two airports. Having 

demonstrated the benefits in terminal procedures on transoceanic routes, 

NextGen and SESAR officials plan to eventually incorporate these 

procedures in their continental airspace. 

The 2006 MOU also encompassed and continued the ongoing 

collaborative efforts between FAA and EUROCONTROL that were 

established in a 1986 Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC). Under this 

MOC, FAA and EUROCONTROL collaborated on more than 20 action 

plans for research and development on topics of mutual interest. 

Collaborative work under the action plans formed a body of research that 

contributed to operational concepts that would become central to 

NextGen and SESAR, such as trajectory-based operations. In one action 

 

9

In 2010, the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee was replaced by the NextGen 

Advisory Committee. Focusing on NextGen’s priorities through 2018, the committee 

provides a venue for consensus-based recommendations on critical issues and a forum to 

obtain resource commitments and synchronized planning between government and 

industry. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

plan, FAA and EUROCONTROL focused on trajectory predictors—an 

automated decision-support tool that predicts the anticipated future path 

of an aircraft.10 According to FAA officials, trajectory prediction is a 

fundamental underpinning of how NextGen and SESAR plan to manage 

air traffic. They said that the concept and techniques for exchanging 

information were first diagrammed under this action plan. In 2003, the 

action plan team identified similarities among the many disparate 

trajectory predictors in use and developed a structure for a generic 

version. Other action plans focused on developing technologies such as 

data communications and ADS-B—also prerequisites for trajectory-based 

operations. These action plan teams typically developed annual work 

plans that described ongoing activities’ progress and status, as well as 

planned research activities for the coming year. According to progress 

reports, these action plan teams evaluated new technologies, proposed 

actions, compared strategies and plans, and commented on white 

papers. The teams also sought input from the air traffic management 

community, including airlines, aircraft and avionics manufacturers, and 

standards bodies and stakeholder organizations, and emphasized the 

need for collaboration with European research bodies. 

Many of the action plans continued beyond 2006, after the MOU was 

signed, and formed the core of the efforts to ensure interoperability of the 

systems and components that would make up NextGen and SESAR. For 

example, the action plan on ADS-B continued, with the result that ADS-B 

applications gained international recognition as a means to improve future 

air traffic management operations. Another action plan on safety 

research, started in 2003, continued with its objective to enhance safety 

assurance in air traffic management. According to the action plan’s 

documents, safety culture is one of the main threads of the action plan 

work program, and this focus facilitates alignment among 

EUROCONTROL, FAA, and the Civil Air Navigation Services 

Organization, which represents the interests of air navigation service 

providers worldwide. With the signing of a new MOC in 2011 (see 

following section), work under the action plans was redirected to nearterm, procedural issues, while work under the MOC will focus on longterm air traffic management development. 

 

10Decision-support tools provide support to flight data processing, metering, or conflict 

prediction functions. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

In March 2011, FAA and the European Commission signed a new MOC 

that replaced the 2006 MOU (updated in 2009) and provides more 

specific direction on collaboration and governance as NextGen and 

SESAR move forward. The 2011 MOC establishes the main principles of 

cooperation and governance for NextGen and SESAR that were not 

specifically identified in the 2006 MOU and establishes a Joint Committee 

that is responsible for the MOC’s effective functioning and for evaluating 

its implementation. Additionally, the 2011 MOC provides for participation 

by each party’s governmental and industrial entities—FAA’s NextGen 

Advisory Committee and the EU’s Industry Consultation Body. 

Annex I of the 2011 MOC, titled SESAR-NextGen Cooperation for Global 

Interoperability, lays out a structure and governance process for ensuring 

interoperability of NextGen and SESAR’s systems and procedures (see 

fig. 2).11 According to FAA officials and SESAR documents, this structure 

sets the framework to ensure collaboration and provides a process by 

which people with decision-making authority might resolve any questions 

or issues that arise. The annex provides for a High Level Committee, cochaired by the European Commission and FAA, which will meet at least 

once a year to oversee and assess the results of the work conducted 

under the appendixes of the annex, among other things. 

 

11Annexes that address other specific areas of collaboration may also be added to the 

MOC. 

FAA and the European 

Commission Have 

Established a Structure 

and Governance Process 

for Collaboration 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Figure 2: Collaborative Structure and Governance under 2011 MOC Annex I 

Notes: Transversal activities cut across all aspects of NextGen and SESAR. CNS stands for 

communications, navigation, and surveillance. 

Annex I also provides for a Coordination Committee that is co-chaired by 

SJU and FAA’s ATO. According to the annex, the Coordination 

Committee will meet at least twice a year to monitor the progress of 

ongoing joint projects and activities under Annex I’s five appendixes, and 

will prepare reports for, and consider proposals for new work to be 

provided to the High Level Committee, among other things. The 

Coordination Committee held its first formal meeting in May 2011, where 

it approved the FAA/SJU “Cooperation for Global Interoperability 

Management Document,” known informally as the “governance 

document,” which further defines roles and responsibilities under the 

2011 MOC. 

The five appendixes in Annex I are further subdivided into 27 specific 

research topics, each with its own working group and coordination plan 

prepared by the plan leaders (see table 3). The list of research topics was 

developed during 2 years of meetings among FAA, SJU, 

Annex I: High Level Committee

Annex I: Coordination Committee

Co-chaired by one representative each from

the European Commission and the FAA

Co-chaired by one representative each from

SJU and FAA’s ATO

Appendix 1:

Transversal

Activities

Appendix 2:

Information

Management

Appendix 3:

Trajectory

Management

Appendix 4:

CNS and Airborne

Interoperability

Appendix 5:

Collaboration

Projects

Each appendix has two working group leaders: one from FAA and one from SJU.

Coordination plans

The appendixes are subdivided into 27 specific research topics, each with its own coordination plan. Each coordination plan has two

coordination plan leaders: one from FAA and one from SJU.

Source: GAO presentation of FAA information.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

EUROCONTROL, and the European Commission. Work on some of the 

topics had begun under the 2006 MOU and is continuing under the new 

structure. According to FAA officials, many of the experts who have 

worked on these topics in past collaborative efforts will continue their 

work under the MOC. The topics vary in complexity and priority, and more 

topics may be added over time. The working groups meet as necessary, 

comply with instructions given by the Coordination Committee, and report 

regularly to the Coordination Committee. As of July 2011, FAA and SJU 

had approved and signed the five appendixes. FAA and SJU had also 

assigned priorities and drafted the scope of work for all of the 

coordination plans and were working together to develop the specific 

work tasks for each of the higher-priority coordination plans. 

Table 3: Annex I Appendixes and Coordination Plans 

Appendix Coordination plan 

Transversal activitiesa Operations Concept and Roadmap 

 Separation Provision 

Road-mapping, including Standardization and Regulation, 

with a view to facilitate implementation synchronization 

Business case, investment planning, and coordinated 

delivery of technical and operational changes to 

achieve/maintain seamless operations from an airspace 

user perspective 

 Environment 

Coordination of Technical Efforts in Support of Global and 

ICAO Standardization 

Information management SWIM interoperability 

Aeronautical Information Management Interoperability 

Meteorological Information Exchange 

Trajectory management Common Trajectory Definition & Exchange 

Flight Planning & Dynamic Flight Plan Updates 

Traffic Management (including trajectory integration and 

prediction) 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration into Air Traffic 

Management 

Communications, Airborne Collision Avoidance Systems 

navigation, surveillance, and 

airborne interoperability Avionics Roadmap Synchronization 

Airborne Separation Assistance System for air/air and 

air/ground separation assistance 

Data Comm Technology 

Data Comm Services 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Appendix Coordination plan 

Flexible Communications Architecture 

 Performance-Based Navigation 

Navigation: Global Navigation Satellite System 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance Services and 

Technology 

 Ground Surveillance 

Collaboration projects Atlantic Interoperability Trials to Reduce Emissions 

Improvements in monitoring and tracking the position of 

aircraft over oceanic and remote regions 

Source: GAO presentation of FAA information. 

a

Transversal activities cut across one or more appendixes. 

RTCA and EUROCAE have formed jointly led and staffed special 

committees to develop standards for the new technology that NextGen 

and SESAR will employ and help ensure interoperability in technologies 

that may differ in some ways between the two systems. For example, 

Special Committee 214 was formed in March 2007 to develop guidance 

material to define the safety, performance, and interoperability 

requirements for air traffic services supported by data communications. 

Similar joint special committees are addressing topics such as terrain and 

airport databases and enhanced flight vision and synthetic vision 

systems. These standards will allow equipment manufacturers to offer 

solutions that meet both NextGen and SESAR requirements, increasing 

the size of their markets and driving down costs. According to FAA 

officials, the most significant work to help ensure interoperability occurs in 

these special committees. 

FAA and SJU are working with ICAO to facilitate interoperability with 

other countries beyond the United States and the EU. ICAO is developing 

a Global Aviation Block Upgrade initiative that would identify common 

capabilities and operational improvements in NextGen and SESAR, as 

well as in a similar program in Japan known as Collaborative Actions for 

Renovation of Air Traffic Systems (CARATS).12 ICAO has led a team, 

 

12CARATS is Japan's vision for its future air traffic system. It shares many of the same 

goals as NextGen and SESAR, such as responding to increased air traffic volume, 

increasing operational efficiency, and enhancing safety. It plans to achieve those goals 

through technologies and procedures similar to those planned for NextGen and SESAR, 

such as satellite-based navigation and trajectory-based operations. 

Additional Efforts to 

Ensure Interoperability 

Take Place Outside Formal 

Agreements 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

composed of FAA, SJU, Japanese, and industry stakeholders to group 

these improvements into a series of aviation system block upgrades to 

guide the international aviation community in modernizing their air traffic 

management systems in a coordinated manner and, in turn, facilitate 

global interoperability. In September 2011, ICAO unveiled a first draft of 

the block upgrade initiative and obtained feedback at its Global Air 

Navigation Industry Symposium. ICAO plans to make revisions based on 

the feedback and, at its 12th Air Navigation Conference in November 

2012, incorporate the block upgrades in the Global Air Navigation Plan, 

which all ICAO member countries use to develop their aviation systems. 

FAA officials in the ATO’s International Office, as well as those 

responsible for NextGen planning and integration and for Data Comm 

program management, told us that because many other countries do not 

have the resources to develop their own systems or procedures, they will 

readily adopt the operational improvements and procedures resulting 

from this effort. An SJU official told us that the ICAO Block Upgrade 

initiative has helped strengthen the linkage between NextGen and 

SESAR, as the United States and EU have worked together to feed the 

block upgrade process. Additionally, the tight deadlines imposed by this 

initiative provided the impetus for continued U.S.-EU interaction in the 

working groups, on an informal basis, before the formal collaborative 

procedures were established by the 2011 MOC. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Effective collaboration increases the likelihood that organizations can 

communicate substantive information, reach joint agreements, and 

implement those agreements. Organizations can use their strategic and 

annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration with other 

agencies and partners and establish complementary goals and strategies 

for achieving results. In our past work, we identified key practices that can 

help enhance and sustain collaborative efforts among U.S. agencies.13

Based on our review of the academic literature about effective 

collaborative practices, we have determined that the following practices 

also apply to international collaboration: 

 defining and articulating a common outcome; 

 establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the 

outcome and establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other 

means to operate across agency boundaries; 

 agreeing upon respective roles and responsibilities; 

 

13 GAO-06-15. 

FAA’s Efforts 

Generally Mirror 

Several Effective 

Collaborative 

Practices, but 

Mitigating 

Stakeholder 

Skepticism Is a 

Challenge 

FAA’s Efforts Generally 

Mirror Several Effective 

Collaborative Practices 

Several Key Practices Can Help 

Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

 identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; 

 developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of 

collaborative efforts; 

 reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts through 

agency performance management systems; and 

 reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through 

agency plans and reports. 

As noted previously, FAA and EUROCONTROL have collaborated many 

times in the past to achieve common outcomes under action plans. In 

2011, FAA and the EU reaffirmed their agreement that interoperability is 

essential by establishing the MOC. Both parties recognize that it is in their 

mutual interest that aircraft be able to operate seamlessly as they fly from 

one system to the other. Without interoperability, airlines might have to 

install a second suite of equipment on their aircraft to operate in NextGen 

and SESAR airspaces. Furthermore, having different procedures would 

require pilots to learn two different operating procedures, which could 

degrade safety. Additionally, if FAA or SJU did not implement certain 

aspects of NextGen or SESAR, they would not receive the associated 

benefits, such as fuel savings that could result from more efficient air 

traffic management procedures. As we have previously reported, having a 

clear and compelling rationale to work together—such as that described 

above—is a key factor in successful collaborations. Agencies can 

overcome significant differences when such a rationale and commitment 

exist. Our prior work also found that agencies that articulate their 

agreements in formal documents, such as memoranda of cooperation, 

can strengthen their commitment to working collaboratively. FAA and SJU 

officials we interviewed, as well as industry stakeholders representing 

organized labor, airlines, and airframe and aerospace equipment 

manufacturing companies, generally agreed that the 2011 MOC is a 

positive development toward ensuring the interoperability of NextGen and 

SESAR, and it shows how the two sides are going to work together to 

achieve that common outcome. 

Annex I to the 2011 MOC represents the overall joint strategy under 

which FAA and SJU will work together to ensure the interoperability of 

NextGen and SESAR and establishes a means for FAA and SJU to 

operate across agency boundaries. It builds off the cooperation 

framework established in earlier agreements and FAA’s long-standing 

cooperative relationship with EUROCONTROL. The 2011 MOC defines 

FAA and SJU Agree on a 

Common Outcome—

Interoperable Systems and 

Procedures 

The 2011 MOC’s Annex I 

Provides the Joint Strategy for 

Working Together and 

Establishes the Means to 

Operate across Agency 

Boundaries 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation and sets forth the 

procedures by which FAA and SJU can establish cooperative research 

and development activities in any civil aviation issue. It also contains a 

larger list of areas of cooperation between NextGen and SESAR than the 

MOU that it replaced. As mentioned previously, FAA and SJU have 

identified the specific areas for coordination and are in the process of 

developing the coordination plans that will serve as the joint strategies for 

how both sides will collaborate on research and development for those 

areas. FAA and SJU have assigned priorities such as “immediate” or “on 

hold,” to these coordination plans. Those areas that do not have an 

immediate need for harmonization are deferred in favor of those with a 

more urgent need, such as data communications. The annex also 

establishes other means for FAA officials to work with their European 

counterparts such as allowing each side to participate in the other’s 

consultative bodies and allowing industry stakeholders to contribute to 

each other’s work programs and access information on, and results of, 

equivalent research and development programs and projects. Joint 

strategies are also evident in the RTCA/EUROCAE special committees’ 

terms of reference, which govern how the two standards organizations 

will work together, and include the scope, deliverables and their 

envisioned use, and due dates. 

Joint strategies, such as those mentioned above, can help agencies align 

their activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish their 

common outcome. Work in the RTCA/EUROCAE special committees has 

already helped align FAA’s and SJU’s activities. For instance, the two 

sides have resolved a difference in midterm plans that could have 

jeopardized the interoperability of NextGen and SESAR’s Data Comm 

systems. FAA’s plans called for implementing an interim communications 

system as a step toward this future system. EUROCAE working group 

members, airframe manufacturers, and SJU did not support this interim 

step for several reasons. For instance, Boeing stated that such a step 

was not promoting harmonization because requiring multiple steps would 

make implementation more costly, and higher costs could jeopardize the 

implementation of the final harmonized system. After both sides 

discussed the issue in RTCA/EUROCAE special committee meetings, 

FAA decided to drop this interim step and instead move toward the same 

future system as the EU. Our work has shown that addressing the 

compatibility of standards, policies, and procedures that will be used in 

the collaborative effort can facilitate collaboration. 

However, although FAA and SJU worked out technical differences in their 

data communications implementation plans, their timelines for 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

implementing Data Comm still differ. SJU officials told us that moving 

forward on Data Comm is SESAR’s biggest challenge because the United 

States and Europe have differing time frames for implementation. SJU 

would like to see Data Comm implemented by 2018, while a senior FAA 

official responsible for communications believes that it will take until 2023 

at the earliest. SJU officials hope that a compromise will be reached and 

noted that discussions between the two sides are continuing. As 

mentioned above, FAA and SJU have made Data Comm a high-priority 

area for collaboration and are developing a cooperation plan for this area. 

While the implications of the timeline difference are unclear, officials from 

FAA’s Data Comm office and SJU emphasized the importance of 

continuing communications to resolve this issue. As we have previously 

reported, frequent communication among collaborating agencies can 

enable a cohesive working relationship that can lead to the mutual trust 

required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort, can facilitate 

working across agency boundaries, and can prevent misunderstandings 

between the two sides. 

Through the 2011 MOC and related documents, FAA and SJU have 

defined their roles and responsibilities for NextGen and SESAR 

collaboration, including how the collaborative effort will be led. For 

instance, the MOC describes the governance and management 

responsibilities of the High-Level and Coordination Committees and the 

working groups. The management document further defines roles and 

responsibilities for FAA and SJU, the committees, working group leaders, 

and coordination plan leaders. Coordination plans describe the scope, 

objectives, timescale, and processes for resolving issues of specific 

collaboration areas and formalize coordination between the parties under 

the framework of the MOC. A U.S. avionics manufacturer official, who is 

familiar with the MOC, commented that it is an improvement over past 

agreements that provided for periodic meetings but did not specify any 

outcomes. In contrast, this official said the 2011 MOC is more oriented 

toward projects and outcomes, provides motivation for decisions at the 

project level, and drives development toward demonstrations. SJU 

officials with whom we spoke noted that the 2011 MOC’s structure for 

meetings has helped the SJU organize and set priorities for its work. 

According to our prior work, collaborating agencies that work together to 

define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities, as FAA, 

the EU, and SJU have done through the 2011 MOC and related 

documents, can clarify who will do what, organize their joint and individual 

efforts, and facilitate decision making. 

The 2011 MOC and Related 

Documents Define FAA and 

SJU Roles and Responsibilities 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

The 2011 MOC lays out a structure of jointly led and staffed coordination 

plans through which each side can leverage the resources of the other. 

Such a structure mirrors an effective collaboration practice that, as we 

have previously reported, can help collaborating agencies access 

resources that would not be available if the two were working separately. 

According to FAA officials, a central purpose of both the 2011 MOC, and 

the older MOC with EUROCONTROL, is to leverage the resources of 

aviation experts in the United States and EU. By conducting joint 

research that leverages the expertise of FAA’s EU counterparts, FAA 

hopes to reduce the resources that each organization would otherwise 

require if it were to develop a solution in isolation. FAA officials noted that 

U.S. and EU experts have prior experience leveraging each other’s 

research so that the work goes further. For example, one action plan 

states that its primary purpose is to minimize duplication of effort, so as to 

reduce costs and time to deployment. These same officials also pointed 

to saving resources when U.S. and EU experts worked together on a 

highly technical task under an action plan. 

The joint RTCA/EUROCAE special committees also leverage the 

knowledge of officials representing NextGen, SESAR, and industry 

interests. For instance, representatives from FAA and EUROCONTROL, 

avionics manufacturers, U.S. Department of Transportation, and 

organized labor, such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 

participate in the joint RTCA/EUROCAE special committee on Data 

Comm. European officials involved in developing standards, and U.S. and 

European officials involved in manufacturing aerospace equipment and 

airframes, noted that companies that traditionally compete for sales, such 

as Boeing and Airbus, or Raytheon and Thales (avionics manufacturers), 

work together in these joint committees to develop standards for air traffic 

management systems. These U.S. and EU companies want to operate in 

each other’s markets and believe that they can save resources if the 

standards are harmonized. U.S. stakeholders representing aerospace 

industries noted that the aviation industry, in general, is becoming much 

more internationalized than in the past, and nation-based solutions are 

becoming less important. 

In our prior work, we found that agencies that create a means to monitor, 

evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts can better identify 

areas for improvement. Annex I of the 2011 MOC mirrors this practice in 

that it establishes the framework for how the United States and SJU will 

oversee NextGen/SESAR coordination efforts. Progress and issues are 

reported upward from the coordination-plan leaders to the working group 

leaders. Working group leaders are responsible for maintaining a regular 

Jointly Led and Staffed 

Coordination Plans Leverage 

U.S. and EU Resources 

High Level and Coordination 

Committees Monitor, Evaluate, 

and Report Results 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

dialogue with their coordination plan leaders in order to address potential 

issues and risks of misunderstanding. Issues not resolved at this level are 

referred to the Coordination Committee. Based on their experience with 

the similarly structured MOC with EUROCONTROL, FAA officials we 

interviewed anticipate that the working groups will resolve most technical 

issues, and the Coordination Committee will address any significant items 

that cannot be resolved in the working groups. As these officials noted, 

most of the monitoring and evaluation work occurs at the Coordination 

Committee level. The coordination plan leaders will jointly report progress 

within their respective coordination plans twice a year to their working 

group leaders, who will report on the status of their activities at the 

Coordination Committee meetings. 

The Coordination Committee is to examine the progress made on the 

coordination plans, which contain issues to be addressed, actions to be 

taken, target dates, current status information, and a statement of the 

consequences if the issue is not resolved. This committee is to provide 

the working group leaders with support and guidance, and to ensure that 

adequate planning and resource allocation takes place for each working 

group. It is also responsible for examining any issues raised by the 

working group leaders, such as unclear situations, or activities that 

require a specific Coordination Committee action. If necessary, issues not 

resolved through the Coordination Committee are raised to the High Level 

Committee. Industry stakeholders aware of the governance structure in 

the 2011 MOC told us that it is a good sign that FAA and SJU have 

recognized the need for oversight over collaborative efforts because such 

oversight will help ensure that the systems are not developed in isolation. 

Previous agreements also had provisions for monitoring results. FAA and 

EUROCONTROL have a Coordination Committee under the MOC 

between the two organizations to oversee the FAA/EUROCONTROL 

action plans. The 2006 MOU called for FAA and the European 

Commission to try to meet at least every 12 months to review the 

functioning of the MOU. 

FAA’s performance management system is designed to incorporate all of 

the responsibilities and duties of each staff member, according to FAA 

officials we interviewed. This means that if a person is involved in the 

harmonization work under the 2011 MOC, his or her duties are covered 

under their performance plan and become part of his or her annual 

review. Additionally, FAA officials noted that the coordination plan leaders 

will be held accountable for the actions and deliverables, described and 

agreed to within their respective coordination plans, and will have to 

FAA’s Performance 

Management System 

Incorporates Individual 

Responsibilities for 

Harmonization 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

report results of their efforts to the Coordination Committee. We have 

previously reported that high-performing organizations use their 

performance management systems to strengthen accountability for 

results by placing greater emphasis on fostering the necessary 

collaboration both within and across organizational boundaries to achieve 

results. 

FAA has not externally reported its collaborative efforts with EU entities in 

public documents, such as its strategic plan or performance and 

accountability reports. As previously discussed, FAA has a long history of 

collaboration with the EU, but it has not detailed these efforts or outcomes 

in these publications. For instance, FAA’s strategic plan for 2009 through 

2013, known as the Flight Plan, lacks any detailed information on these 

efforts. Likewise, FAA’s 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

does not discuss FAA’s collaborative efforts with EU entities. In our past 

work, we have found that public reporting of results can reinforce agency 

accountability for collaboration. To FAA’s credit, its NextGen 

Implementation Plan, issued in March 2011, does state that the United 

States and EU have agreed to enter into a new MOC to advance the 

interoperability of NextGen and SESAR technologies and that FAA and 

SJU are collaborating on air traffic management research, development, 

and validation for global interoperability. However, the plan does not 

identify goals and strategies to achieve this interoperability, such as the 

structure and governance for ensuring interoperability outlined in the 2011 

MOC. 

Stakeholders representing U.S. airlines, the U.S. aviation industry, and 

European avionics manufacturers told us that they were aware that work 

was progressing to ensure the interoperability of systems, but they were 

not aware of specific details. For example, stakeholders in the aerospace 

equipment industry expressed concerns about the differences in NextGen 

and SESAR’s Data Comm implementation timelines but could not say 

whether the collaborative structure of the 2011 MOC could help resolve 

these differences because they were not familiar with the details of the 

MOC’s structure and governance. Providing such information in these 

plans or other public documents would provide industry stakeholders with 

more details of the steps that FAA and SJU are taking toward 

NextGen/SESAR interoperability and would reinforce FAA’s accountability 

for achieving them. 

FAA Has Not Reinforced Its 

Accountability for 

Collaboration through Its Plans 

and Reports 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Some stakeholders we interviewed on both sides of the Atlantic 

expressed skepticism about whether or when the future benefits of 

NextGen and SESAR will be realized, echoing concerns that have been 

raised in the past. We have reported on stakeholder concerns about 

FAA’s not following through with its NextGen efforts, which made airlines 

hesitant to invest in new equipment.14 This hesitancy arose after an airline 

equipped some of its aircraft with a then-new Data Comm system, but 

because of funding cuts, among other things, FAA canceled the program, 

and the airline could not use the system. The program’s cancellation 

contributed to widespread skepticism about FAA’s commitment to follow 

through with its plans, and that skepticism persists today among some of 

the stakeholders with whom we spoke. In Europe, an air navigation 

service provider representative said that experiences such as FAA’s 

canceling the earlier Data Comm program have led airlines to take a 

cynical view of promised benefits. He noted, for example, that the Atlantic 

Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions may demonstrate benefits, 

but these benefits are not realized when landings are delayed at 

congested airports.15 He said that because industry has not realized 

many promised benefits from past efforts, there is skepticism about what 

today’s programs will produce. Similarly, a U.S. air freight transportation 

stakeholder pointed out that standards are now being implemented to 

support technologies designed to provide more distant benefits, but there 

is no guarantee that FAA will implement those technologies. 

Airline confidence that there will be NextGen/SESAR benefits over the 

long term is an important element in NextGen/SESAR implementation. 

FAA and SJU have been wrestling with airlines’ hesitancy to equip with 

NextGen/SESAR technologies because some of the key benefits, such as 

increased capacity and more direct, fuel-saving routing will not be 

realized until a critical mass of equipped aircraft exists. Because the first 

 

14GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges Associated 

with the Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-07-25 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 13, 2006). 

15As described earlier in this report, the purpose of the AIRE program was to demonstrate 

how using NextGen/SESAR air traffic management techniques can lead to emissions and 

fuel savings. 

Mitigating Stakeholder 

Skepticism Is a Challenge 

Lack of Details on 

Collaborative Efforts 

Contributes to Stakeholder 

Skepticism about NextGen and 

SESAR Benefits 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

airlines to equip with the new technologies will not realize immediate 

benefits, it is difficult for an airline to make a business case showing that 

the near-term benefits of equipping will outweigh the cost. 

Our previous work has shown that agencies such as FAA can 

demonstrate their commitment to the collaborative process—a key 

element in NextGen and SESAR’s success—by using their strategic and 

annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration. To its credit, 

FAA has briefed EU’s Consultation Body, an industry group composed of 

all European aviation stakeholders, on its collaborative efforts and has 

made presentations in a number of aviation forums, including the Air 

Traffic Control Global Conference, RTCA’s 2011 Annual Symposium, and 

a subcommittee of the NextGen Advisory Committee. Now that the 2011 

MOC has been signed, FAA has an additional opportunity to demonstrate 

its commitment to the collaborative effort by detailing the collaborative 

framework provided in the MOC. Such reporting could help reduce 

stakeholders’ skepticism and airlines’ hesitancy to equip with NextGen 

technology. 

Efforts to reduce the federal debt could decrease the funding available to 

FAA for both collaboration and NextGen system development, potentially 

slowing the schedule for harmonization and adding to stakeholders’ 

skepticism. According to an action plan team report, traveling restrictions 

would cause a 6- to 9-month delay. To reduce travel costs, action plan 

teams have endeavored to schedule their meetings to coincide with other 

meetings and officials are making use of technological substitutes for 

travel, such as Webex.16 However, a EUROCONTROL official said that 

he does not consider these virtual meetings to be as effective as face-toface interactions, and an official representing European air navigation 

service providers told us that overuse of this technology could impede 

harmonization and result in higher costs over the long run. 

Cuts in system development budgets could also delay the schedule for 

harmonization and the realization of interoperability benefits. FAA officials 

told us that they normally absorb funding cuts by eliminating or delaying 

programs, with funding cuts taking precedence over previously agreed 

upon schedules, even those whose schedules they have previously 

 

16Webex is a program for conducting Web conferences over the Internet that combines 

desktop sharing through a Web browser with phone conferencing and video, allowing all 

participants to see the same thing while they talk. 

Budget Reductions Could Add 

to Stakeholder Skepticism 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

coordinated with Europe. For example, FAA officials responsible for 

navigation systems told us that FAA is restructuring the plans for its 

ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) because of potential funding 

reductions.17 These officials said that FAA might have to stop its work on 

GBAS while SESAR continues its GBAS development, with the result that 

SESAR may have an operational GBAS, while FAA does not. A delay in 

implementing GBAS would require FAA to continue using the legacy 

Instrument Landing System, which does not provide the benefits that 

GBAS would provide, according to these officials. Such a situation could 

further fuel stakeholder skepticism about whether FAA will follow through 

with its commitment to implementing NextGen, and in turn, increase 

airlines’ hesitancy to equip with NextGen technologies. 

Providing information about the ramifications of budget proposals is 

important to help congressional decision makers anticipate the effects of 

their decisions and to manage stakeholders’ expectations. In the past, we 

found that when FAA was required to cut its budget in line with expected 

funding, it did not inform decision makers about the implications of the 

cuts, including the rationale for proposed trade-offs, and the effects of 

cutting one program on related interdependent programs. In addition, 

FAA did not report on the impact of cuts on air traffic control 

modernization, including both the delayed benefits and the increased 

costs of maintaining legacy systems longer than originally planned. We 

recommended that FAA annually report this information to Congress,18 as 

well as the potential effects of any budget or schedule slippages on the 

overall transition to NextGen.19 In response, FAA established a new 

appendix to its Capital Investment Plan, which FAA provides annually to 

Congress and to the public over the Internet. The appendix includes each 

acquisition’s original and current budget and schedule, as well as the 

reasons for changes, as we recommended. 

 

17GBAS is designed to supplement satellites in providing aircraft positioning data to pilots 

and air traffic controllers as aircraft approach runways prior to landing. 

18GAO, National Airspace System: FAA Has Made Progress but Continues to Face 

Challenges in Acquiring Major Air Traffic Control Systems, GAO-05-331 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 10, 2005). 

19GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA Reports Progress in System Acquisition, but Changes in 

Performance Measurement Could Improve Usefulness of Information, GAO-08-42

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2007). 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

While the 2011 MOC follows several of the key practices that we have 

found can help to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, it is still in the 

early stages of implementation. During the spring and summer of 2011, 

FAA and SJU were implementing the various pieces of the MOC and 

Annex I, such as developing coordination plans and appendixes. 

Although meetings or actions will not be considered formal until these 

elements are approved, FAA and SJU officials continue meeting 

informally to address technical issues. Because the components of the 

MOC have not yet been put into action, we were unable to judge its 

effectiveness in facilitating collaboration toward interoperability. The real 

test of the MOC’s effectiveness will come when NextGen and SESAR 

move toward final decisions about implementing solutions and system 

components. In the past, FAA and Europe jointly developed systems that 

were either not implemented or were implemented differently by each 

side, such as early efforts at developing harmonized Data Comm 

systems. The structure of the 2011 MOC is designed to prevent such 

results in the future. However, the absence of effective collaborative 

practices does not guarantee failure, nor does their presence ensure 

success. 

The continuing skepticism among industry stakeholders about FAA’s 

commitment to follow through on its plans elevates the importance of 

providing these stakeholders with more detailed information on the 

agency’s efforts toward interoperability and in particular, on the structure 

and processes laid out in the 2011 MOC’s Annex 1. These details could 

allow stakeholders to judge for themselves whether interoperability efforts 

are moving ahead deliberately, as planned, and provide assurances that 

FAA is serious about collaborating on interoperability and implementing 

NextGen. Providing this assurance could help to mitigate stakeholders’ 

skepticism about whether or when NextGen and SESAR benefits will be 

realized and alleviate airlines’ hesitancy to equip with new technology. 

As Congress works to reduce the federal debt, we believe that it will be 

important for FAA to provide current information on how budget decisions 

will affect the progress of NextGen, as well as for stakeholders to 

understand how any changes in planned funding will affect their 

realization of NextGen benefits. Because we have previously 

recommended that FAA provide such information, and FAA has recently 

begun to implement our recommendations, we are making no further 

related recommendation in this report. 

It Is Too Early to Judge the 

2011 MOC’s Effect on 

Ensuring Interoperability 

Conclusions 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

To better inform aviation stakeholders of efforts toward interoperability 

and to improve accountability for, and the credibility of, such efforts, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA 

Administrator to publicly provide more details on the efforts FAA has 

taken and planned toward NextGen/SESAR interoperability, such as 

through strategic plans, performance reports, or other means. 

We provided a copy of this report to the Department of Transportation 

and other interested parties for review and comment. The Department of 

Transportation agreed to consider our recommendation. The Department 

of Transportation and the European Commission provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, we plan no further distribution until 20 days 

from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, 

the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix II. 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

List of Requesters 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ralph M. Hall 

Chairman 

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri 

Chairman 

The Honorable Jerry F. Costello 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

To identify and understand the efforts that the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has taken to ensure the interoperability of the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) with the Single 

European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme, 

we reviewed key documents and conducted semistructured interviews 

with FAA officials and aviation stakeholders. Specifically, we reviewed 

agreements between FAA and the European Union (EU) concerning 

collaborative research on air traffic management and other documents 

such as the NextGen Implementation Plan and the European Air Traffic 

Management Master Plan, which provide details on NextGen and SESAR 

programs, and reports comparing NextGen and SESAR concepts and 

avionics road maps. To gain perspective on FAA’s collaborative efforts, 

we developed 29 questions spanning four topics: (1) past harmonization 

efforts and outcomes, (2) the organization of current harmonization 

efforts, (3) the 2011 Memorandum of Cooperation, and (4) harmonization 

factors. FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provided written responses 

to these questions, and we met with officials from ATO’s International 

Office and from FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office to obtain 

clarification on their responses. 

To understand the nature and outcomes of past joint research efforts with 

the EU related to NextGen and SESAR, we reviewed the research topics 

of 18 action plan teams to identify those that dealt with topics most 

closely related to the central operational concepts of NextGen and 

SESAR. We reviewed documents such as the annual work plans and 

status reports spanning 2004 to 2010 for the 4 action plan teams that we 

identified as meeting our selection criterion. 

To understand how key NextGen and SESAR programs must 

interoperate, we interviewed officials in FAA’s offices for NextGen 

Planning and Integration, Navigation Services, Communications, and 

Surveillance. To understand the nature of collaborative efforts between 

FAA and European aviation experts, we met with key officials from four 

RTCA special committees that are working jointly with the European 

Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) to develop 

performance standards for NextGen and SESAR equipment. To 

understand NextGen and SESAR interoperability in a global context, we 

obtained a briefing from a representative of the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO). We also conducted a series of interviews with EU 

officials in Brussels, Belgium and Paris, France to obtain their 

perspectives on FAA’s efforts to ensure NextGen/SESAR interoperability. 

Specifically, we met with high-ranking officials at the European 

Commission; the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU); European 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL); and 

EUROCAE. We conducted a telephone interview with a representative of 

the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 

We also obtained perspectives from high-level U.S. and European 

stakeholder associations representing airlines, airports, as well as 

airframe and equipment manufacturers. In Washington, D.C., we visited 

the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), to meet with officials from 

AIA’s Civil Aviation Infrastructure, International Affairs, and 

Standardization Offices. Officials from Raytheon’s Civil Programs and 

Rockwell Collins’ Strategic Initiatives also participated in the AIA meeting. 

At Honeywell, we met with an official with Aerospace Regulatory Affairs. 

At the Air Transport Association, we met with officials within Legislative 

and Regulatory Policy, Airspace Management, and Operations. At the 

International Air Transport Association, we met with officials within 

Infrastructure Implementation and Airports; Legislative Affairs North 

America; Safety, Operations, and Infrastructure for the Americas; and 

Safety, Operations, and Infrastructure in Europe. At Airbus’ Washington, 

D.C., office, we met with officials within Engineering, Airbus Americas; 

Safety and Technical Affairs; Government Relations; and Airbus Prosky. 

We also met with officials from Airports Council International. We 

conducted telephone interviews with officials from the National Business 

Aviation Association; FedEx; the International Federation of Air Traffic 

Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA); the International Coordinating 

Council of Aerospace Industries Associations, and a Professor of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

To obtain perspectives of European stakeholders, we visited the 

Aerospace and Defense Industries Association of Europe to meet with an 

official from Air Transport and an official representing Dassault Aviation, 

Direction Generale Technique, and we met with a representative of EU 

Air Navigation Service Providers. We conducted telephone interviews 

with officials from the Industry Consultation Body (ICB) and the Civil Air 

Navigation Services Organization (CANSO). 

To determine how FAA’s collaborative efforts with the EU compare with 

effective interagency collaborative practices, we compared FAA’s 

collaborative efforts, as documented in status reports of action plan teams 

and in the 2011 Memorandum of Cooperation, with key practices that we 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 31 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

have previously identified in effective interagency collaborations.1 We 

combined two of the practices into one due to their similarities, resulting in 

the seven key practices that we used to conduct our comparative 

analysis. Prior to deciding on the seven key practices, we conducted a 

literature search of peer reviewed journal articles published between 2006 

and 2011 to identify studies on effective practices for interagency or 

international collaboration. We conducted a search utilizing multiple 

databases, such as ProQuest, Academic OneFile, and EconLit, using 

search terms such as collaboration, cooperation, coordination combined 

with the terms interagency, successful, and effective. From those 

sources, an initial 428 results were returned. After reviewing citations for 

relevance and eliminating duplicates, we were left with 37 citations. We 

reviewed citations to select studies dealing explicitly with effective 

practices for collaboration. Based on the review of these articles, we 

identified effective practices for collaboration and compared these 

practices with those from our prior work with the conclusion that the 

practices we had previously identified were (1) consistent with the 

academic literature on interagency collaboration, and (2) also applicable 

to international collaboration. 

We conducted this performance audit from January to November 2011 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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. 

 

1

GAO-06-15. 
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 32 GAO-12-48 Next Generation Air Transportation 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Maria Edelstein, Assistant 

Director; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Lauren Calhoun; Elizabeth Curda; Pamela 

Davidson; Leia Dickerson; Colin Fallon; Jeffrey Heit; Edmond Menoche; 

Joshua Ormond; Taylor Reeves; and Maria Stattel made key 

contributions to this report. 

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(540222)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper