U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–418PS 2003

A REVIEW OF AERONAUTICS R&D

AT FAA AND NASA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 6, 2003

Serial No. 108–5

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

CHRIS BELL, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

CHRIS BELL, Texas

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BILL ADKINS Subcommittee Staff Director

ED FEDDEMAN Professional Staff Member

RUBEN VAN MITCHELL Professional Staff Member

CHRIS SHANK Professional Staff Member

RICHARD OBERMANN Democratic Professional Staff Member

TOM HAMMOND Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 6, 2003

Page

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 2

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ..................................................................................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative David Wu, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ...................... 10

Witnesses

Jeremiah F. Creedon, Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Charlie Keegan, Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

R. John Hansman, Jr., Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Director,

MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22

Malcolm B. Armstrong, Senior Vice President, Aviation Operations and Safety, Air Transport Association

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29

Discussion

Rotorcraft R&D at NASA .................................................................................... 31

Constraints in the National Airspace System ................................................... 34

En Route Sectors .................................................................................................. 35

Runway Construction .......................................................................................... 36

Aircraft Emissions ................................................................................................ 37

Aeronautics Research Projects at FAA & NASA ............................................... 37

Research Prioritization at NASA ........................................................................ 38

Aeronautics R&D Budget .................................................................................... 39

Trends in Basic Research .................................................................................... 40

Aircraft Emissions ................................................................................................ 43

Wide Area Augmentation System ....................................................................... 44

Research Investment Trends ............................................................................... 46

Aeronautics Blueprint .......................................................................................... 47

Math & Science Education .................................................................................. 47

Regional Jets ........................................................................................................ 48

Small Aircraft Transportation System ............................................................... 48

Shuttle Accident Investigation ............................................................................ 50

Airport Improvement Program R&D .................................................................. 51

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles .................................................................................. 51

Page

IV

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Jeremiah F. Creedon, Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ..................................... 56

Charlie Keegan, Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ................................................................... 65

R. John Hansman, Jr., Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Director,

MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology ........................................................................................................ 70

Malcolm B. Armstrong, Senior Vice President, Aviation Operations and Safety, Air Transport Association .............................................................................. 74

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Dr. Jeremiah Creedon from Charles E. Keegan, March 5, 2003 ......... 78

Letter of Response to Charles E. Keegan from J.F. Creedon, March 24, 2003 .. 79

Flight Plan to 2020 and Beyond ............................................................................. 80

(1)

A REVIEW OF AERONAUTICS R&D AT FAA

AND NASA

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A Review of Aeronautics R&D

at FAA and NASA

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose of Hearing

On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2318 Rayburn House Office

Building, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will hold a hearing on the

Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for aeronautics research and development programs at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA). The hearing will explore each agency’s strategic plan

for aeronautics research, how well their plans align with their budget request and

industry needs, and the coordination of research activities between FAA and NASA.

2. Major Issues

Decline in aeronautics research and development spending in the face of

looming industry challenges. Between FY 1998 and FY 2003, NASA cut aeronautics research by half. Even though the FY 2004 NASA budget request reflects

a one percent increase in aeronautics technology funding compared to FY 2003, over

the next five years, funding will be reduced by four percent (without accounting for

inflation). FAA funding has also been reduced. The FY 2004 request is $279.0 million, about a five percent reduction from the previous year.

U.S. aerospace industries are highly reliant on technologies enabled by NASA— and to a lesser extent by FAA—research. Aerospace business markets today make

it difficult for companies to invest huge sums in high-risk, long-term R&D activities.

The consequences of insufficient research and development investment are already

being felt in several ways. Key issues include the following:

• Aviation Gridlock. Beginning in the late 1990s, and especially during the

summer of 2000, our nation’s air traffic control infrastructure was unable to

accommodate growth in traffic demand. As a result, commercial air carriers

routinely suffered from system delays caused by congestion along busy airway

corridors and lack of capacity at many of the larger hub airports to land or

takeoff. Traffic declined following the September 2001 terror attacks, but is

expected to resume an annual growth rate of 3.8 percent.

• Eroding U.S. Share in International Aerospace Markets. Our country’s sole domestic producer of large civil aircraft (Boeing) faces fierce competition

from the European manufacturer, Airbus, for sales of large civil aircraft. For

the first time ever, Airbus won 50 percent of new aircraft orders during 2002.

• Elimination of Rotorcraft R&D. Rotorcraft continue to serve many important civil and military markets here and abroad, yet much research remains

to be done to make them quieter, more robust, and more efficient. In FY 2003,

NASA proposed elimination of rotorcraft research and did so again in the FY

2004.

• Noise and Emissions Reduction. The future success of commercial civil

aerospace products will rely heavily on developing quieter and less polluting

aircraft. International standards setting organizations, and particularly some

European countries, are proposing noise and emissions reductions requirements to meet environmental concerns. NASA proposes augmenting its Quiet

Aircraft Technology program in the FY 2004 budget to meet this challenge.

The goal is to accelerate the development and transfer of technologies to reduce perceived noise by half by 2007 compared to a 1997 baseline.

FAA’s Research and Development Funding Structure. FAA’s R&D is principally funded through its Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
3

1FAA and NASA have invited DOD, DOT, the Department of Homeland Security, and the

Department of Commerce to join this effort. 2While Boeing is the only domestic supplier of large civil aircraft, there are multiple domestic

suppliers for military and general aviation aircraft. 3The full Science Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Commission’s Final Report for

Wednesday, March 12, at 2:00 p.m. The Report can be found at www.aerospacecommission.gov/

.

count. Over the last several years, however, FAA has migrated a number of R,E&D

activities into other operational accounts, making it difficult to get clear insight into

FAA’s aeronautics research and development programs.

FAA/NASA Collaborations—Joint Program Office. FAA and NASA are increasingly collaborating on research and development for next-generation airspace management and vehicle systems technologies. They are in the formative stages of creating a Joint Program Office (JPO)1 to design and develop technologies to enhance

capacity, safety, and efficiency of our National Airspace System. While the creation

of the JPO is a clear sign that these issues are receiving greater attention, the cultures and missions of FAA and NASA are very different, so it will require significant and sustained commitment from all involved for it to succeed. Specifically, FAA

is an operational agency primarily focused on safely and efficiently directing aircraft. In contrast, NASA is a research and development agency that—with respect

to aeronautics—is not burdened by the same urgency confronting FAA to constantly

maintain safe operations. NASA scientists and engineers perform remarkable research, but it may take them years to develop an operationally suitable technology

for FAA to evaluate. Bridging these two divides has—in the past—proven difficult.

Effects of Full Cost Accounting at NASA. For the first time, NASA submitted

its budget in full cost accounting. This means that all direct and indirect costs, such

as institutional support, are in the same budget line, giving the appearance that its

aeronautics budget nearly doubled over last year. NASA’s aeronautics program is actually increased by only $10 million or one percent, and is projected to shrink by

four percent over the next five years. While full cost accounting may reflect the true

cost of programs, concerns have been raised that implementation of full cost accounting for NASA-owned facilities such as wind tunnels and engine test stands

may result in much higher rental fees to outside researchers. If costs are too high,

researchers may choose to use wind tunnels in other countries, jeopardizing the security of their research findings.

3. Background

Since the late 1940’s, aerospace has been a major source of high paying jobs that

has created and sustained a variety of other high technologies. Aerospace is the

largest source of exports (measured by dollars) for the United States. Over the last

two decades market forces, international competition, and industry consolidations

have reduced the number of domestic large civil airframe manufacturers2 to just

one: the Boeing Company. The number of domestic manufacturers of turbine power

plants has been reduced to two: (Pratt and Whitney; General Electric). There is no

domestic manufacturer of regional jets, the largest growth segment in our domestic

commercial aviation system today.

On November 18, 2002, the Congressionally-chartered Commission on the Future

of the United States Aerospace Industry produced its final report.3 The Commission

raised a number of issues about the ability of domestic companies to maintain primacy in aerospace markets worldwide. Specifically, the Commission is concerned

that the decline in federal aeronautics research spending, and the lack of coordination among executive and legislative entities that control investment strategy, will

undermine U.S. dominance in the aerospace industry.

The Commission also cited growing efforts by foreign governments to develop

aerospace capabilities through subsidization of product development and sales costs.

In particular, the Commission highlighted the European Union’s ‘‘Aeronautics 2020’’ program that seeks to coordinate the research and manufacture of European-produced aerospace products among its member states. The program also sets specific

market-share targets for European-produced civil and military aerospace products

in world markets, and the development of a European designed and manufactured

air traffic management system.

4. Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development

FAA’s overall mission is to provide ‘‘. . .a safe, secure, and efficient global aerospace system that contributes to national security and the promotion of U.S. aerospace safety.’’ It achieves these goals by regulating the design, development and operation of aircraft flown in U.S. airspace, and by managing the National Airspace

4

System (NAS) through a nationwide network of air traffic control facilities. For FY

2004, FAA proposes to spend just over $14 billion to perform these missions.

FAA proposes to spend $279.0 million on research and development, about two

percent of the agency’s $14 billion budget. R&D supports three strategic goals:

• Safety: By 2007, reduce U.S. aviation fatal accident rates by 80 percent from

1996 levels.

• System Efficiency: Provide an aerospace transportation system that meets

the needs of users and is efficient in the application of FAA and aerospace

resources.

• Environment: Prevent, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts,

which may represent the single greatest challenge to the continued growth

and prosperity of civil aerospace.

FAA funds R&D to achieve these goals in three accounts: Research, Engineering

and Development; Airport Improvement Program; and the Facilities and Equipment

Program.

FAA’s national research laboratories are located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City, NJ.

5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Aeronautics R&D

NASA’s Aeronautics Technology Research and Development program is funded

through the Office of Aerospace Technology account. The mission of this program

is to perform R&D to enable a safer, more secure, environmentally friendly and efficient air transportation system, increase the performance of military aircraft, and

develop new uses for science for commercial missions. Through partnerships with

the Defense Department and FAA, NASA conducts research to enhance the security

of the National Airspace System. Research areas include advanced propulsion technologies, lightweight high-strength adaptable structures, adaptive controls, advanced vehicle designs, and collaborative design and development tools. As indicated

earlier, NASA is collaborating with FAA in a Joint Program Office to address air

traffic management technologies.

Aeronautics R&D funding has been cut by one-half since FY 1998. The FY 2004

budget request essentially flat-funds the program for this year and projects a four

percent decrease over five years. As reflected in the budget table in the appendix,

the Aeronautics Technology budget has three major R&D activities. They are:

• Aviation Safety and Security: Aviation Safety and Security is aimed at research and technologies that will improve vehicle safety, weather forecasting

and display tools, system safety technologies, and aviation security technologies. Examples include developing ‘‘refuse to crash’’ aircraft; synthetic vision; and improving human/machine integration in design, operations, and

maintenance.

• Airspace Systems: Airspace Systems is focused on developing system and

software tools to enable major increases in the capacity and mobility of the

air transportation system for operations and vehicle systems. Examples include the Small Air Transportation Systems (SATS) program to permit allweather operations by non-commercial aircraft at untowered fields; the Virtual Airspace and Modeling Simulation (VAMS) program to give researchers

a computer-generated ‘‘virtual’’ environment to test new air traffic control

concepts and procedures; and a new initiative for FY 2004, the NASA Exploratory Technologies for the National Airspace System (NExTNAS), to conduct

assessments of distributed air/ground traffic management concepts.

5

• Vehicle Systems: Vehicle Systems research focuses on developing technologies for future aircraft and air vehicles that, if implemented, will reduce

NOΧ emission to reduce pollution near airports and in the lower atmospheric

zone, reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2, and reduce aircraft noise.

NASA also conducts longer-term research on technologies for next generation

vehicles through this activity.

New Initiatives—NASA Aeronautics:

NASA’s FY 2004 budget request includes three new initiatives within Aeronautics

Technology. They are:

• Aviation Security: NASA proposes to spend $21 million for FY 2004; $225

million over five years (funded through the Aviation Safety and Security Program) to help reduce the vulnerability of aviation to terrorist and criminal

acts.

• National Airspace System Transition: NASA proposes to spend $27 million for FY 2004; $100 million over five years (funded through the Airspace

Systems Program) on technologies for a next-generation National Airspace

System.

• Quiet Aircraft Technology: NASA proposes an augmentation to an existing

program for quiet aircraft. NASA proposes to spend an additional $15 million

in FY 2004, and an additional $100 million over five years. In total, this program will receive $271.6 million over five years (funded through the Vehicle

Systems Program). The goal is to accelerate development and transfer of technologies to reduce perceived noise by half by 2007 compared to a 1997 baseline.

NASA Aeronautics research is conducted primarily at the Langley Research Center (VA); Ames Research Center (CA); Dryden Flight Research Center; and the

Glenn Research Center (OH).

6. Legislation

Both the FAA and NASA are due to be re-authorized this year.

Rep. John Larson, a Member of the Science Committee, introduced legislation earlier this year to increase federal investment in aeronautics R&D. H.R. 586, the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2003, seeks to double

NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics research budgets, and authorizes research activities

for rotorcraft, noise and emissions reduction.

7. Witnesses

Dr. Jeremiah Creedon, Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology,

NASA. Dr. Creedon has been asked to address the following questions: How does

NASA’s aeronautics research and development program balance between serving

near-term industry needs and the pursuit of long-term, high-risk, revolutionary

projects? What is NASA’s vision for meeting projected traffic levels in the year 2020

for the National Airspace System? What is NASA’s assessment of the conclusions

and recommendations put forth in the Final Report of the Commission on the Future

of the United States Aerospace Industry that address air traffic management and

aerospace research and development? What changes, if any, will outside customers

at NASA’s aeronautics research centers and associated facilities experience as a result of implementing full cost accounting?

Mr. Charlie Keegan, Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions, FAA. Mr. Keegan has been asked to address the following questions: What

6

is the rationale for spreading the agency’s research and development activities

across several accounts? Is the level of investment in research and development adequate to meet future agency needs, especially in the areas of aircraft safety certification and modernization of air traffic management? From a management perspective, what distinctions, if any, result from funding a research and development

project in an operational account? How are requirements, proposed research

projects, and technology handoffs for joint programs passed between FAA and

NASA?

Dr. R. John Hansman, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT. Dr.

Hansman has been asked to address the following questions: How relevant is federal aeronautics R&D conducted by NASA and FAA to the demands that commercial

and general aviation users are expected to impose on our National Airspace System

in the future? How do the NASA and FAA aeronautics research portfolios distinguish themselves from R&D conducted by our foreign competitors? How have university-based researchers dealt with funding and programmatic changes in federally-sponsored aeronautics research programs? Do you believe our aerospace manufacturing capabilities are at risk of a long and protracted retrenchment?

Mr. Mac Armstrong, Senior Vice President—Operations & Safety, Air Transport Association. Mr. Armstrong has been asked to address the following questions: What is your assessment of FAA’s and NASA’s investment strategies and

level-of-effort for civil aeronautics research and development, and the usefulness of

the resulting technologies to builders and users of commercial aircraft? What is your

assessment on the future of our national airspace system and the potential for current investments to meet this challenge? How satisfied is the air carrier industry

with R&D investment in emissions and noise reduction technologies?

7

8

9

Chairman ROHRABACHER. I hereby call this meeting of the Space

and Aeronautics Subcommittee to order. Without objection, the

Chair will be granted the authority to recess this committee just

in case we have votes. At today’s hearing we will explore plans for

aeronautics research and development at the FAA and NASA. This

year, of course, marks the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers’ first flight. What was the date?

Dr. CREEDON. December 17.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. December 17.

Dr. CREEDON. 1903.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And that is going to be quite a day. I

am looking forward to it and I am very grateful that I will have

the opportunity of being the Chairman of this particular Subcommittee on that date. So I believe that an appropriate way to

honor these pioneers of aviation is to continue the remarkable

trend of technological advancement that they began and that we

have witnessed this incredible moving forward, moving up, over

this last 100 years.

Unfortunately, the budgets for NASA and the FAA clearly reflect

a somewhat lackluster commitment to our future in aeronautics if

that is the way our commitment to the future of aeronautics is to

be judged. In fact, NASA cut funding for aeronautics research in

half over the last 10 years and now spends only $1 out of every $16

on aeronautics. This year, NASA proposes to cut the program by

an additional five percent over the next five years. Meanwhile, the

FAA proposed only a modest increase in its program over the next

five years. However, we must not simply look at budget proposals.

As I say, we must also clearly examine whether these programs are

properly focused and whether they are relevant to our national

goals and objectives. Preserving our aerospace industry’s edge over

fierce international competition, however, will require a greater

emphasis and attention to these goals.

Given the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of

the United States Aerospace Industry, what is the rationale for

continuing to cut aeronautics R&D—something we need to know.

How should the Government help stop the erosion of the U.S. market share in international aerospace sales? Finally, what can be

done to accelerate the transition of new technologies that are being

developed in the United States and throughout the world into operational use and what kind of problem is that? Where do we have

technologies that are waiting to be used or being kept off the market for some reason, and perhaps that is more important than

spending more money.

Today’s discussion will address these and other critical issues.

And during the past 100 years, our nation’s commitment to aviation and aeronautics propelled our nation’s industries and our economy. If we are to be the world leader in terms of the economic well

being of our people and the competitiveness of our industries, we

must be the world’s number one aerospace nation as well. So we

can expect nothing less because they are so intertwined with our

economic well being and whether or not we are number one in

space and whether our aeronautics is able to outcompete those

overseas.

10

I would be recommending—saying that we are going to go to

Bart Gordon now, but he is not here. But when he arrives, we will

make sure he gets—Mr. Wu, would you like to say a few words in

the meantime?

[The prepared statement of Chairman Rohrabacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER

Today’s hearing will explore plans for aeronautics research and development at

the FAA and NASA. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers’

first powered flight. I know of no better way to honor the pioneers of aviation than

to continue the remarkable trend in technological advancement witnessed over the

last one hundred years.

Unfortunately, the budgets for NASA and the FAA clearly reflect a lackluster

commitment to our future in aeronautics. In fact, NASA has cut funding for aeronautics research in half over the last ten years and now spends only one dollar out

of every sixteen dollars on aeronautics. This year, NASA proposes to cut the program by an additional five percent over the next five years. Meanwhile, FAA proposes only a modest increase in its program over the next five years. However, we

must not simply look at the budget proposals to judge these programs, we must also

closely examine whether these programs are properly focused and relevant to national goals and objectives. Preserving our aerospace industry’s edge against fierce

international competition will require greater emphasis and attention to these goals.

Given the recommendations of The Commission on the Future of the United States

Aerospace Industry, what is NASA’s rationale for continuing to cut its aeronautics

R&D program? How should the government help stop the erosion of U.S. market

share in aerospace? Finally, what can be done to accelerate the transition of new

technologies to operational use? Today’s discussion will address these and other critical issues.

During the past one hundred years, our nation’s commitment to powered flight

propelled the aviation industry. We can expect nothing less for the future.

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I believe that Mr.

Gordon will be making an opening statement when he arrives.

Since you all represent so much of American aeronautics and astronautics research, I just want to relay to you all a conversation I

had with a professor of aeronautics and astronautics a few weeks

ago. Not wanting to disturb the folks at NASA who are obviously

focused on immediate challenges on February 1, I began a series

of conversations with academicians about our current state of space

programs, but the example which I found striking was that one of

these individuals stated, you know, say that we first started using

jet engines, prevailing use of jet engines, around 1950 or so. At

that point, we had to tear them down after about 100 hours of use.

And 50 years later, say around the year 2000, we get, roughly,

20,000 hours out of the engines that you ride on in a 747 before

you have to tear the jet engine down. From 100 hours to 20,000

hours.

We have been in space for almost the same period of time, say,

roughly, 1960 to the year 2000, and yet, the dependability, the

safety of space flight, has not increased along the same curve that

this jet engine dependability has, and there are sound reasons why

those two scenarios are slightly different, but the difference is really quite striking. And I think that our aerospace community has

further work to do in this arena and Congress has responsibilities

in this arena to make sure that we do our best to bring these

curves together as best we can. They will never be the same curve,

but the striking difference between jet engines going from 100

hours between maintenance to 20,000 hours, and space flight right

now going at the failure rate of one every fifty-seven missions, that

11

that is something that we do not want to tolerate going forward

into the future.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wu, and we will

permit Mr. Gordon a short opening statement when he arrives. Apparently, there has been a personal family situation there. So without objection, the opening statements of other Members will be put

into the written record so we can get right to the testimony. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent to insert

in the appropriate place in the record the background memorandum prepared by the Majority Staff for this hearing. Hearing

no objection, so ordered.

And we do have today some distinguished witnesses, and we

want to thank each and every one of you for being with us, but we

would also like you to summarize your statement in fact. Usually,

I ask for five-minute summaries. If you can do it in any less than

that, Curt Weldon, who is one of the more aggressive members of

both the DOD Committee and this committee, has asked for time

to get at you. He won’t be able to get at you if you are using all

the time up, so we would like it very much if you could just summarize your statements and then we would want to focus on the

questions and answers and a dialogue between us.

So with that said, our first witness is Dr. Jeremiah Creedon, who

is NASA’s Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology, and

Dr. Creedon, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JEREMIAH F. CREEDON, ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR FOR AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY, NASA

Dr. CREEDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the

Members of the Committee for the opportunity to summarize my

written submission, and I will try to be brief. I would like to recognize my colleagues at the table here and acknowledge that the

partnerships that we at NASA have as we try to execute our research and technology development are very important and vital to

us, and we are very proud to be working with them on the future

and trying to realize a bright future for aviation.

That future is based on technology and innovation. The Commission on the Future of Aerospace Industry in the United States was

asked to study what needed to be done to ensure a bright aerospace

industry future. They made a number of recommendations; in fact,

a total of nine. Five of those recommendations had to do with technology. The Commission clearly stated that research and technology is the foundation for the future of the aerospace industry,

and I would like to quote very briefly from the report. ‘‘Aerospace

is a technology driven industry. Long-term research and innovation

are the fuel for technology. U.S. aerospace leadership is a direct result of our preeminence in research and innovation.’’

The Commission recommended a number of investments. We feel

that NASA’s programs are investments of the type that the Commission recommended. We also feel that our current and planned

efforts are well in alignment with the Commission’s recommendation. In response to what we feel are the national needs, we have

proposed a number of changes in the aeronautics technology proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
12

gram for Fiscal Year 2004, and I would like to briefly describe a

few of these changes.

First of all, we proposed an increase in the funding for quiet aircraft technology. Our goal in this area is to take the objectionable

noise from airplanes and contain it within the airport boundary.

And Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks, you talked about the

transfer of the technology to people that will actually implement it.

This increase that we have put into the program is an attempt to

more quickly accelerate those technologies to the point where the

aerospace industry can consider implementing them.

In the aftermath of September 11, the President’s 2004 budget

request includes funds for a new NASA effort in aviation security.

That effort will be focused on protecting aircraft in the national

aerospace system from criminal and terrorist attacks, as well as

improving the efficiency of the security measures that the country

has undertaken. We have also requested $8 million for getting

more routine operations of unmanned air vehicles in the national

airspace system. These vehicles have potential applications not

only in the area of Homeland Security, but in communications and

monitoring the earth’s resources.

I want to talk a few minutes about the extremely important area

of the national airspace system. The current system is suffering

from the combined effects of September 11, but the aviation system

will, in fact, recover. But as it recovers, it may recover in some different format, in some different methods of operation than was existing prior to September 11. In particular, we may see more use

of secondary airports. Accordingly, we are going to continue our

work on our SATS, or small aircraft transportation system, because

we believe that holds the promise of bringing much improved air

access and much improved mobility to the population by making

better use of secondary airports.

We also intend to continue working with the FAA on two things.

First, working with them as we have been on their implementation

of the OEP. But also, we are going to be working with them on defining and realizing a future air transportation system. We have

proposed investing $27 million starting in 2004 for a national airspace system transition initiative. Research within this program,

which we will do jointly with the FAA and others, will focus on

what a future system might look like and what we would have to

do to enable such a future system. Any future system must have

the flexibility to move, and expand, and adapt to be responsive to

the demands on the transportation system. And even if it is revolutionary, it must still allow continuous safe operations to occur even

in the face of unpredicted events.

NASA and the FAA have a long and very productive relationship

in aviation. The relationship is based on common objectives in

unique and complimentary roles. NASA’s role in the aerospace system is both on near-term and far-term research, while the FAA is

more focused on research and development required to promote implementation of changes in the airspace system operations. We

share the same objectives to increase the capacity and efficiency of

the airspace system, to increase safety, to reduce the deleterious effects of emissions, and we have a number of ways that we coordinate with the FAA. We have inter-agency integrated product

13

teams, where we share joint roadmaps for our work in this area

and also in the work of safety.

In summary, NASA is proud of its continuing critical contribution to aeronautics. In this centennial year of the first powered

flight by the Wright brothers, we look forward to a bright future

of flight and working with our colleagues in bringing about that future. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before

you today, and I would be happy to try to answer your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Creedon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEREMIAH F. CREEDON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on aeronautics research and technology

(R&T) at NASA. I would also like to recognize my colleagues, Mr. Charles Keegan

from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Mr. Mac Armstrong from Air

Transport Association, and Dr. John Hansman from the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, and. NASA considers our partnerships to be vital, and we are proud to

work with them on the future of aviation.

That future is based on technology and innovation. NASA plays a critical role in

supplying the aeronautics technology base for the Nation and has an extremely productive aeronautics R&T program—as recent accomplishments and applications of

NASA technologies demonstrate. We have seen applications of technologies to improve safety, reduce environmental impact and improve the efficiency of aviation operations. For example, in aviation safety new weather information systems based on

NASA technology developments are reaching the market place. Synthetic vision systems, which will allow clear-day views of terrain and air craft in all-visibility conditions, are in the commercialization phase and more safety technologies are on their

way.

In the environmental area, we have seen the recent commercialization of a jet engine combustor that resulted from a NASA-sponsored demonstration to reduce NOΧ

emissions by 50 percent compared to ICAO regulatory standards, and we have recently completed sector testing of a combustor concept that reduces NOΧ by 67 percent. We have also seen the commercialization of noise reduction technologies, like

serrated nozzles that reduce jet noise by three decibels, equivalent to half the sound

energy. Overall, we have demonstrated five decibels of integrated noise reductions

compared with the 1997 state-of-the-art and have identified technologies for five

decibels of additional reductions.

We are making significant progress on more breakthrough technologies. We recently demonstrated key processes and methods for the development of nanotube reinforced polymer composites that would provide revolutionary improvements in

structural strength-to-weight ratios. We’ve also demonstrated advanced aerodynamics flow control techniques that would allow highly efficient and simpler vehicle controls and high-lift systems. Significant progress continues in the areas of autonomy and intelligent, reconfigurable flight controls. All of these technologies represent steps on the path to a new generation of safe, smart, environmentally benign

aircraft.

A Balanced Portfolio

NASA invests in long-term, high-risk, high-payoff research in pre-commercial

technologies in which industry cannot invest and in both nearer term and longerterm research focused on public good issues such as environmental compatibility,

safety, and air traffic management.

Provision of air service is also a public good. Since airline deregulation, the U.S.

has mainly relied on market forces to ensure that the most efficient level of air service is provided to communities. However, it is in the public good to technologically

enable better air service to more communities. Therefore, we seek partnerships,

such as our Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) project, that enable greater mobility for more of the Nation. In addition, there is a large government role in

the provision of air traffic management services. NASA works closely with the FAA

to enable future improvements to the system to improve capacity, efficiency and

safety in response to market demand for growth and change.

An entirely new level of performance can be achieved through the integration of

many breakthrough vehicle and airspace capabilities. This requires a broad-based

investment in basic research and technology. Technologies with application horizons

many years in the future are chosen by evaluating the most promising technology

14

pathways in the highest leverage areas. As technologies mature, we evaluate them

to ensure adequate progress is being made and their performance potential remains

worthy of investment. We continuously seek technology pull opportunities to bring

focus and opportunities to demonstrate technology. For example, unmanned aerial

vehicles, from a technology viewpoint, provide not only unique applications, such as

remote sensing, but also can be technology pathfinders for other commercial or military aviation applications.

The Aerospace Commission

The Aerospace Commission made nine recommendations to ensure the health of

the U.S. aerospace industry. Five of which have a strong focus on research and technology. The Commission clearly stated that research and technology is the foundation for the future of the aerospace industry. Quoting directly from Chapter 9 of the

report, ‘‘Aerospace is a technology-driven industry. Long-term research and innovation are the fuel for technology. U.S. aerospace leadership is a direct result of our

preeminence in research and innovation.’’

The Commission recommends investments in this country’s future. NASA’s programs are the type of investment that the Commission recommends, and we believe

NASA’s current and planned efforts are in alignment with the thrust and intent of

the Commission’s findings and recommendations.

As discussed, we are investing in technologies to support the transformation of

the National Airspace System as recommended in Chapter 2 of the report. In fact,

through prioritization of activities within our budget, we propose to expand our investment in this area and we are working in partnership with the FAA on this critical issue.

As Chapter 2 of the Commission’s report also notes, security is a key requirement

of the future airspace system. We certainly agree and have been working since 9/

11 to develop a responsive program that reflects NASA’s unique strengths. We also

propose to initiate an aviation security project that seeks to enable long-term, highleverage solutions to eliminate key vulnerabilities within the aviation system.

Many of our efforts address the specific recommendations on breakthrough aerospace capabilities in Chapter 9 of the report. We have investments in all of the

areas addressed: increased safety, reduced emissions, reduced noise, increased capacity and reduced trip time. Our FY 2004 budget request reflects adjustments to

strengthen technology development in these key areas. Additionally, the Commission is justifiably concerned about the time it takes to transition research into products. At NASA, we measure our success in technology by the extent to which our

results are transferred, and are applied. In recent years, we have transferred and

seen the application of noise and emission reduction technologies, decision support

tools for air traffic management, aviation safety technologies and more.

As it has in the past, NASA will continue to work closely and partner with the

Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Homeland Security, academia,

and industry to ensure that the research that NASA pursues is deliberately and methodically integrated into useful and timely products and processes.

Significant Changes for FY 2004

NASA is proposing a number of key changes to the Aeronautics Technology program for FY 2004 in response to national needs and the role we play as outlined

above. Our request for Aeronautics Technology is $959.1 million. I am pleased to

report that through reprioritization within the President’s FY 2004 budget, we have

increased funding for the development of technology in several key areas.

Due to significant demand from the FAA and industry that we increase our investment in noise reduction to ensure rapid technology development and transfer,

I am pleased to be able to inform you that the President’s FY 2004 budget has increased the funding to address this critical aviation issue. NASA’s Quiet Aircraft

Technology project includes an increase of $15 million in FY 2004 for this work.

NASA is developing technologies that can directly change the noise produced by

jet engines. Through an understanding of the basic physics of noise production we

are able to interfere with the way that sound is produced, creating quieter aircraft

for future travelers. We have also determined that a large part of the objectionable

noise comes from parts of the aircraft other than the engines when the aircraft are

approaching the runway. NASA is developing concepts for landing gear and wing

configurations to reduce this objectionable noise. Physics-based tools to study noise

propagation allow us to test the benefits of new flight profiles to bring the aircraft

noise closer to the airport while maintaining flight safety.

In partnership with the engine and aircraft manufacturers and based on the results discussed earlier, we will be able to bring additional noise reduction technology

15

to new aircraft more quickly than had been otherwise planned. We are expecting

to demonstrate an additional five-decibel reduction in perceived noise by the end of

FY 2007, leading to a total of ten-decibel reduction in comparison to the 1997 state

of the art.

In the aftermath of September 11th, heightened, but efficient, security of the aviation system is a critical, long-term requirement. Therefore, I am pleased to report

that as part of the President’s FY 2004 Budget Request, NASA will begin a new effort in Aviation Security. We will invest $21 million in FY 2004 for this initiative.

Research in this program will focus on concepts and technologies that can protect

aircraft and the airspace system from criminal and terrorist attacks while dramatically improving the efficiency of security. In the near-term, NASA will develop and

demonstrate decision support technologies for ground-based air traffic management

systems that detect and assist in the management of threatening situations. Other

areas include technologies to reconfigure the aircraft to fly safely in the event of

damage, and flight controls technology that would prevent the aircraft from being

purposefully crashed. Additionally, we are investigating how NASA research in information and sensor technology may be applied to this area. We will invest $27 million in FY 2004 for the new National Airspace System Transition initiative. The major challenges are to accommodate the projected growth in

air traffic while preserving and enhancing safety; provide all airspace system users

more flexibility, efficiency and access in the use of airports, airspace and aircraft;

enable new modes of operation that support the FAA commitment to ‘‘Free Flight’’

and the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP); and develop technology to enable transition to a next generation National Airspace System beyond the OEP horizon. The

research within this program will be focused on developing a more flexible and efficient operational approach to air traffic management. For example, together with

the FAA, NASA will investigate and solve the technical challenges of increasing

runway capacity in inclement weather to eliminate the biggest source of delays—

poor visibility. We will also develop totally new concepts that allow the system to

scale with increasing traffic levels. We are developing sophisticated new modeling

capabilities of the Nation’s air traffic system so we can test out our tools and concepts.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have potential applications of benefit to the

U.S., including homeland security, telecommunications and monitoring the earth’s

resources. Their ability to fly autonomously for boring or hazardous applications and

their ability to fly at high altitudes allowing them to cover large areas make UAVs

suitable for these types of jobs. However, UAVs are restricted from routine operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). To address this issue, NASA has included $8 million in its FY 2004 budget request for UAYs in the NAS. NASA, DOD

and the FAA are working with the UAV industry and have developed a plan for

cooperatively developing and demonstrating this technology.

Enabling a Healthy Future for Aviation

While the current aviation system is suffering from the combined effects of 9/11

and the economic downturn, aviation remains critical to our society and economy.

Aviation will certainly recover, but it is likely that significant changes will occur.

We are already seeing more utilization of secondary airports, driven by low-cost,

point-to-point carriers; the ‘‘de-peaking’’ of hub airports; continued growth in regional jets to smaller communities; continued growth in on-demand aviation, such

as executive jet, and the promise of jet air taxi service. In fact, the current system

structure, where most passengers and cargo are carried by tens of air carriers

through tens of airports, must be revised to permit the continued long-term growth

of the system. The thousands of airports distributed across this country are a true

national asset that can be tapped with the right technology and the right Air Traffic

Management (ATM) system. Also, ‘‘airspace,’’ one of the Nation’s most valuable national resources, is significantly underutilized due to the way it is managed and allocated. Therefore, the airspace architecture of the future must increase the capacity

of the Nation’s major airports, fully tie together all of our nation’s airports into a

more distributed system, and create the freedom to fly in a safe, secure controlled

environment throughout all of the airspace.

One thing that will remain constant is that free market forces will drive the air

transportation system. Therefore, the future system architecture must be flexible to

respond to various transportation system possibilities and robust against unexpected threats. The airline industry must have the flexibility to move and expand

operations to be responsive to transportation demands. This is the highest level

guiding principle for the future ATM system. The next tier of system requirements

are robustness (a system that can safely tolerate equipment failures and events

such as severe weather and unexpected attacks) and scalability (the ATM system

16

automatically scales with the traffic volume). One possibility for achieving

scalability would be achieved by building large portions of the ATM system into the

aircraft, so that as aircraft are added to the fleet the ATM system would automatically scale to accommodate them. This decentralized architecture and increased vehicle capability to automatically avoid protected airspace is also an effective means

of limiting the potential damage of a terrorist attack.

The system will be built on global systems, such as GPS, to allow precision approach to every runway in the Nation without reliance on installing expensive

ground-based equipment, such as Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) at every airport. However, the robustness of the global communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) systems must be such that the system can tolerate multiple failures

and potential security threats and still be safe. This is a significant challenge on

which the new architecture depends.

If we are successful at meeting the challenge of a robust global CNS, then with

precise knowledge of position and trajectory known for every aircraft, it will no

longer be necessary to restrict flying along predetermined ‘‘corridors.’’ Optimal flight

paths will be determined in advance and adjusted along the way for weather and

other aircraft traffic. This fundamental shift will allow entirely new transportation

models to occur. For example, with precision approach to every airport in the U.S.

and a new generation of smart, efficient small aircraft, the current trend of small

jet aircraft serving small communities in a point-to-point mode could be greatly extended.

The future system will truly be ‘‘revolutionary’’ in scope and performance, but it

must also be implemented in a mode that allows continuous safe operations to

occur, even in the face of unpredicted events. In designing the future airspace system, a systems engineering approach must be used to define requirements, formulate total operational concepts, evaluate these operational concepts, and then launch

goal-oriented technology activities to meet requirements and support the operational

concept. NASA’s role is to be a full participant in this national process and to lead

the long-term technology effort that supports it. NASA and the FAA are developing

an approach right now to implement such a process.

The NASA–FAA Relationship

Finally, I will address the critical relationship between NASA and the FAA.

NASA and the FAA have a long and productive relationship in aviation. The relationship is based on common objectives, and unique and complimentary roles.

NASA’s role is long-term research and technology development. FAA is much more

focused on comparatively short-term research and development to support certification, rule-making, requirements generation and acceptance testing. In addition to

our complimentary roles, we share many of the same objectives—to increase the capacity and efficiency of the NAS, to increase aviation safety, and to reduce environmental impacts. With ATM, the FAA is the user of NASA technology. With safety

and environment, industry is the primary technology user, but FAA benefits from

a rule making and certification perspective. In this light, NASA and the FAA maintain several mechanisms for coordination and integration. For example, in the area

of aviation safety, NASA and FAA have an active working group that develops and

tracks joint technical roadmaps. In air traffic management, there is a interagency

integrated product team that develops joint plans for integrated ATM R&D. And we

are actively planning a more integrated, long-term approach to cooperation in air

traffic management to ensure a common vision and set of national requirements and

that the research and technologies that are developed out of NASA have a pathway

into FAA operations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NASA is proud of its continuing critical contribution to aeronautics.

In the centennial year of the first powered flight by the Wright Brothers, we look

forward to the future of flight. New technologies on the horizon will make the next

100 years as exciting, eventful, and in many ways as unpredictable, as the first 100

years.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I am sure that

we have got some questions for you. Curt Weldon is just anxious

to ask those questions, but not yet. I am just preparing them for

you, Curt. Okay. Next witness is Mr. Charlie Keegan, Associate

Administrator for Research and Acquisitions at the FAA. And this

is Mr. Keegan’s first appearance before any Congressional committee. Let me note that Mr. Keegan started off as an air traffic

17

controller, and he was on the hot seat then and he is in a hot seat

today. So we welcome you and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE KEEGAN, ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND ACQUISITIONS, FAA

Mr. KEEGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear

before you to discuss the FAA’s investment in civil aeronautics research, engineering, and development, as reflected across our R&D

program and the President’s budget for the Fiscal Year 2004.

I have three points to make. The first one will be about our re- quest amount of $100 million. We believe that this is a well-balanced approach toward the FAA’s overall budget request of some- where near $14 billion and in accordance with the FAA’s mission.

It is a well focused program for Fiscal Year 2004, focusing on aircraft safety as well as noise and emissions. I would like to emphasize that although this request is less than what we requested in

2003, the key to the success of this program will be the leveraging

of resources with our other Government partners as well as industry and academia.

An example of this is the work that we are doing now in unleaded aviation fuels. Aviation fuels, as I am sure you are aware,

are leaded today and present an emissions issue. In the future we

hope to use unleaded fuels for aircraft. The key is their safety.

Next week, we will take delivery from Exxon of 4,000 gallons of unleaded fuel to be tested, and we expect to test that through the rest

of this year and through 2004 to, hopefully, make progress in this

area for unleaded fuels for general aviation aircraft.

I would like to move to our relationship with NASA. Our relationship with NASA has been outstanding, and I believe it will continue to mature over the next several years. I bring personal experience to this relationship of bringing NASA technology called the

Traffic Management Advisor, part of the center TRACON automation system from the research house at NASA Ames into operation

that today is delivering tangible and sizeable benefits to the American public every single day, and we want to continue to do that

piece by piece. And those elements are outlined in our Operational

Evolution Plan, which is our outlook for capacity over the next 10

years.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to go to a couple props that

I brought with me today that represent some of the incredible research that is going on at our technical center in Atlantic City,

New Jersey. The first is important safety elements regarding fuel

inerting. We have had several, a handful of, explosions in aircraft

fuel tanks without a known source of ignition. Since we can’t find

the ignition source, to be safe, we want to eliminate the possibility

of that event. This device is actually strands of polyester. Forcing

air in one end, and out the other, bleeds off—through a hole that

is right here, bleeds off the oxygen, putting more nitrogen in the

fuel tank instead of oxygen that would be able to burn. This rather

simple device weighs approximately 160 pounds and prevents the

ability of a center fuel tank in a Boeing 747 to explode. We have

tested this on the ground and will begin flight testing soon, and we

have had much interest from Airbus, as well as Boeing, and will

18

be able to continue to do that work which we think is just absolutely incredible—simple strategies toward preventing catastrophic

events.

The next thing is what we call soft soil. It looks like a piece of

sand that is held together. It is actually oxygenated concrete. This

device is in response to an event where a DC–10 at JFK Airport

New York ran off the end of the runway, where about a dozen people were injured and causing major damage to the aircraft. We

have implemented this and we need to make it more cost effective

so we can implement it more, and that is what our research is

going onto now. These are pictures, which I will be glad to pass

around, of the Saab 340 that ran into this material post event,

after we had implemented it. No one was injured, there was very

little damage to the aircraft, and we think that is positive for the

ability for us to maintain airport safety as well.

And that really concludes my comments. I would like to submit

my testimony for the record, and I am ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keegan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES KEEGAN

Chairman Rohrabacher and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, to discuss the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) investment in civil aeronautics research, engineering and

development (R,E&D), as reflected across our R,E&D program and in the President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2004.

This is a particularly important year for aviation innovation as we approach the

centennial of flight. Since the Wright Brothers’ first flight, we have seen remarkable

improvements in navigational tools and critical safety technologies through the diligent work of aviation researchers. Today, that legacy of success continues as FAA’s researchers and scientists lay the groundwork for free flight operations and develop

the technologies, tools, and procedures so that FAA may strengthen its critical mission—improving aviation safety. These improvements are reducing fatalities, injuries, and aircraft losses; creating better aircraft and airport designs; and improving

maintenance and inspection procedures.

Today, I will provide a brief overview of the President’s FY04 aviation R,E&D

budget proposal, discuss some of our R,E&D priorities and accomplishments, and

provide examples of how our collaborative work with NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), industry, and academia contributes to making our aviation system

safer and more efficient.

The President’s budget request supports the FAA’s major research and development activities presented in the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP), which describes these research activities in detail and how they relate to the agency’s mission. The NARP covers the research needed to achieve the FAA’s safety, capacity

and environmental goals including: aircraft airworthiness, runway safety, aviation

weather, human performance and aerospace medicine, as well as efficiency research

projects that support increasing the capacity of the National Airspace System

(NAS).

For FY04, we have requested $100 million for R,E&D. Based on this request, we

have developed a comprehensive program that focuses resources on our highest priority activities. The President’s budget presents our request in performance-based

terms to better focus on the critical areas our R,E&D projects. Of the total requested:

• $66.487 million is for aircraft technology safety programs, which include research related to fire safety, aging aircraft, human factors, and flight safety;

• $20.852 million is for programs associated with improving safety through

weather research;

• $7.975 million is for environmental research, which includes research related

to aircraft and rotorcraft noise reduction technologies and aircraft noise and

emissions models; and

• $4.686 million provides general mission support.

19

Although the FY04 budget request for the R,E&D account has decreased by $24

million from the FY03 request, the overall budget includes $73.1 million from the

Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account for applied research activities under the

Advanced Technology Development Prototyping and Safe Flight 21 programs. These

programs focus on the evaluation of methods to prevent runway incursions, reduce

separation standards, and provide surveillance coverage in non-radar areas. Our

budget also includes a separate request for $17.417 million under the Airport Improvement Program for airport technology research to develop standards and guidelines for planning, designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the Nation’s

airports.

As our budget shows, safety research is the main priority of our R,E&D program.

Research efforts are critical to the reduction of fatal accident rates. We know that

accidents can be prevented by establishing and maintaining a broad framework of

regulations and standards, developing a better understanding of accident causes and

countermeasures, and participating in cooperative programs with the global aviation

community.

The aircraft safety research programs are producing great dividends for the aviation community. For example, last year we made significant progress in developing

an inerting system to prevent fuel tank explosions. The tragic TWA Flight 800 disaster, in 1996, focused national attention on the critical need to improve fuel tank

safety. Building on previous research on ground-based inerting, FAA’s researchers

developed a relatively simple, but effective, design for generating nitrogen-enriched

air in flight. Our researchers installed an onboard inerting system in the FAA’s

747SP test aircraft. Flight tests are planned in FY03, based on the combination of

modeling predictions, @ scale tests, and demonstrations of the prototype system.

Additionally, we are working with NASA and DOD to enhance safety of the aging

aircraft fleet. Over the past several years we have developed new structural inspection techniques that help maintenance personnel locate structural problems before

they become serious safety concerns. We are also focusing major efforts on gaining

a better understanding of the effects of aging non-structural aircraft systems such

as wiring. Civilian and military aircraft contain hundreds of miles of wire, much of

it inaccessible once the aircraft is assembled. When the protective sheath of insulation on a wire is damaged and the conductor is exposed, the potential for a short

circuit or arc exists. In fact, the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board,

and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigations cited electrical systems arcing as one likely cause of the cabin fire and crash of Swissair Flight 111.

The FAA, in cooperation with DOD and industry, has developed a new form of

circuit protection technology that is capable of sensing an electrical arc along a wire

and opening the circuit, greatly reducing the threat of an electrical arc fire. This

technology will not require the redesign of aircraft circuitry. Successful flight tests

have been completed and now we are developing common performance specifications.

Although it is easy to be captivated by the new technology that has resulted from

our R,E&D, I want to emphasize that aviation safety is also human-centered and

dependent on human performance. The FAA requires that human factors be systematically integrated at each critical step in the design, development, and testing of

advanced technologies introduced into the NAS. For example, last year FAA researchers and certification specialists began testing a new computerized decision

support tool to ensure that aircraft flight deck technologies are user friendly. This

decision tool assists certification and design personnel in identifying, assessing, and

resolving potential design-induced human performance errors that could contribute

to aviation incidents and accidents.

Weather continues to be a major safety factor for all types of aircraft. A recent

estimate by the FAA identified weather as being responsible for 70 percent of flight

delays and approximately 40 percent of accidents. To mitigate the effects of weather,

the FAA’s Aviation Weather Research Program conducts applied research in partnership with a broad spectrum of the weather research and user communities with

a goal of transitioning advanced weather detection technologies into operational use.

In FY02, a weather safety product, known as the Current Icing Potential, became

fully operational at the National Weather Service Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City, Missouri. This product, which generates around-the-clock support, provides

information on current in-flight icing conditions and is used for flight planning, determining route changes, and altitude selection. With FAA funding, the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, developed this system using

radar and satellite data, surface observations, numerical models and pilot reports.

Users can access this information on the Internet via the Aviation Digital Data

Service web site at http://adds.aviationweather.gov/projects/adds/.

20

I am pleased to report that FAA’s weather research program was awarded the

2002 National Weather Association’s Aviation Meteorology Award in recognition of

developing and implementing the Current Icing Potential, as well as the National

Convective Weather Forecast, the Forecast Icing Potential products, and the Rapid

Update Cycle #20—all new products designed to enhance aviation safety and efficiency by allowing pilots to avoid hazardous flight conditions while improving airspace use.

The FAA understands that while we are responsible for operating a safe and efficient NAS, we must also monitor and mitigate the effects of aviation on our environment. FAA will use research funding to continue to develop and validate new and

enhanced methodologies to estimate aviation-related emissions that impact local air

quality and global emissions. This will allow FAA to more accurately assess aviation-related emissions impacts and tailor measures to mitigate any impact on communities resulting from airline operations and airport development programs and

increased efficiency in showing compliance with provisions under the Clean Air Act

and National Environmental Policy Act.

Currently, to understand the environmental effects of aircraft and airport operations, the FAA’s environment and energy research program is developing superior

decision support tools and providing strategies that both protect the environment

while allowing aviation to grow. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency

has accepted, as a ‘‘Preferred Guideline,’’ the FAA model that assesses the air quality impacts of airport emission sources. This model incorporates enhancements resulting from a landmark aircraft plume study conducted last year. This work was

accomplished in coordination with the Department of Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation System Center, the University of Central Florida, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Further, the noise model developed

by the FAA, the Integrated Noise Model (INM), today has over 700 users in 42 countries and has become the de facto world standard in noise modeling.

The FAA’s collaboration with NASA spans across our R,E&D goals. We are working with our colleagues at NASA to make overall improvements to the NAS. In accordance with industry recommendations, the FAA’s Free Flight Program has deployed a number of surface and airspace management tools, developed jointly with

NASA, such as the Traffic Management Advisor and Surface Movement Advisor,

which help air traffic controllers and system users make the system more efficient

in the air and on the ground.

We believe in our complimentary working relationship with NASA and we are

proud of the accomplishments we have achieved together. Looking at the big picture

of aviation research, NASA focuses its efforts on developing technology with the potential for long- and short-term NAS improvement while FAA prepares the technology for introduction into the NAS. Indeed, we are collaborating with NASA,

DOD, and the Transportation Security Administration to assure a strong and vibrant NAS for future generations. As Administrator Blakey has said, we are developing ‘‘a shared national vision for the aviation system of the future and to coordinate our research activities with that in mind.’’

As I have described throughout my statement, our commitment to and success in

improving aviation safety and efficiency has involved extensive collaboration with

our partners the aviation community. One of our most valuable partnerships is that

with the Research, Engineering and Development Committee (REDAC). This group,

composed of representatives from government, industry, and academia, contributes

to FAA’s R,E&D by providing guidance on our ongoing work, reviewing our proposed

R&D investments, and evaluating our programs during execution. The REDAC provides this support through five standing committees—Air Traffic Services, Aircraft

Safety, Airports, Environment and Energy, and Human Factors—comprised of

REDAC members and additional topical experts from industry and academia.

With the support of our partners, the FAA can provide world leadership in the

conduct of high-priority research and the development of innovative technologies.

In conclusion, on behalf of Administrator Blakey, I would like to express the

FAA’s appreciation for the support we have received from this Subcommittee and

we look forward to working with you in addressing the many critical needs in aviation through the FAA’s R,E&D program. This concludes my prepared remarks. I

would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Congratulations on your first testimony before Congress. You came in with, actually, one minute to

spare, and you had props and everything like that. This guy has

got a future, I am telling you. And we are willing to support a

major increase in your budget. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.

21

Keegan. Our next witness is Dr. John Hansman, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. Doctor, you may proceed with

your testimony.

STATEMENT OF R. JOHN HANSMAN, JR., PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS; DIRECTOR, MIT INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. HANSMAN. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher. As you

noted, this is the 100th year of the Wright brothers, the anniversary of the Wright brothers. And the Wright brothers have always

been a hero to me in terms of the way that they conducted research. They, basically, discovered all of the fundamental technologies of aeronautics on their own, and this is just an example

of their work, where they went and looked at birds, they developed

the testing methods, they developed the quantitative data in order

to get to their work.

In terms of questions, very quickly, how relevant is the Federal

Aeronautics R&D to demands that the commercial and general

aviation users are expected to impose on the NAS? Relevant, but

inadequate. Are the R&D programs dedicated to ATM and associated funding levels sufficient? No. This is just a picture of the air

traffic density over the U.S. This is November 14. You can see the

heavy concentration in the U.S., and you can see the structure, and

the system was saturating due to the growth in air travel before

September 11. There has been a recession in air travel demand,

briefly, but it will recover. You can see these are fundamental

trends. You can see the delay data in the NAS. You have probably

seen this data before. It was growing, we were going into nonlinear

delays, particularly, in the summers before September 11. We

pulled back from the edge, but as soon as the economy recovers and

demand comes back, we are going to be there again. There is just

a limit of the capacity limit factors in our system, the airports, the

airspace, the demand structure, and the environmental limits that

Jerry mentioned.

Question 2: How do NASA and FAA Aeronautics R&D Portfolio

distinguish themselves from foreign competitors? It is difficult to

say very quickly. There are differences in national research strategies. You also have to note that in many developing nations, aerospace is looked at as a leveraging technology for job and skill development, so it is perceived as a national investment. Generally,

more support of national industries directly. We can talk if you

have questions about specific things. I will point to airframes in a

minute or two.

Question 3: This is, you know, my parochial view that how the

university-based researchers dealt with the funding shifts. In my

view, my professional history, we have seen a shift from fundamental research to program based research, for good reasons but

it has had some adverse consequences. We see these episodic programs. There is some challenge where we are going to solve the

problem in three years and, you know, get there, and a focus on

sort of large program centers of excellence. Grants are now seen by

the agencies as welfare instead of high risk-high payoff research,

so grants is almost a four-letter word in some places. The univerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
22

sities and agencies, and we will take some hit on this, too, in the

aerospace domain, have been slow to move their intellectual focus

to the future needs. Now, I will just add an anecdote. When we did

a strategic plan in our department 10 years ago, we realized 50

percent of our faculty were aerodynamicists. Aerodynamics is an

important technology but it is not the technology that is going to

pace the future vehicle, so we started the shift, and we need to do

that.

I would also note that it is very difficult for junior faculty and

students to break into the research program. As you know, we are

talking about the 2004–2005 budget here. The planning cycles for

research are longer than the career of a student. It is very hard

for someone to have an innovative new idea and break it into the

system because we can’t tell you what the innovative new ideas are

going to be in 2004 today. So we need to think about that, and it

tends to suppress what I think our young people are most creative

groups. So I really commend a sort of shift back there.

Question 4: Are we at risk? This is just an example I will give

you. This is the growth in regional jets. This is registered data in

the U.S. You will see this is the fastest growing component of the

aerospace industry in the U.S. in terms of counts. None of these

airplanes are produced in the U.S. Okay? This is just a——

Chairman ROHRABACHER. What kind of jets are...

Dr. HANSMAN. Regional jets. They are jets 60 to 70 seat and

smaller scale. So these are the Embraer, the Canadair Challengers,

and there are some British Aerospace airplanes in there. If you

look, this is just data from December 19. On that date, this is the

non-U.S. produced commercial jet traffic over flights in the U.S.

They were 37 percent of the overflights.

One other thing I just need to say, it is very important to understand how our research components, both in terms of vehicle capacity and air traffic capacity, influence our air transportation system

and also influence the economy. It turns out nobody really understands—the economists don’t understand what we would call the

economic enabling effects, which are how does the air transportation system support the health and well being of the economy. I

will stop there.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. JOHN HANSMAN, JR.

Chairman Rohrabacher and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the federal investment strategy in

aeronautics research. This year we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the success of one of the greatest research programs in human history. I have always been

awed by the Wright Brothers and their fundamental and systematic approach to

discovery as well as how they addressed the key barriers to their vision of powered

flight.

For most of the past century, the U.S. has led the world in ‘‘pushing the edge of

the aeronautics envelope’’ based, in part, on a strong national aeronautics research

strategy. This has resulted in a vibrant aerospace industry and an unsurpassed air

transportation system which has contributed materially to the Nation’s economic development, geographic structure and quality of life.

There are, however, indications that the U.S. preeminence in aerospace has declined. In part this is due to increased investment and capability in other countries

which see aeronautics as a critical leveraging technology area. This can be positive

if we work towards mutual goals of safety, efficiency, environmental impact and capability. More disturbing, however, is the perception that the U.S. has not kept pace

23

and is under-invested in fundamental and high risk research to develop the disciplines and people to shape aeronautics in the future.

I will comment below on the specific questions which you have asked me to address.

How relevant is federal aeronautics R&D conducted by NASA and FAA to

the demands that commercial and general aviation users are expected to

impose on our National Airspace System in the future? Are R&D programs

dedicated to air traffic management—and associated funding levels in the

proposed FAA and NASA budgets—sufficient to meet projected growth?

The NASA and FAA research programs dedicated to the National Airspace System (NAS) are clearly relevant but also clearly inadequate to meet the expected demand.

Due to resource limitations and urgent short-term needs, the current national research portfolio generally focuses on localized improvements to the current operating paradigm based on existing technologies. While these are important in the

short-term they will only achieve a marginal gains and will not meet the long-term

demand in air traffic growth.

The current system is on the edge of a capacity crisis as seen by the delay experience of 2000 and 2001 (Fig. 1). When the economy strengthens the pre-September

11, 2001 growth pattern will re-emerge (Fig 2) and the performance of the National

Airspace System will degrade.

24

It should be noted that meeting the future demand is an extraordinary challenge.

The National Airspace System (NAS) is an extremely complex dynamic system

which has evolved over the past 60 years. It must operate safely on a 24/7 basis.

The simplest mechanism to improve system capacity is to increase airport capacity

(i.e., runways and gates) at critical locations. However these are exactly the locations where local communities oppose airport expansion due to noise, traffic and environmental impact. The trend is to maximize utilization of existing facilities and

to use regional airport systems. This tends to increase pressure on the airspace system.

We have historically had a very poor record at making paradigm shifting changes

that the system will require due to the complex competing interested of the many

stakeholders in the system. While we have been doing research on the technologies,

it is not clear we have done sufficient research on the processes of system transition

or on the work which would support difficult decisions to compel changes which

would have long-term benefit to the public. In addition we need a stronger base research program in fundamental aspects of Air Traffic Management.

We need a stronger national commitment to the long-term evolution of the NAS

with the appropriate funding levels and coordination between the various agencies

involved. This commitment must recognize the long time constants (10–20 years) required to effect change in the NAS.

As to funding levels, the FAA and NASA research budgets for National Airspace

Systems efforts have been level or declining for the past 5 years. This does not seem

adequate in a period of increasing awareness of the emerging limitations of the

NAS.

How do the NASA and FAA aeronautics research portfolios distinguish

themselves from R&D conducted by our foreign competitors?

It is difficult to make general statements since there are so many technical aspects and styles in the various national research programs. It appears that research

portfolios are driven by national agendas and technology investment strategies. It

is important to note that many countries, with less mature capabilities, view aeronautics as a key strategic area in technology, education and workforce development.

Where agendas are similar the portfolios overlap and we often collaborate. My impression is also that many foreign research programs are more comfortable directly

supporting national industries then we are in the U.S.

What technologies differentiate U.S. manufactured products from foreignproduced sources?

For purposes of this discussion I will simply cover; civil aircraft, avionics, propulsion, and complex information systems.

25

In the area of civil aircraft the technologies are quite similar with differences due

more to corporate strategy than technical capability. Several foreign competitors

(notably the Europe, Brazil and Canada) have been very successful in the U.S. market. Fig. 3 shows that Regional Jets produced in Brazil, Canada and Great Britain

have been the fastest growing segment of the U.S. civil aircraft fleet in recent years.

Fig. 4 shows the commercial jet flight trajectories on December 19, 2002 over the

U.S. with 37 percent of the flights being in foreign produced aircraft.

Part of the reason that international competitors have been able to successfully

compete in the civil aircraft market is due to national leveraging strategies, labor

costs and certification standards. Certification standards, instituted for safety reasons, tend to normalize out technical differences and make it difficult to hold a consistent technical advantage for those competitors who can meet the standard. Because much of the technical capability to produce mid to small size aircraft are accessible in developing countries aircraft production has been used as a leveraging

capability in several countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Israel. This trend will

continue and the low labor costs will make these aircraft attractive for some markets.

The U.S. does have a potential leadership position in the small 4–8 passenger jet

market with several interesting aircraft in development including the Eclipse and

Cessna Mustang. It is interesting that these efforts appear to be traceable to the

propulsion component of the NASA Advanced General Aviation Experiment.

I would note that the competitive domain is different for large Civil Air Transport

aircraft due to the very large capital investments required for aircraft development.

In this domain there are really only two competitors, Boeing and Airbus. The vulVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

nerability here is that if either were to exit the commercial aircraft business for any

reason then there would be a monopoly in this domain until some other producer

in the U.S. or abroad developed the capability.

Looking onboard the aircraft at the Avionics systems. U.S manufactured products

have a clear technical advantage over many foreign competitors. This is due, in part

to good systems engineering but also leveraging from military and space applications (e.g., GPS, estimation techniques, etc.) as well as leveraging from information

technology investments. I would note several adverse trends including the difficulty

of certifying new avionics systems, the closing of industrial research laboratories,

the weakening of the U.S. information technology sector and the growth in offshore

information technology capability in low labor cost developing regions such as India.

In the propulsion area there is general technical parity between the U.S. and Europe in large turbofan engines although there some European engines are reported

to have lower emissions, albeit lower reliability, than comparable U.S. engines. In

the turboprop and small turbofan domain the U.S. and Canada appear to have technical parity. It is, however, interesting that the new Eclipse and Mustang jets have

ended up selecting Canadian engines even though the conceptualization of this class

of aircraft was driven by expected U.S. engine development. In the piston engine

domain Japan and Germany have developed advanced engines for aircraft applications.

In complex information systems such as cockpit interfaces, Command and Control

systems, Air Traffic Control systems, Computer Reservation Systems, etc. the U.S.

appears to have the intellectual lead but often falls behind due to implementation

challenges.

How have university-based researchers dealt with funding and programmatic changes in federally-sponsored aeronautics research programs?

How is fundamental research faring in the current environment?

This can be better. The relationship between the federal research agencies in aeronautics and the university-based researchers is not as strong and effective as it

should be. There are both content and structural issues and the relationship must

be worked on from both sides.

First the content issues. Many of the university-based research organizations have

been slow to shift their intellectual focus and disciplines from their traditional expertise to those areas which will be critical for the future of aeronautics. This has

kept them out of many of the focused programmatic thrusts. In simplistic terms, the

key technical issues in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s when many of our university based

research organizations were developed are quite different from the key technical

issues for the future. I would note that both NASA and the FAA have similar challenges in intellectual renewal.

As an example, in my own department we had a strategic planning exercise over

a decade ago where we looked at the key technical issues for the future and at our

own core competency. At that time, almost half of the faculty in the Department

of Aeronautics & Astronautics at MIT had backgrounds in aerodynamics and fluid

mechanics which was totally out of balance with our assessment of key future technologies. Since that time we have reshaped our department to emphasize strategic

areas in information technology, automation, systems engineering, critical software

validation, materials, propulsion, and human factors while still maintaining capability in the more traditional aeronautics disciplines. It should be noted that, as a

relatively large faculty, we have more flexibility to diversify to forward looking areas

than smaller departments.

From the structural standpoint. There has been a significant shift over the past

decade away from small single investigator grants or contracts to large-scale episodic programs or multi-investigator centers of excellence. This has been driven, in

part, by a shift away from a core competency base research structure to a more

problem focused research structure as a mechanism to maintain research relevance

and the management efficiency of consolidating funding into larger blocks.

From the perspective of someone who advises junior faculty and bright doctoral

students I believe that these trends have made it difficult for universities to be effective and for our young people to get their innovative ideas funded. I also believe

that it has had the effect of reducing the technical engagement of the federal research personnel who must focus more of their energy on management and do not

have the time to work on technical aspects.

I would encourage NASA and the FAA to identify and develop key strategic core

competencies while re-establishing a strong network of small scale (single investigator-single student) university-based research collaborations. A small investment

in building core strategic competency in our agencies, our universities and our students will yield many near- and long-term dividends.

27

What are your views on the findings and conclusions contained in the

Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry? Do you believe our aerospace manufacturing capabilities

are at risk of a long and protracted retrenchment? What are your nearterm and far-term assessments on the ability of domestic aerospace manufacturers to successfully compete in international markets?

I agree with and support the findings in the commission report.

I believe that we do not fully appreciate the importance and dependence of air

transportation to economic health and quality of life both in the U.S. and throughout the world. Fig. 5 presents a simple conceptual model which we have been using

to understand to interaction between air transportation and economic development.

Traditional economic measures do not fully value the enabling effect of air transportation and we have a very weak understanding of the social impact. It should also

be noted that the role of air transportation is quite different in mature and developing economies.

I think that there is some chance of a protracted retrenchment in the aerospace

industry if we simply assume that our past capability will guarantee future success.

We must work to have the best products. It is important to note that the growth

market for aerospace is outside the U.S. and we need to put more effort into understanding the requirements of these markets.

I hope that the impact of the commission report will to strengthen our commitment to aerospace so we can strongly compete in the global market and to strengthen our resolve to contribute to global objectives such as improving the safety and

efficiency of flight operations, connecting economies and people and minimizing adverse environmental impacts worldwide.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. It is interesting

to note that an air traffic controller was able to get his testimony

out with one minute to spare, but it did take a Ph.D. talk 30 seconds longer.

Dr. HANSMAN. University professors, you turn them on and they

go for an hour.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Until the bell rings. Right? All right.

Our final witness today is Mr. Mac Armstrong, Senior Vice President of Operations and Safety for the Air Transport Association of

America. We welcome your testimony and hear what the industry

has to say about these things. You may proceed.

28

STATEMENT OF MALCOLM B. ARMSTRONG, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, AVIATION OPERATIONS AND SAFETY, AIR

TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

for inviting me. Our members fly 95 percent of all the passengers

and cargo in this country, and as you know, they are in perilous

financial condition. We have two major airlines, a number of smaller airlines, well over 20 percent of the industry in bankruptcy. And

over the last two years, passenger carriers have lost $18 billion.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Would you repeat those figures again

as soon as these buzzers stop buzzing so we can hear that, because

I think that is an important thing for us to know.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. A number of small airlines, two major airlines

are in bankruptcy, amounting to well over 20 percent of the industry. And over the last two years, passenger carriers have lost about

$18 billion, and recovery is not in sight. So we have been focused

on surviving today. It is pretty difficult to think much about R&D

in the future. Nonetheless, having said that, healthy R&D programs at NASA and FAA will be critical to ensuring that we can

cope with tomorrow. So in that regard, first, we have to address the

right issues. And second, we have to make sure that the funding

is there to achieve the results that we need.

As to the right issues, safety is our predominant goal, and I must

say that we are achieving spectacular success in that arena. Last

year, scheduled airlines achieved their best safety record since

1946. We had zero fatalities. So safety should remain a key focus

of R&D, just as it is the top priority of the airlines. Nevertheless,

we know that the air traffic delays of 2000 will return with a

vengeance if we don’t plan for the future, and that is why this

hearing today is important to us and your desire for action is important.

The FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan will add 30 percent to the

capacity of the current air traffic system, but that doesn’t keep

pace with the demand that is projected. The greatest proportion of

the improvements in the OEP appropriately at the airports, but we

in the FAA all know that we also need to improve the en route sections of the air traffic system beyond the current plans. FAA and

NASA need to be working now on the big ideas that will be in the

future, and that should be a broad based Government funded initiative to develop that next generation air traffic management system beyond the OEP. We believe it has to be highly automated,

where routes are as close to direct trajectory as possible, they avoid

weather, they automatically separate aircraft, and they seldom require intervention from the ground. Now, that is a tough challenge.

Equally important is equipment additions to airplanes, and as

you can imagine, having airlines spend money right now on that

is not in the cards. However, the Aerospace Commission recently

had a recommendation that the FAA should motivate operators to

equip through some form of Government funding or credits, and we

agree.

We are also concerned about decreasing funding in aeronautics

R&D and NASA. Aeronautics now represents only five percent of

NASA’s overall budget, and NASA has a history of cutting aeronautics programs to cover space program overruns. Such fund diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

version is a tremendous threat to aviation R&D, and without that,

we are unlikely to develop the next generation of airplanes, thereby, threatening the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation sector. The European Union has already stated their intent to seek

world leadership in aviation, and they have committed the R&D

funds to do so.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we need your help in providing NASA

and FAA with a sense of priority and the resources to begin working immediately on the next generation air traffic management system, to help FAA find ways to fund airborne equipment, and to be

good stewards of the environment, and to see that NASA and FAA

have the means to help ensure that the United States remains the

world leader in aeronautics. I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MALCOLM B. ARMSTRONG

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mac Armstrong and I am Senior Vice

President of Operations and Safety for the Air Transport Association of America

(ATA). ATA represents the airlines that fly 95 percent of all passengers and cargo

in the U.S. I thank you for inviting me here today to discuss NASA and FAA aeronautics research and development investments.

The airlines are in perilous financial condition. Immediately following 9/11, Congress issued grants of $5 billion, for which we are truly grateful. But, that $5 billion

only offset losses from the four-day shutdown and re-start of the industry during

the month of September 2001. Since then, multiple small airlines and two major airlines, representing more than twenty percent of the industry, have declared bankruptcy. Over the last two years, passenger carriers have lost about $18 billion. They

are borrowing just to operate. Industry debt now exceeds $100 billion, while the passenger carrier’s $15 billion total market capitalization continues to decline. Their

ability to borrow to support continuing losses is evaporating. The few airlines that

have been able to achieve a profit see razor thin margins—and with the prospect

of war on the horizon, the overall picture is bleak.

The reasons for the imperiled condition of the industry are clear. Revenue was

already soft in 2001 from a weak economy. It further declined sharply following the

9/11 attacks on America. And demand is now still further suppressed by concerns

for an impending war with Iraq. Although airlines have embarked on an unprecedented program of self-help to address this ‘‘perfect storm’’ of adversity, stubbornly

high fuel prices and escalating security and insurance costs, have been added to the

mix with devastating effect.

The industry has already achieved annual savings of over $10 billion in capital

and operating expenses, and efforts are well underway to remove billions more in

costs. Airlines have cut unprofitable routes, parked hundreds of airplanes and laid

off nearly 100,000 people. But the ‘‘perfect economic storm’’ plus skyrocketing costs

for fuel, security, and insurance are proving beyond our ability to battle alone.

Analysts predict the industry will lose another $4 to 6 billion this year, meaning

that airlines are on target to lose some $25 billion over the three years 2001 to

2003. Given this dismal backdrop, it has been difficult for the industry to focus on

aeronautics research programs that might yield benefits in five years or more in the

future. We have understandably been focused on surviving today!

Having said that—while we must focus on survival today, maintaining and augmenting the R&D programs will be critical to ensuring that there will be a tomorrow. And that is where I will focus the remainder of my remarks—on key things

we must do to ensure a robust aviation R&D program here in the U.S.

First, we must address the right issues in the smartest ways possible. Second, we

must make sure the funding is there to achieve the results we need.

I turn first to the right issues. Of course, safety remains our predominant goal—

and we are achieving spectacular success. Last year, scheduled airlines achieved

their lowest number of accidents since we became a major industry after World War

II, and we had ZERO fatalities! Safety should remain a key focus of R&D, just as

it always is the top priority for the airlines in their operations.

Nevertheless, we know that the air traffic delays of 1999 and 2000 will return

with a vengeance if we do nothing to plan for the future. That is why today’s hearing and the interest of the Committee in taking action are so important.

30

The FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan is an important step in increasing capacity

in the ATC system. The Plan will only add 30 percent improvement in capacity by

2012, while the number of flights are predicted to increase by 50 percent. The greatest proportion of these improvements will be at airports, with little capacity being

added to en route airspace. Both we, and the FAA, know that work must be done

to improve the en route segment of the ATC Operation beyond current plans.

FAA and NASA need to begin work now on the next BIG idea—a broad-based,

government funded initiative beyond the OEP to deal with predicted traffic increases beyond 2010.

Today, the U.S. ATC system is human centered and human constrained. FAA has

been augmenting controller tasks with new tools, but they provide only incremental

improvement. These tools are NOT enough to cope with predicted traffic.

What we believe must be done is to develop a system that is HIGHLY automated

where routes are assigned that: are as close to direct trajectory as possible, avoid

weather, automatically separate aircraft, and seldom require intervention from the

ground.

A human intensive ATC system, coping with increasing traffic demands, that relies on a continuing subdivision of airspace (as we do today), requiring additional

controllers, will, or may have already reached a point of diminishing returns.

Something must be done now!

Equally important is equipage, such as data link additions, which will be necessary by airlines to gain certain capacity benefits. As you can imagine, having airlines spend enormous amounts of money for avionics, given our current plight, is

not likely to happen.

The President’s Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry recently made a recommendation that addresses this problem. They said that airborne

equipment needed for safe, secure, and efficient system-wide operations should be

deemed part of the national aviation infrastructure, and FAA should be encouraged

to support and motivate operator equipage by any of the following: full federal funding for system-critical airborne equipment, partial funding (through some form of

voucher or tax incentives), or auctioned investment credits.

We suggest that the FAA fully examine these alternatives with airspace users to

determine viable methods to achieve needed airborne equipage.

With regard to the proposed joint program office linking FAA, NASA, DOD and

Homeland Security, we know very few details, but we are concerned with what we

do know. Certainly the notion of sharing technology and research to improve National Airspace System (NAS) capacity is a goal worthy of the combined efforts and

resources of those agencies. But, a process that does not involve the user of the system will not succeed. We are concerned that there is no formal coordination with

Airspace users about NASA activities dealing with future improvements to the

FAA’s Air Traffic Management system. Since NASA appears to be responsible for

more and more of the FAA air traffic capacity research, this has become an important issue for us.

While getting the right issues into focus is a serious challenge, ensuring adequate

funding to do the job is equally important. We are greatly concerned about decreasing levels of funding dedicated to aeronautics R&D. As you know, the NASA budget

includes R&D funding for both aeronautics and space. However, in recent years, the

space related projects have taken priority.

In fact, aeronautics represents only about 5 percent of NASA’s budget, and NASA

has a history of cutting from its aeronautics programs to cover space program overruns. Such fund diversion is a tremendous threat to aviation R&D—programs that

are critical to the next generation of aircraft.

I do not mean to suggest that the space program is not important. It is. But, we

must not shortchange the future of aircraft innovation as we look farther and farther into space. The NASA and FAA aeronautics R&D programs should be restored

to full funding and funding increases should be also be considered.

An example of a ‘‘right’’ issue that is under-funded is the R&D budget for environmental innovation in noise and emissions. Although budget requests for FY04 have

been increased for NASA’s Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program to reduce emissions, and the Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) program to reduce noise,

actual budget authority for these two programs has been less than half of what has

been needed over the past few years. These diminished funds result in diminished

opportunities to make significant advances in noise and emissions technology. As

you know, R&D funds are used by NASA and its partners to fund the earliest stages

of noise and emissions technology development. Once such technology is developed

to a certain Technology Readiness Level, industry funding has been used to further

test and develop the most promising technologies. It was this public/private partnership, and a significant NASA investment in the 1980s Energy Efficient Engine proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
31

gram, that developed the base technology in today’s modern engines. Without a

similar level of investment in R&D funding and support from NASA and FAA, it

is unlikely that we will develop a new generation of aircraft that are significantly

quieter and more environmentally friendly. Such a possibility is all the more sobering given the instability of fuel prices and growing concerns about the impact of

aviation on the environment.

Further, we must be concerned about the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation sector. Cuts in NASA and FAA R&D budgets in the U.S. have been met with

increases in the R&D budgets of our competitors. Indeed, while we have been cutting funds from our aeronautics R&D budgets, the European Union has stated their

intent to seek world leadership in aviation—and they have committed the R&D

funds to do so.

In closing Mr. Chairman, we need your help in providing NASA and FAA with

the sense of priority and the resources to begin work immediately on the Air Traffic

Management system of the future, to help FAA find ways to fund airborne equipment, and to see that NASA and FAA have the means to help ensure that the

United States remains the world leader in aeronautics. I will be happy to answer

your questions.

DISCUSSION

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much for that input.

While I get this cough out of my throat, I am going to ask Curt

Weldon if he could start the questions.

Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first of all congratulate you. As a member of the steering committee, I was in

when a request came in as to whether or not you should be the

Chair of this committee, and you know, without any hesitation, it

was unanimous on our side that we needed you in this spot, and

you have done a commendable job. You have an interest that is

outstanding, and with our very capable Ranking Member, we feel

very confident that this subcommittee is a very important subcommittee this session, and will play a leadership role. So I want

to applaud you, personally, for your effort.

ROTORCRAFT R&D AT NASA

Mr. Chairman, I come this morning confused and a little bit

upset. You know, in a previous capacity, I chaired the Defense

R&D Subcommittee for six years, where my job was to oversee

about $38 billion a year of defense R&D spending, much of it done

in collaboration with other agencies. And during that entire time,

I have also sat on this committee, where we oversee over $40 billion of non-defense R&D spending. And our job is to put money on

the table into the agencies that can develop the cutting edge technology for the future, and where possible, support the efforts that

our military is doing. But in the end, also focus on benefits to the

civilian community.

NASA, as I understand it, has the responsibility not just for

space, which I have been a total 1,000 percent supporter of in all

their budget requests and operations, and in fact, I think Sean

O’Keefe is the right guy to be heading NASA right now. But if I

am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, does not NASA also have the responsibility for rotorcraft research? Is that correct?

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Aeronautics.

Mr. WELDON. NASA has responsibility—and let me just say for

the record, I now chair a major procurement part of defense budgets for the Congress. One of our largest areas of spending money

32

for the military is in rotorcraft. The two newest programs that we

are developing, one for the Army and for Marines and Special

Forces Command are the Comanche and the V–22. They are sucking up billions of dollars a year of our defense budget—billions of

dollars. Special Forces Command thinks that these aircraft will

revolutionize the way they do their job, and our Marines have consistently held the V–22 is their key technology for the future. In

spite of two accidents we had, one caused by a software glitch and

the other by a lack of fully understanding the impact of vortex ring

state on the training of our pilots, we are over that. In fact, Pete

Aldrich just said when he visited the program, he is confident that

we are now ready to move forward. We are into producing over— we have produced over 50 aircraft already and that program is now

back in testing for a final decision this year.

Rotorcraft offers tremendous advantages for us from the standpoint of civilian transportation. In fact, we have had studies that

show that with the terrible problems of noise, and the problems of

the inability to grow our airports, rotorcraft technology could be a

great way to solve those challenges. And in fact, coming from the

mid Atlantic region, I can tell you it is very difficult to expand existing airports to take care of bigger and bigger jets, which pose additional problems both in terms of landing them, taking them off,

and dealing with the problems of neighbors.

Rotorcraft is being seen around the world as a major growth

area. In fact, Eurocopter and companies like Augusta are doing

very well, while our industrial base in this country shrinks, and

shrinks, and shrinks. The American Helicopter Society, headed by

Rhett Flater, it said they are in dire straits, as we once had four

major manufacturers, now have three, and we will probably end up

with two. So again, we are seeing perhaps that technology go offshore.

Now, does this mean there is no more research? Well, I have

talked to all the experts. I talked to the provost at Penn State,

where they have an excellent rotorcraft engineering program. I

have talked to the dean of University of Maryland, where they

have one of the best rotorcraft engineering programs in the country, and I have talked to the president and provost of Georgia Tech,

and they all said the same thing—Congressman, there is tremendous opportunities for us to do research in rotorcraft, tremendous.

We can help the military because we can build pilotless aircraft

that are rotorcraft in nature that can help us solve problems, but

they also can support us in the whole issue of Homeland Security.

And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee—in fact,

we have already discussed the idea of perhaps rotorcraft helping us

not on the defense side, but helping us in terms of the civilian aspects of maintaining our quality of life, whether it be for surveillance, or whether it be for the Coast Guard missions of environmental monitoring, or other issues, domestically, or over in search

and rescue, whatever they would be; but not defense strategies or

not defense needs.

So I say all of these things, and then I ask the question, Dr.

Creedon, how much did you request for rotorcraft research in the

2003 and 2004 budgets?

Dr. CREEDON. In the——

33

Mr. WELDON. How much?

Dr. CREEDON. In 2003 budget, the original request was for zero,

however.

Mr. WELDON. No. I asked a question. The 2004 budget, how

much?

Dr. CREEDON. The 2004 budget, the request as it now stands is in that budget is $15 million.

Mr. WELDON. Did the staff give me bad information? I was told

it was—we have a disagreement here, so let me ask the staff. How

much do you understand is in the budget for 2004? Do you not

have your facts together or are you misquoting what your request

is? Staff tells us you are requesting 2003 and 2004, zero. How

much is it?

Dr. CREEDON. Our request in 2003 was zero. Our request in 2004 has contained in that request $15 million, but the staff is not misleading you. It is in our Vehicle Systems Program and is not specifically identified as rotorcraft, so that is probably why you are

getting that information from staff.

Mr. WELDON. Do you concur with that? You have to. Well, let me

tell you something, Doctor. Maybe you have some adequate justification, but I am going to tell you, as one member of this committee—and I am not just speaking for myself, you will hear this

from other Members, a supporter of NASA—you better do some explaining for us about where your priorities are. If you don’t want

the responsibility for rotorcraft research, say so on the record and

we will take it away from you. But NASA is not going to play

games with this industrial base. We have tremendous technology

opportunities and your mission is not just in terms of space. There

are other aeronautics research needs that this nation has. Our

rotorcraft industry, consistently, our academic community, consistently, has said there are opportunities where they can provide new

cutting edge research, yet, you have requested zero dollars. Why?

Dr. CREEDON. If you would like me to try to answer that, I would

be happy to.

Mr. WELDON. I would absolutely like you to try to.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. We will hear the answer and then we

have to move on to the next question.

Dr. CREEDON. Okay, fine. One of the things that the administrator has definitely tried to instill throughout the agency is that

our budgets are responsible and credible. Specifically, when we propose to do something, we have adequately addressed what the

budget needs of that item would be. There are difficult choices that

one needs to make when one is putting together any budget. I have

explained in my written and oral testimony that we have taken

within the runout budget that we have and tried to start a number

of things that we thought were important and vital to the country.

I have mentioned security, I have mentioned the national airspace

system needs, I mentioned the noise. When you do these things

within a fixed budget, there are difficult choices that must be

made. And we made the choice to discontinue in 2003 the rotorcraft

funding, however, we have had the occasion—I have talked to Mr.

Flater himself and many others to reconsider that judgment. And

in fact, in both Fiscal Year 2003 and in Fiscal Year 2004, in discussions that I have had with Dr. Michael Andrews, I believe one of

34

his titles is Chief Scientist of the Army. We have agreed to put

aside $15 million in both of those years, even though our original

request for 2003 was zero. They are going to put in at least a

matching amount, and we will be working together on some of

these high priority research activities that you discussed.

Mr. WELDON. Just a quick follow-up.

Dr. CREEDON. I should add one thing. It is not our desire to have

the responsibility for rotorcraft research to be removed from NASA.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Mr. Weldon, one very quick.

Mr. WELDON. I would just say, well, your actions don’t reflect

that statement that you just made, and I am going to hold you accountable. But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I invite you and the

other members to come to a hearing next week on March the 12th,

where the leading rotorcraft leaders of the country will come in and

testify before my Committee, and we will ask them the same question, and Dr. Creedon, we will see what their response is. $15 million from the Army is a pittance compared to what we are spending

in our defense budget, and I am ashamed that you at NASA, and

Sean O’Keefe at NASA, have not seen fit for one of the key technology growth areas for this nation and the world, and you have

said you don’t have enough money to put anything in the budget.

Only as a second thought have you decided that perhaps maybe

you can find $15 million. Maybe we should take it out of the operation of your budget that you, yourself, handle with your staff. In

the end, perhaps I would feel more comfortable with that.

Dr. CREEDON. Just two quick things. That is where we are taking

the money from.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Let me note that it is the policy of this

Chairman always to allow the witness to have the last word in

these type of exchanges, whether it is with the Chairman or any

other member. So Dr. Creedon, you may have the last word on this.

Dr. CREEDON. Well, I just want—the money did come out of the

budget that I am responsible for, the money we are putting in, and

perhaps I misspoke. I said we are putting in $15 million; the Army

will be putting in more than that amount.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Dr. Creedon.

Let me note that it is this type of creative tension—let me describe

it as creative tension—between the legislative branch and the executive branch that helps us make the right decisions in a democratic

society, and we are very happy to have people who both have expertise and passion about what they believe in on both sides. So

thank you very much, both of you, for that exchange. It was necessary.

Now we turn to—and was that a vote, by the way? Okay. We

now turn to Mr. Wu because Bart Gordon is not here yet.

CONSTRAINTS IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a couple of questions with perhaps slightly less creative tension involved. Dr.

Hansman, you put up a slide that seemed to show that gates, runways, utilization of airspace, that those are a chokepoint phenomena for more efficient use at higher capacity for our national

air transport system. And looking past this period of pain for both

passengers and airlines to, hopefully, a more prosperous future

35

where there is much fuller utilization, I would invite you, Dr.

Hansman, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Keegan, to address the issue of

which of those do you think are the real gating phenomena, pardon

the term, or the tightest chokepoints, and are there others that you

would try to address in order to create more capacity, which I am

confident we will need in the future?

Dr. HANSMAN. Let me start. I am sure Charlie will have something, but the number one constraint in the U.S. right now, when

it reemerges, will, in fact, be runways. We have a finite safe limit

on what we can do in operating runways and where people want

to go turns out to be centralized. So if you looked at the data—actually, it is interesting. The delay data in 2000, you will notice that

it went up in the summer, didn’t come down in the fall. That was

due to a single airport, LaGuardia, being scheduled way past its capacity, and it is such a nonlinear system that the delays propagated through the system. So that is number one, and we are working on it. Unfortunately, the OEP, while it is a great plan, isn’t

adding runway capacity in some of the key places because of the

environmental and other constraints that come in the system.

Number two will be airspace, and in fact, we think that the airspace will emerge as a greater problem because the traffic will tend

to divert to other airports, so you will get airspace. But let me just

close and say that the fundamental problem is our current operating paradigm has limits so we can’t control traffic the way we

currently do and get more than—we can argue about it, but something like a factor of two increase in capacity and key points in the

system. So we will be constrained by that and the cost will go up,

so we really have to look forward, way in the future, to come up

with operating paradigms and figure out ways to transition.

Mr. WU. Mr. Armstrong, I want to give you a chance to comment,

if you wish, but before I do that, Dr. Hansman, could you further

explain—you just mentioned this operating paradigm that gives us

a problem. I would like you to unpack that for us a little bit.

EN ROUTE SECTORS

Dr. HANSMAN. One way you can look at it now is we provide

great service, air traffic service, today to aircraft, but it is, essentially, a very labor intensive hand carrying product. So every aircraft that is flown is being looked at by a number of people. And

the fundamental problem on expanding the system is one controller

has a limit, and depending on the type of airspace, it may be 15

or 20 airplanes. The way we deal with the limit is if it gets to be

too much traffic, we cut the sector. Okay. But you can’t do that forever because there are interface costs. I have to hand the airplanes

off. So at some point, you get to diminishing returns, and you fundamentally can’t expand the system that way. You have to look at

a different way of doing it. I don’t know if that was clear.

Mr. WU. Okay . Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, sir. We would agree with everything that Dr. Hansman has said. The difficulties, or the limitations, rather, are runways at airports, and the en route system.

The good news is that the Operational Evolution Plan does have

a number of runways in it. We support those that are there. We

don’t have all the ones that we would like, but environmental limiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

tations prevent that, though, we strongly support the ones that are

in there. Because of that 30 percent capacity increase that I talked

about, 70 percent of that comes from runway construction, as a

matter of fact, new runways. And so that is a good part of that

plan, but as Dr. Hansman has indicated, the en route sector is already going to begin to limit us as soon as we begin to expand back

in the demand at all, and that needs to be more highly automated

so that those controllers can handle more space, more airplanes

with the same—— Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. I apologize for cutting you

off, but I just want to add one more comment based on the comments that you and Dr. Hansman made about additional runway

capacity. And that is, whether it is here in Washington, where

Chairman Rohrabacher and I share one block not too far from here,

we can hear the roar of National Airport, or at home in Oregon,

where I happen to live on a hill, and when I hold town meetings

in my own neighborhood, there is always some discussion of airline

noise. I would commend to you gentlemen that we do aggressive research on quieter engine technology so that as we build this capacity both in the air and on the runways, that none of us have to face

a more hostile public as a result of engine noise. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you. The Chairman will now

take my five minutes, seeing I have cleared my throat here. Let me

note that the roar in my apartment comes from the subway, which

is right below us, too.

Mr. WU. We get it from above and below.

RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION

Chairman ROHRABACHER. So we are getting it from both directions there. And I would note that Mr. Keegan did mention that

there has been a lot of research on noise from airplanes, which I

think is very commendable, and I think that you bringing up the

subject is important. I would like to note that when you talk about

airport runway space, I mean, people are not willing to permit people to build anymore runways or to build anymore airports it

seems. The NIMBY factor in the United States is almost beyond

belief now. I mean, you know, just to heck with the rest of the

world, to heck with the rest of the country, nobody is going to build

anything near my house, you know, not in my backyard. The not

in my backyard syndrome has actually been replaced in California

with the banana syndrome, which is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody.

And so we are not going to be getting, I don’t believe, more runway space, although I back—I would be supportive of trying to get

new airports and runway space, but I have been beaten back in our

own area. El Toro has $2 billion worth of runway infrastructure

and airport infrastructure, and yet, the people in my county were

able to thwart that because of fear of noise, I might add, which was

the basic worry. So perhaps the future does lie in a new type of

aviation.

Curt is talking about the V–22 with the possibility of going up

and down. Let me note that that is one technology that would permit us a lot more flexibility in dealing with this issue. Dr. Creedon

37

knows there is another—there are several other alternatives of

vertical takeoff and landing to the V–22 that are also under development and could well work out. The V–22 might work out, these

other technologies might work out. So perhaps vertical takeoff and

vertical landing will help us with some of the problems, distribution and changing our system, so that we can take up the slack

from an increasing demand.

AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS

Just a thought here, I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Keegan—

I highly commend you, as Mr. Wu has commended you for the research on noise, I would also commend you for the research done

on pollution as a factor. In the Los Angeles basin, I have to believe

that because, again, they focus so much of the takeoff and landing

on LAX, rather than distributing that, which the public in Orange

County wouldn’t permit them to do that, but that means there is

an air pollution problem and that we are ending up putting the

people in LA County, their health, at great risk. And I think that

it is very commendable. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about

that, you say that you are trying to take lead out of fuel, but didn’t

that screw up the engines in our cars?

Mr. KEEGAN. Being in aviation, I am not going to speak to the

car part, but we are trying to make sure that unleaded gas in general aviation aircraft is extremely safe. So that is our first and foremost concern. We are quite proud of our community that is dealing

with emissions activities and modeling. They have what has been

recognized as a world premiere computer modeling that can determine where the pollution is and how we sort of can contain that

in arrival routes and on the ground.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Do you have studies of how much air

pollution is caused by aviation?

Mr. KEEGAN. GAO had just completed a study. I believe it is in

draft, but what it says is that aviation contributes one-half of one

percent to all the pollutants, and it is an extremely low figure, but

we are still addressing the issue of our aircraft and where that

comes from. The work that——

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And working on whether or not those

pollutants might be more dangerous than some of the pollutants

coming from elsewhere?

Mr. KEEGAN. Correct, and where they distribute from, and at

what particular altitude. And one of the things that we are also

working on is the ground equipment and their contribution to the

emissions around and at the airport itself, and how they move with

wind and the movement of the aircraft. So we have a very strong

effort in that area, particularly, in 2004, to move forward and use

where we think we have tremendous world leadership and try to

drive standards and regulations home from where we think we are

the experts.

AERONAUTICS RESEARCH PROJECTS AT FAA & NASA

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Mr. Armstrong, do you think

that the cooperation that private business, that our businessmen

who run the major airlines are getting from the FAA and from

38

NASA in terms of research development, is that cooperation as— well, how would you rate it—A, B, C, D?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am not sure I would want to put a grade on

it, but I will give you some examples of some successes that we

have had—— Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right.

Mr. ARMSTRONG [continuing]. Which highlight why it is important that we continue this research and development. With respect

to noise, in 1975, we had seven million people in America who were

exposed around airports to noise levels of 65 decibels or greater.

That number today is down to 600,000, which is spectacular.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Would you repeat that figure again for

me?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. In 1975, it was seven million; today, it is

600,000, and that is a direct benefit from the engine research—— Chairman ROHRABACHER. Wow, that is tremendous.

Mr. ARMSTRONG [continuing]. That was done at NASA, and then

it extended into industry in the 1970’s and 1980’s so that engines

today are much quieter than they were then and we are getting

payoff from that.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And you see how much worse it would

be if we wouldn’t have had that research.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I might also add that there is a bill that has

been introduced by Senators Allen and Dodd and Congressman

Larson that is to help maintain leadership in research and development to help us continue to reduce noise levels, make the engine

more efficient, and to reduce pollutants from the engines, and we

strongly support that.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And now, if we can do something to

turn something into money for the airlines as well, that might help

out. Let me just note that I think NASA—now, we depend a lot on

NASA’s research, and there is a question about whether or not, you

know, how we make our decisions of what the priority is, aeronautics or space. Dr. Creedon, maybe you can talk a little bit about

that, where your priorities are and how you make that decision,

what direction the money is going to go to in terms of research?

RESEARCH PRIORITIZATION AT NASA

Dr. CREEDON. In the recent past, in the aerospace technology enterprise within NASA, the budget came as an enterprise budget.

And we went through what we felt was a good process, involving

external input as well as our own deliberative processes, to try to

determine how much of the money went to aeronautics and how

much of the money went to supporting space science or even space

transportation items. In the 2004 budget, for the first time in a

long while, aeronautics is its own budget line item, and that will

assist us in the future in determining how much money goes into

aeronautics, and all of the money that is in that budget line item

will be directed toward aeronautics research activities, such as we

were talking about emissions just before. One of the things that we

are doing in the aeronautics budget is we have just completed tests

at the Glenn Research Center on a new engine type that has already demonstrated it can reduce nitrous oxides by 50 percent and

we are well on our way to achieving a 70 percent overall goal. So

39

my answer is, in the past, we had an enterprise budget, and we

tried to do the best job we could both with internal and external

inputs and discussion on dividing it between aeronautics and other

activities. Now and in the future, aeronautics is its own budget line

item so we can discuss it as a budget line item.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you. We will be paying attention to that bottom line. Let me note that NASA and the Defense Department have demonstrated a keen interest in unmanned

aerial vehicles, and remote control, and these type of things that

perhaps in the future we may be more heavily involved in. And I,

personally, would suggest that NASA take a look at that and become perhaps more focused on remote control research, because

that may be something in the future, along with the Department

of Defense, would be very important to our competitiveness.

Is that a vote or is that not a vote?

So with that said, we now go to Mr. Larson from Connecticut.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also echo the

sentiments that were expressed earlier by Mr. Weldon and congratulate you on your chairing of this committee. Let me also associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Weldon, and I would seek

unanimous consent to—because I have far more questions than I

know I am going to be able to answer to—submit those in writing

to the Committee so that they could be answered by Dr. Creedon

and——

Chairman ROHRABACHER. With no objection, that, and also, every

Member will have the right to submit whatever questions he or she

does not get answered today will be submitted to the witnesses.

Mr. LARSON. I want to thank Mr. Armstrong, as well, for mentioning the bill that has been introduced in the Senate by Senator

Dodd and Senator Allen, and I also want to commend my colleagues here in the house, most notably, Mr. Forbes and Mr.

Weldon, who have a very keen interest in this R&D legislation and

have been spearheading this as well. And I would like to submit

that to NASA for your perusal and, hopefully, you can find a way

to come on board.

AERONAUTICS R&D BUDGET

What is troubling to me, and we had Administrator O’Keefe in

here last week, is that we continue to look at a reduction in the

aeronautics budget. It seems to me that the mission of NASA is

aeronautics. And though I am incredibly supportive of the space

program, as Mr. Weldon has pointed out, you place us in a situation by orphaning the aeronautical aspects of NASA’s commitment

to making funding decisions that detract from the space program,

and at a time of crisis, especially, this seems very unfortunate.

However, this committee has seen fit to go abroad and do research

and meet and discuss the aeronautical challenges that we face

around the globe. We know that the European Union is focused on

something they call Vision 20/20, where they are out to take this

market away from us. And when we look at our own troubled airline industry here, and the testimony that was made by Dr.

Hansman, it just seems appalling for us that NASA seems not even

to care or focus on this issue while a unified European Union is

eating our lunch every single day. This is definitely an area that

40

calls out for your commitment. The job losses that are taking place,

the highly skilled, highly trained, critical mass of people in the

aerospace industry that are dwindling on the vine as we cede industry to the Europeans is a travesty of mammoth proportions that

this committee and NASA has got to address. What are your plans

for that?

Dr. CREEDON. First of all, I would like to say that it is not so,

that people in NASA do care deeply about the aviation and aeronautics community and in the research in that community.

Mr. LARSON. Well, let us say it is not reflected in your budget.

Dr. CREEDON. That is certainly so. In the budget a week ago, at

this very moment, Administrator O’Keefe answered a question

about the five percent decline that is projected in the aeronautics

budget, that that really should be looked upon as a baseline for the

2004 year, and he said that it did not reflect some of the things

that we were considering. And specifically, he mentioned things

that we are considering with the FAA in terms of a future generation air transportation system, and he said that he was hopeful

that the budget would show increases in the future. One of the

things that I would say about the bill, the Larson-Forbes bill, is

that NASA certainly shares the intent of the bill on the importance

of research and development to the future of aviation and we agree

that the areas in the bill are many of the right ones to focus on.

In the past, we have come up with an aeronautics blueprint for

the future, and I would say all of the things that are contained in

our blueprint are—all the things mentioned in the bill are also contained in our blueprint. And if, in fact, more money is available to

us, we will put them against what we think the goals of the aeronautics blueprint are, which are the same goals that are in your

bill.

Mr. LARSON. I would just like to reiterate what Mr. Weldon said.

If you don’t we will.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. It just didn’t sound as tough coming

from you as it did from Curt. I thank you for that. No one can quite

match up to Mr. Weldon’s veracity on these issues. Do you have

one last question? Okay. Thank you very much.

We now turn to a Member of the Committee who, actually, is

probably one of the best educated Members of Congress, who we

rely on not just for philosophy, like we all can talk about philosophy. This guy actually understands all these—the physics behind

all of these things. And so I now turn you over to Roscoe Bartlett.

TRENDS IN BASIC RESEARCH

Mr. BARTLETT. It would be nice if that were true, wouldn’t it,

that I understood all the physics involved? Dr. Hansman, you had

a visual that showed a shift from basic research to applications focused use of money and resources.

Dr. HANSMAN. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Under that, you noted that grants were now seen

as welfare instead of high risk payoff. You saw this shift for basic

research as good or bad?

Dr. HANSMAN. I think it is bad. I think—understand, I think the

motivation for this—in my experience the most effective and creative, a lot of the most effective and creative work, really comes

41

from unsolicited proposals, single investigator, you know, one faculty member working with a student type ideas. And there has

been a shift to these sort of very large scale problem driven programs, and I think those are important, but the portfolio appears

to have shifted too much to those programs and not enough to the

core research.

And one of the things I would just like to point out, the benefits

we have gotten in the noise is really the result of work that was

done 10–15 years ago as part of the core research and technology

programs within NASA. So if we are not investing in the future at

some level, we are going to have problems in the future, you know.

Mr. BARTLETT. In a former life, I was a scientist and spent a

number of years in basic research, and what many people didn’t

understand is that the very productive engineering applications of

today are the fruits of basic research of yesterday. And it is very

analogous, I think, to the farmer eating his seed corn. If he eats

his seed corn and doesn’t plant anything in the spring, he will harvest nothing in the fall. And we have had over the past several

years a rather dramatic decrease in basic research funding in our

country with a shift, just as you indicate on your slide to program

based—because when I came here, I was told that we were now

going to very wisely support basic research only where it had a societal payoff. And my question was how are you going to do that?

I doubt very seriously if Madam Curie had any notion of what the

societal applications would be of her early radiation research observations. The question then was, well, what do we then do? Of

course, the right answer is you commit an adequate amount of

money to support an adequate number of good scientists, and you

can be assured that there will be societal payoff. You have no idea

from which of those research activities there will be societal payoff,

and I am disturbed because we are spending too little of our money

on basic research and we have too little appreciation of what basic

research is and what it does.

Dr. HANSMAN. I would agree. And also, point to the last bullet

that I didn’t talk about, which is I think we need to think about

what are the strategic core competencies that we need to build in

the Nation, in our universities and our industries, and I will just

use one example. Mr. Weldon talked about the software problem in

the V–22. Software is an example, critical software of a core competency that we have to have in this country, and we are really not

adequate right now.

Mr. BARTLETT. We move much of that offshore. India is now

doing a great deal. Even for our military, India is now doing a

great deal of our programming. You mentioned that grants were

seen as welfare. How did that happen?

Dr. HANSMAN. This is my perception of the perception, so I would

just qualify that, which is a grant, because it is not directed, is

seen as something which isn’t controlled by the agencies.

Mr. BARTLETT. Is this because we don’t understand the importance of basic research?

Dr. HANSMAN. I think it is just a perception. I think a lot of it

has to do with organizational programmatic, you know, issues, that

people believe that they can’t direct funding or focus the funding

from the agencies if it is a grant. And really, the universities want

42

to collaborate, so we need to have structures which allow you the

freedom to explore new ideas as they come up, but also allow a collaboration between the universities and the agencies. And I don’t

know if it is a grant or something else.

Mr. BARTLETT. Grants are usually in support of basic research?

Dr. HANSMAN. They are, generally, in support of basic research,

and the fundamental difference of a grant and a contract is that

a grant is not explicitly directed in terms of its deliverables. So you

don’t state up front that I will invent penicillin. You say, I will

work in this area and see what comes of it. So it doesn’t have the

same kind of deliverables.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. It is the Chair’s intent to

have one more question, or one more series of questions from our

member, and then to recess, and it will probably be about a halfan-hour recess when all of these votes are taken, and then to come

back so the rest of our members will have a chance to participate,

and if they would like to participate in a second round of questioning as well. We now have Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas, and she

has her complete five minutes. And let me just note, she is very

active. The people of Texas are very interested in this issue, as well

as her very active role in this Subcommittee on Space. So she may

proceed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I cannot thank you enough, and the Ranking Member, for having this

very pointed and effective hearing. Last week, when the administrator was before this committee, and it was a much larger setting,

focusing on NASA’s budget collectively but also focusing on the Columbia tragedy just recently, one of the questions I raised was the

research on escape or survival of the astronauts, and it tracks my

line of questioning to this particular panel, particularly, with the

stark news that we have cut the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s aeronautics R&D 50 percent. And I think the

Chairman so noted in his opening remarks, astutely, that that appears to be a real problem. As I look at your request for the Fiscal

Year 2004 budget, it doesn’t seem to remedy that crisis, because it

flat funds any requests. And let me say to you that we are not only

going to be looking very keenly at this, but my understanding is

that this research includes traffic management technologies. If that

is the case, this is a very important aspect of NASA’s work, advanced vehicle design, adaptive controls, but also, one of the important issues—and Congressman Weldon has gone, but one of the important issues that we will be dealing with in the Homeland Security Select Committee is aviation security. You are asking for $21

million. To me, that seems to be a real stretch on where we are.

So let me pose some questions.

First of all, if you could convey back to the administrator that

I renew again my request to make the Columbia investigatory

team a commission or to request such, but also, to diversify that

team. I made the request last week, or was it the week before.

There seems to be no diversity of thought and/or position and/or

ethnic background. And certainly, there are many races, and

creeds, and colors that have participated in NASA, so I raise that.

43

But let me ask these questions regarding the idea of the loss of dollars.

With respect to Airbus getting now 50 percent of the air industry’s request, have you looked into our lack of compliance with the

Kyoto protocol and emissions, lack of compliance with emissions

concerns of the Europeans as a problem, and are we doing research

in fuel efficient engine design? And then we note that there is legislation either passing or already passed that pilots will be able to

carry guns into the airport and onto airplanes. Do we have any sophisticated technology research so that we can ensure that those

are the only ones that carry guns onto airplanes and that we won’t

have any tragedies that may occur as relates to airline and airport

security, particularly, airline security, I might imagine? And I ask

both the good doctor and Mr. Keegan for any responses to that as

relates to NASA.

Dr. CREEDON. I will certainly relay your request to the administrator about the membership of the——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much.

Dr. CREEDON. But if I am not mistaken, the makeup of that

Board is the result of the decisions of Admiral Gehman himself and

is not, in fact—it is his choice as to who is on that Board, but I

will relay that back to the administrator.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. And I look forward to getting with

the Admiral as well. Thank you. I want to point you to the $21 million question.

Dr. CREEDON. Right. Well, first of all, you are asking a question

about emissions.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes.

AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS

Dr. CREEDON. And yes, I can answer that within our program

and the run-out program, we have concentrated research activities

on emissions both CO2 and nitrous oxides. In fact, I mentioned that

we had made very excellent progress this last year on coming up

with a new engine type that has the promise of reducing nitrous

oxides by 50 percent. As far as your question on the——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And how much are you requesting in the

budget for that continued research?

Dr. CREEDON. I would have to—I could look it up in just a moment. As far as $21 million for security, that is in 2004. We are

actually proposing $195 million over the next five years.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And to be honest with you, that doesn’t even

seem like a lot. I appreciate your efficiency and fiscal conservatism,

but to me, that sounds like a paltry amount. But let me let you finish.

Dr. CREEDON. I understand your concern. With regard to the firearms, there are a number of people throughout the country looking

at making efficient sensors for firearms and so forth. What we are

doing as part of the money that I indicated that we are putting into

aviation security is we are surveying all of the sensors that have

been developed within NASA for our science missions and for what

we are doing in aircraft, and in space transportation to see if we

have some sensors that might be made applicable to the questions

44

that you are raising. As far as the regulations around that, I think

I would defer to Charlie to answer those questions.

Mr. KEEGAN. Good morning. I would like to go back to the fuel

efficient engines. We are in cooperation with NASA more in a regulatory role than anything else to ensure that the development of

such an engine is indeed safe. We could make it very fuel efficient,

but it needs to be safe for the same type of cycle times that we are

used to now in new production engines that can go for a very long

time with an incredibly high safety record, and we want to maintain that safety record.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. We have six minutes before our—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you very

much. I happen to be on Congressman Larson’s legislation. I think

this committee would do well to support an increase or to get a better focus on R&D research over the 50 percent cut that we have

had if we are going to compete internationally with Airbus and others, on behalf of Boeing and others in this country. Thank you.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson

Lee. And this committee will be recessed for 20 minutes.

[Recess]

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Subcommittee is called to order,

and we will proceed. I would like to take Chairman’s prerogative

for a moment before we go to Mr. Forbes, and ask a couple questions of Mr. Keegan. Mr. Keegan, we have now a new air traffic

control system that is being—that is evolving into place. Is that

right?

Mr. KEEGAN. Yes. We are in a constant state of evolution, sir.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. But this is sort of a new system

as compared to what it was 20 years ago?

Mr. KEEGAN. Well, I think we have a number of initiatives that

represent significant change from where we were 20 years ago, yes.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. So how much money has it cost

us to evolve into this system and altogether, what are we talking

about?

WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM

Mr. KEEGAN. Well, let me pick one initiative, sir, and that would

be the Wide Area Augmentation System, which is really the first

transition from a ground based system to an airborne based system—actually, a space-based system, utilizing satellites for navigational purposes and arrival purposes. You know, some of the technology such as GPS satellites, dates back into the mid 1980’s. Our

efforts really began in 1992, and thus far, our development has

been under $1 billion for our portion of this. But this summer, we

expect to go operational with a system that will provide accurate

and with high integrity navigation between points, as well as near

precision approach capability to airports around the country that

don’t have any other navigational aids available to them. So it provides a tremendous amount of capability for us for what we would

consider to be over this period of time a very reasonable investment.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. That is a $1 billion investment

on, of course—that is on top of the fact that we put the satellites

up, and they were already up there functioning, etcetera?

45

Mr. KEEGAN. That is correct, and we still have out-year costs that potentially could range up to $3 billion. I would be more than

happy to submit for the record the specific breakdown for the cost

of that program.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. And why is it necessary for us

to have this new system? Is it safer or is it more efficient? Why

did we do this?

Mr. KEEGAN. Well, today’s system is really structured around

very specific ground based navigational aids, where you have to fly

from one navigational aid to another navigational aid, and so you

have a series of roads in the sky. This system allows us to really

break that paradigm. You can go wherever you want to go, from

your door to the next door, on the route that you choose. And that

type of technology has been available to the high end carriers with

very specialized equipment, and now it is really available even in

your car. WAAS type technology is extremely accurate within a few

feet, and that technology has multiple uses, but in aviation—even

general aviation, pilots would be able to fly right where they want

to go, following winds or—— Chairman ROHRABACHER. Any estimate as to how much more effective that will make our air traffic system?

Mr. KEEGAN. Well, we think it really changes the way that we

can manage and develop the system. In the spring of this year, we

expect to be able to begin that process by making major changes

west of the Mississippi in the upper altitudes by not even designing

routes in the sky, but actually just grid points. So we have already

begun the process of that transition. We have achieved a 30 percent increase in en route capacity in 15 chokepoint sectors this past

year by just redesigning that airspace.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Say that again now.

Mr. KEEGAN. This past year, we have developed 15 new sectors,

just changed the routes. And when we changed those routes between Chicago, New York, Washington, and Atlanta, these 15 sectors opened up enough capacity where we achieved a 30 percent reduction in delay just from those routes. The potential application

of this is absolutely astronomical.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. And Mr. Armstrong, would

you like to comment on that?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think we have some preliminary estimates

that we think it will improve something near 10 percent, being able

to go direct from where you start to where you end, as opposed to

having to follow the highways in the sky.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. So would that be 10 percent reduction

in fuel?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. It would be primarily fuel, that is correct, fuel

and just operating time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. That represents $1 billion a year?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I will have to get back to you on it. I really

don’t have a number on that.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. It sounds like the investment was

worth while. Mr. Hansman—Dr. Hansman.

Dr. HANSMAN. I think the investment was worthwhile in a number of dimensions. One is that it will have a significant safety impact. What WAAS really buys you is vertical guidance on apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
46

proaches, so it will have a safety impact on the smaller communities in the U.S. It will also have some of the direct routing impact

that these guys mentioned. It has had already significant second

order benefits to non-aviation communities, so people are now

using GPS guided tractors in farm equipment, in things like that.

And the last one I would say, the place that will really have benefit, and this is a little bit of my outward looking, is in the developing world, because what WAAS really buys you, if you spread it

around the world, is precision approach capability to places that

don’t have good instrument facilities. And in the U.S. we actually

are a rich nation. We have approach facilities in many of the countries, so the marginal benefits are not as strong as they will be in

other nations.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And Dr. Creedon, would you like to

add anything there?

Dr. CREEDON. I really don’t have anything to answer to the

prior——

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, thank you very much. We

now turn to Congressman Forbes from Virginia.

RESEARCH INVESTMENT TRENDS

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for

taking time to be here with us today. Dr. Creedon, I am going to

address my questions primarily to you just because I have a limit

to the amount of time, and I would like to get to some basic policy

issues. I think you heard from many Members of the Committee

today that they are concerned about funding issues but, particularly, it is just a basic policy issue. It looks like to me, over the last

decade, we have had a decrease, a slashing, if you would, in support from both Government and industry in terms of research dollars that have been put in. At the same time, it seems like we have

seen ourselves fall further and further behind in our share of global

commercial aviation sales, and perhaps, in at least a reduction in

our technological edge. And my question for you as a policy matter,

is it your personal belief that we can reverse the trends that we

see, the reduction in our share of global commercial aviation sales

or maintaining our technological edge unless we reverse the funding for research from Government or industry?

Dr. CREEDON. No.

Mr. FORBES. And the second follow-up question I would have is

do you have any realistic expectation or anything you could share

with us in the Committee that would lead you to conclude that we

are going to see a new influx of research dollars from industry in

the next several years?

Dr. CREEDON. Of course, I am not really privy to the inside decisions that industry makes, but as I judge the pressures on the industry and pressures that their shareholders and boards put on

them, I really, personally, doubt that there will be a large influx

of long-term research dollars in the industry into aeronautics research and technology.

47

AERONAUTICS BLUEPRINT

Mr. FORBES. That seemed to be buttressed by Mr. Armstrong’s

testimony, I think, today. But the next question I would have is,

you know, earlier, in 2002, NASA issued the NASA Aeronautics

Blueprint which described a vision of the technology advances that

could revolutionize aviation and regain the U.S. in its historic position as a world leader in aeronautical products and services, and

I certainly understand that NASA couldn’t budget the resources to

make the blueprint a reality in 2000 on the Fiscal Year 2003 budget, but I really can’t understand why we didn’t put it in the 2004

budget, and specifically, we failed to even mention, as I understand

it, the Aeronautics Blueprint. Can you just explain to us what happened there?

Dr. CREEDON. The Aeronautics Blueprint was intended to be a

longer-term vision of what we could achieve. It wasn’t intended to

be achieved in any one fiscal year, but rather, it set out a broad

vision of what we were trying to accomplish in the future. And in,

in fact, our 2004 budget, we increased the fundings in the ways

that I mentioned both in my submitted written and my oral testimony in various areas, and those areas are in support of the goals

that were outlined in the Blueprint. So I guess the short form of

my answer is the Blueprint set out a long-term vision, indicated

some of the problems that we saw there were with aviation and

aeronautics, and set out a number of goals. And we are working

toward those goals over a number of years, and in fact, we did take

specific action in our 2004 budget to address some of those goals.

Mr. FORBES. Do you believe we can reach those goals with the

current trend of funding that we have?

Dr. CREEDON. We will reach the goals within the funding that we

have. The only thing that we are describing is the timing of when

we reach them.

MATH & SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. FORBES. One of the things that has concerned a lot of us, in

fact, right before September 11, we were concerned about two

major threats to the United States. One was in terrorism, which

proved to be a valid concern. And the other one was a lack of math

and science students that we had in the country. How great a

threat does the declining student interest in aerospace engineering

programs pose to the health of the U.S. aerospace industry? And

if you could tell us, what measures, if any, that NASA’s aeronautics

program is doing to address those problems?

Dr. CREEDON. I would be happy to do that, but if I could go back

to your prior question?

Mr. FORBES. Sure.

Dr. CREEDON. As Administrator O’Keefe mentioned just a week

ago in his testimony, the Blueprint is an important document considered within NASA, and if more resources were made available,

we would put them toward the goals that are contained in the

Blueprint, which are also the same as the goals that are in the bill.

And so we could actually accelerate our progress along that path.

As far as the threat posed by the lack of young people interested

in engineering, and mathematics, and just general scientific litVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
48

eracy, I think it is a significant and severe threat, and NASA does

as well.

We have under—the Administrator just crafted a new mission

and vision statement, and I will quote, ‘‘One of the things in the

NASA mission is to inspire the next generation of explorers.’’ And

we have, in fact, started a whole new enterprise. There were five

enterprises within NASA and now there is a sixth, the education

enterprise. A specific goal of that enterprise is to work with people

such as myself and human space flight enterprise, and the earth

and space science enterprises, to take the excitement of the things

that we do and our goals and try to infuse that excitement to young

people so that they would be more interested in pursuing careers

in science and engineering. I think if we do not do this, there will

be consequences for the country.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I see my time has expired.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And we now

have Mr. Bonner from Alabama.

REGIONAL JETS

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,

panel. Like many Americans, I find myself flying on regional jets

a lot more. The airport in Mobile, Alabama is served primarily with

regional jets, and yet, I noted that it is creating congestion, especially, at some of the larger hubs. Dr. Hansman, how can we take

this growing problem and create opportunities for more people and

more places to fly by increasing the use of regional airport systems?

Dr. HANSMAN. We are seeing that trend nationwide. I will just

give you my hometown example. In Boston, the airport in Boston

is at or near its capacity. Where we have seen the largest growth

has actually been in Providence and in Manchester. So what you

are seeing is regional airport systems, and in fact, the traffic offerings will vary and the market will re-correct that to some extent.

The other benefit of the regional jet-size airplanes, it allows you to

match the size of the airplane to the real market, so you get frequency of travel. So I don’t know what the flight schedule into Mobile is, but if you had to fly 747’s into Mobile, you only get one a

day, and I am sure you are getting more than that now, so there

is some benefits to airplanes of that scale. And I think one of the

future visions is actually to have airplanes that match across the

entire scale from the four passenger, six passenger jet, up to the

400 or 500 passenger jet to match the demand to the market to

really provide the service.

SMALL AIRCRAFT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Mr. BONNER. Dr. Creedon, how can a program like the Small Aircraft Transportation System help solve this problem? And you said,

I think, in your written statement, that the goal is to work to enable better air service to more communities. Is this program a vehicle to actually move in that direction?

Dr. CREEDON. That is our intent, and we think we can achieve

that. The Small Aircraft Transportation program is dedicated to

49

providing another means of transportation other than through the

hub and spoke system, so that people who may want to go from a

smaller airport to another smaller airport can do exactly that. It

is dedicated to the proposition that there are, I think, 5,400 public

use airports in this country. Right now, the traffic goes into—the

vast majority of the traffic goes into about five percentage of these

airports, so we are trying to open up the capability of these other

airports to the traveling public, and we think that that the SATS

program is dedicated to do that.

Another interesting—I don’t know the exact number, but I would

be happy to get back with it for the record—but there are about

80 percent, I think, of population lives within half-an-hour of one

of these 5,400 airports, so that we feel that has great potential in

offering a new dimension of mobility to this country.

Mr. BONNER. Your answer—thank you—leads to another question. And again, going back to your written statement where you

said that thousands of airports distributed across the country are

a true national asset, given that there is a continual growth in regional jet service to smaller communities, do you feel that we are

making enough of an investment to the right technology and to ensure that the right air traffic management system is in place?

Dr. CREEDON. I think there are multiple answers to that question. As far as the SATS program itself, it is dedicated to, I believe

it is in Fiscal Year 2005, to do a demonstration of the capability,

and I think that is proper. We should be able to demonstrate that

we are making progress in that area in order to continue beyond.

So I think that is a very adequately funded program at this time.

But you address, really, a larger issue, and that is the whole air

transportation system.

Charlie Keegan and I, and various organizations, we meet quite

often, and we are working, really, in two fronts. The first front is

on the system that we have, as he does his Operational Evolution

Plan and we do some nearer-term research to help that, that is to

kind of wring the most capacity without compromising safety that

we can get out of the existing system. I think he is well on his way

to doing as much of that as we can. But over time, I don’t think

that we want a country that is constrained by the capacity. So I

don’t, personally, believe that it is right to just put sanctions on the

capacity, that we would really like the capacity to be there for people to travel as they would want to. So we are going to have to,

as it really says on the two kind of things carved into the wall

here, it may not be true that where there is no vision that people

perish, but where there is no air traffic management vision, they

will sure travel more slowly than they do now. If we don’t leap out

ahead and have some vision of what a future air traffic management system could be and start heading toward that, then we will

just continue to try to get more and more capacity out of the system that we have. As John said, it is a finite number. Does that

answer your question?

Mr. BONNER. Yes, it does. Mr. Chairman, will we be afforded an

opportunity to go with a second round of questions?

Chairman ROHRABACHER. If you would—if that is an official request, the Chair will certainly accept that.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you.

50

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And now we have another freshman

with us from Texas, Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You didn’t have to point

out I was a freshman; that would have been clear to everyone after

just a few questions, I am sure. I would like to thank the panel for

your testimony here today and I apologize for having to be in and

out of the room.

Dr. Creedon, I wanted to follow up—I was here when Mr. Larson

was talking to you about some of the budgetary concerns, and I

share those concerns because the major part of my district is in the

Houston area, and obviously, the entire NASA program is extraordinarily important to the region. And a lot of us were hopeful in

the wake of the space shuttle tragedy that there could be a silver

lining and there would be a recommitment. And I often tell people

since the tragedy that the sad thing about NASA is that if everything is going along well, that nobody seems to pay much attention,

and it takes a tragedy to refocus attention. But certainly, it gives

us an opportunity to have that kind of silver lining and to maybe

make a recommitment to the agency.

And so when I see the budget and see that there is an additional

five percent, and realizing that since 1998, the R&D budget has

been cut by one-half, and now it appears the upright 2004 budget

request, essentially, flat funds the program and projects a four percent decrease over the next five years, that is cause for some

alarm. And I know that in the wake of the tragedy, people said

funding and the funding cuts which NASA has experienced had no

impact on safety whatsoever. Those were the reports to us and

those were contained in the briefings to us immediately following

the Columbia tragedy. And one reporter asked me when I shared

that information, that NASA officials are saying it wasn’t related

to funding in any way, shape, or form, well, how do they know?

And we don’t know. And we won’t know until the investigation is

complete. And so my question to you is that in the wake of the

tragedy, has there been any conversation and, possibly, an effort on

the part of the agency to go back and look at the budget and maybe

use this as an attempt to come back and address some of these

budgetary concerns?

Dr. CREEDON. There are several aspects to the question. When

you were giving the specific percentage declines, I believe those

refer to the aeronautics portion of the budget and not the overall

NASA budget itself. Is that correct?

Mr. BELL. That is correct.

SHUTTLE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

Dr. CREEDON. First of all, the investigation, we at NASA are

dedicated to do what we can to determine what the cause of the

tragedy was, to fix it, and move on, so that there is no loss of dedication within the agency to that. In doing that, assist Admiral

Gehman’s investigation board, as much as we can. As far as the

dollars and the impact on safety, the culture of safety within the

agency is an overriding value, and there is no one within the agency who would ever willingly do anything that they felt would compromise the safety of a shuttle mission or any other mission. I

think that safety, as a primary value, is inculcated throughout the

51

agency, and so I don’t think that we believe that we would ever

willingly do anything that would compromise safety.

As far as rededication and what else we might do differently,

while the Admiral Gehman Board is continuing, we within the

agency have several activities that are ongoing to determine what

we think should be done as a result of this tragedy. We have one

group that is looking to what should our response to this be—

should we build another orbiter, what kinds of things that we

should do. We in the aerospace technology enterprise are looking

at can we accelerate the orbital space plane in response to that.

But I think before we set forth on any of these plans, we would

have to wait until Admiral Gehman’s Board finishes its deliberations. Meanwhile, we are not resting. We are actively planning the

options that we might do.

Mr. BELL. Why would you have to wait?

Dr. CREEDON. We are not waiting to plan, but I think that we

would really like the benefit of finding out what the cause of the

tragedy was—was it technical, was it processes, whatever it was,

before we move out in implementing a change.

Mr. BELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you. We have been asked by a

Member if he could have another chance at questions, and Mr.

Bonner, you may proceed.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two quick questions

and then a request. Following up on my interest in, especially, the

regional jet service to smaller airports, Mr. Keegan, I believe I am

correct that the budget request is for $17 million plus a little

change under the Airport Improvement Program to help design,

plan, maintain, and all the other things you have to do to improve

airports. I guess my question is, if this number is correct, how far

will $17 million go, and will it really go to helping improve airports

not just at the major hubs but also in some of the smaller communities that we are interested in?

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM R&D

Mr. KEEGAN. Sir, that $17 million is for research to go into the

airports. The Airport Improvement Program budget is significantly

larger, it is somewhere near $3 billion, which would be for the

overall aspect of improving airports, and it does get spread beyond

the fortress hubs that we are familiar with today. That research is

broken down into a few areas, including the ability for better fire

and response in case of an accident, migration of birds and mitigation of those activities and following that to make sure that that

is not an issue at certain places. So it is on a different side of the

actual construction and development of the airport infrastructure.

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

Mr. BONNER. If we could shift gears just for a minute, Dr.

Creedon, NASA and the Defense Department have demonstrated

that unmanned aerial vehicles can be flown safely, and they have

the potential to serve useful civil and emergency service rolls.

Many industry experts envision that UAV’s will be playing more

prominent roles in U.S. aerospace, but currently, FAA requireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
52

ments—and maybe Mr. Keegan would be a better person to answer

this—that FAA requirements to fly them are very complex and

they can take weeks or months to gain permission to fly. So a quick

question is what is the current state of research on operating

UAV’s in controlled airspace, and is the FAA working on a concept

of operations to permit routing of routine flights of UAV’s in controlled airspace?

Mr. KEEGAN. I am not sure of the complete details of UAV’s infrastructure and how we are dealing with that, but we do have regulatory activities underway to ensure how they are operating and

if they are safe, and today, it is a minimum of a 60-day advance

notice on how that works. And from there, the activities have to do

with how and where they are going to be used, and they are currently in our operational concept development. They are not a large

portion of that; it is still a very small portion of that.

Dr. CREEDON. If I could add to that, as I indicated, we brought

a small amount, but I would hope a significant amount, of additional funds into UAV’s because we believe they have the same potential that you mentioned. As Charlie mentioned, that is my understanding as well, that right now, UAV’s do have access to the

airspace, but it is a 60-day apply and approval process. Many members of the industry have come to us because of our cooperative research that we do with the FAA, trying to make the routine access

to the national airspace system a quicker thing, reduce the time

below 60 days, and perhaps with demonstration of capability that

is required on board these UAV’s, to get routine access, and there

is sort of a series of five goals, and we are putting money into the

first two of those goals to try to achieve that result of more routine

access. And when we demonstrate that capability in these UAV’s,

then it would be back over to the regulatory part to acknowledge

that and to have new procedures.

Mr. BONNER. My interest stems largely because we have done a

lot of the research for that at Marshall Space Flight Center in my

home State of Alabama. Finally, I would like to just, again, thanking the Chairman for this additional time, associate my interest

and concern with my friend and colleague, Mr. Forbes of Virginia.

We have a school for math and science in Mobile, Alabama. We

also have an Exploreum IMAX theater where there is a space exhibit ongoing right now. I would sure like to have your help, Dr.

Creedon, in getting one of our astronauts, perhaps one of Mobile’s

own, to come speak to some of the students and encourage them

through that presentation to study science and math and to go

where man has only dreamed of going.

Dr. CREEDON. It sounds like a very reasonable request.

Mr. BONNER. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Mr. Forbes, do you have any other

questions? Just a few notes. I have made it clear before, and I

think that perhaps it deserves repeating, that I think robotics and

remote control technologies are technologies that have a lot of

promise, and that NASA, in particular, should be deeply involved

in that. And I think it will have applications in the private sector,

and also, of course, it has applications toward space exploration

and utilization. So I would hope to see more of that.

53

I would also hope, Dr. Creedon, that we see—and Mr. Keegan,

as well—that we see evidence in the next few months that this report on the aerospace industry and on the status of aerospace, that

it is being taken seriously and that there are some tangible decisions, effects, of that report. I mean, some people spent a lot of

time on that, and I agree that either we are going to make some

decisions now and start charting a course that will put us on top,

or we will be overwhelmed by competition from overseas, not just

from Europe, but perhaps even from China. In our great—in a

demonstration of great wisdom, we have helped build up an industrial infrastructure in China which now will permit them to compete with us in aerospace in the years ahead. And I say that, obviously, with tongue in cheek, as I think that was lunacy.

So with that said, I would like to thank the witnesses. Thank

you all very much. This has been very informative. We take this

issue very seriously because the aerospace industry is a very important part of our economy. As we move forward now with this

great anniversary, 100th anniversary of human flight—powered

flight, I guess it would be, because gliders and balloons before

that—let us remember that Americans have always been proud of

the fact that we have led the way. We have led the way in freedom

and in the way we treat other people. We have led the way in technology and there is a relationship there. There is a relationship between people who believe they can make the condition of humankind better by using their ingenuity and uses of technology and the

fact that we respect other people, respect other human beings. And

the Wright brothers, perhaps, personified this better than anyone,

because they were not Ph.D.s from MIT. They were people who

had, basically, self-educated themselves, but they were incredibly

intelligent human beings, as we saw in the drawings, paying attention to the shape of the wing, and this wasn’t just a—this was not

an accident that they stumbled across something. They studied and

worked hard, but they were the personification of American values,

and today we have been handed that. We have been handed our

opportunities by people like the Wright brothers and by those who

are active in the Space Program and the development of aerospace

over these last 100 years. Now it is up to us, and we will carry the

torch, and we will make them proud.

I would like to thank all of you for participating today. Please be

advised the Subcommittee Members may request additional information for the record and I ask other Members who are going to

submit written questions to do so within one week of this hearing.

That concludes the hearing. We are now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(55)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

56

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Jeremiah F. Creedon, Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Questions submitted by Chairman Dana Rohrabacher

Q1. NASA’s aeronautics budget has been restated to reflect personnel and institutional costs, giving the appearance of an almost doubling of the aeronautics program. What effect will full cost accounting have on fees charged to outside customers for use of facilities, such as wind-tunnels and engine test-stands? Please

explain any changes in how fees will be assessed.

A1. The adoption of full cost accounting, budgeting, and management practices will

have no impact on the pricing policies currently utilized by NASA’s aeronautical research and test facilities. In fact, NASA has for some time now been charging external customers the full cost of using such facilities—unless the Agency has a programmatic interest in the research data resulting from a specific test, in which case

various forms of cost sharing are employed. We fully expect to continue these practices with respect to outside users.

While the policy of recovering full cost from external users will not change; however, change may occur in both the cost of any given facility and the continued

availability of certain facilities. Variability in cost will be the result of variability

in the number of users. The maintenance and operation of large research facilities

entails a substantial fixed cost. This fixed cost must be spread among the users of

facility. The more customers, the lower the cost to each customer to use the facility.

The fewer the customers, the higher the cost that will be charged to each customer.

Prior to the introduction of full cost accounting, NASA had some flexibility to absorb

fixed costs when utilization was low, rather than passing such costs along to external customers. With full cost, that flexibility is now gone. In the extreme, therefore,

if an outside customer happens to be the only user of a NASA facility in a given

year, that customer will need to pay for the entire cost of the facility for that year—

even if the desired test is only weeks in duration. While the policy of charging the

entire cost to the customer has not changed, the actual cost to that single remaining

customer has changed greatly.

Such economics may also impact the continued availability of certain facilities. If

utilization is low in a given facility, the costs of using the facility will grow for the

remaining users (both within and outside of NASA). These higher rates may drive

away additional customers, further raising the costs to the remaining customers.

This ‘‘spiral’’ may ultimately result in a facility that is too expensive for the few last

customers, and the facility may eventually have to close due to lack of customers

that can afford the cost of the facility. The Office of Aerospace Technology, in concert with the rest of the Agency, is now evaluating management and accounting

mechanisms that may need to be applied when short-term utilization of a given facility is low, yet closure of that facility is not in the best long-term interests of the

Agency or the Nation.

Q2. FAA and NASA have begun forming a Joint Program Office to coordinate research on a next-generation air traffic management system.

Q2a. What agreements have been made between NASA and FAA to establish a JPO?

Please provide a copy of all MOAs, letters, and other documents that describe

the goals, roles and responsibilities of participating agencies, a list of the agencies and departments that are taking part, and funding required to staff and

support the JPO.

A2a. FAA, NASA, DOD, TSA, and OSTP are participants on an interagency team

charged with preparing a plan for the JPO. Letters exchanged between FAA and

NASA regarding the interagency planning team and its charge are attached. Also

attached is a briefing that describes our proposed strategy for carrying out the

transformation and some very early thinking about a possible structure of a JPO.

Versions of this briefing have been presented by NASA and FAA to DOD, TSA, and

several industry stakeholders.

Q2b. Does the JPO have its ?own spending authority? If so, what is its budget?

A2b. No. The JPO has not been established to date. The team described above does

not have spending authority or a budget. The efforts to develop the national plan

are funded by FAA and NASA.

57

Q2c. How will industry provide input to your process? Will there be opportunities for

regular industry consultation, including general aviation?

A2c. Clearly, industry needs to be a major player in the transformation of the Air

Transportation System. We have briefed industry, including the Air Traffic Services

subcommittee of FAA’s Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee and The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). A number of

industry representatives have told us that they would welcome strong federal leadership in carrying out the transformation. The primary purposes of the briefings

FAA and NASA have given to industry stakeholders was to get feedback on our

transformation strategy and to begin a dialogue on industry participation in the

process. Once we reach interagency agreement on how we will work together to

carry out the transformation process, we will establish a mechanism for regular industry consultation. General aviation will be a part of this. In fact, one of the industry meetings we have had with GAMA was a briefing to the Government Research

Coordinating Subcommittee of the GAMA Flight Operations Policy Committee on

the transformation process.

Q3. The goal of NASA’s Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) is to permit

all-weather operations by general aviation aircraft at untowered airfields.

Q3a. What is the status of NASA’s Small Aircraft Transportation System Integrated

Technology Demonstration? When does NASA plan to complete technology demonstration of SATS?

A3a. The NASA/FAA/National Consortium for Aviation Mobility (NCAM) Alliance

has developed and implemented the research and technology plan to develop and

evaluate the technologies that will enable an integrated technology demonstration

of the four SATS operating capabilities to be completed in late 2005. The plan provides for multiple path approaches for technologies to enable lower landing minima

(LLM) and single pilot performance (SPP) with a critical path approach for the higher volume operations (HVO) capability. The en route (ERI) operating capability to/

from the controlled airspace will be demonstrated as an element of HVO and will

utilize analyses to explore impact on the national airspace.

Site selections for the technology demonstration will be complete in July 2003. Initial flight tests will be conducted in calendar year 2003 to demonstrate HVO, LLM,

and SPP operating capabilities at the minimum success criteria. Further flight tests

will be conducted in calendar year 2004 to demonstrate HVO, LLM, and SPP operating capabilities at higher levels of technical success. These flight tests will be used

to down select those technologies that will be employed in the integrated technology

flight experiments of all four operating capabilities in early 2005.

Q3b. How much has been spent to date on SATS?

A3b. Through FY 2003 NASA will have invested $50.8 million on SATS. The NCAM partners will have cost shared over $16 million. For FY 2003, NCAM is matching

$7 million of labor by the participating companies, plus $0.9 million of in-kind (e.g.,

use of equipment and software) contributions.

Q3c. How much will it cost to complete the technology development and demonstration efforts?

A3c. NASA has requested $30.6 million (full cost) in FY 2004 and anticipates requesting $9.9 million (full cost) in FY 2005 to complete the technology development

and demonstration. The SATS Alliance partners are expected to cost share approximately another $8 million at about the same ration of labor and in-kind as provided

in FY 2003.

Q3d. When will an operational SATS capability be demonstrated? How much will

it cost to demonstrate an operational SATS capability?

A3d. Following the integrated flight experiments, the technical and operational feasibility of the four operating capabilities will be demonstrated in late 2005. The

costs to demonstrate the capability are included in the funding cited above.

Q3e. What are the technical, policy, and economic issues that need to be resolved to

implement SATS? What is NASA’s plan to address these issues?

A3e. NASA is conducting a proof-of concept R&T activity to demonstrate the technical and operational feasibility of the higher volume operations, lower landing

minima, single pilot performance, and en route integration operating capabilities.

These are important operating capabilities necessary to the implementation of

SATS; however they are not sufficient for implementation of SATS. Other issues include: insurance considerations, environmental compatibility (noise and emissions),

58

en route operations and weather, aircraft ride quality, safety and security, economic

viability, air traffic controller considerations, and the overall financial health of the

small aircraft industry. Although the SATS Project is not providing the solutions to

these issues, transportation system analyses and assessments of many of these

issues are being performed. The results will be provided to the decision makers,

stakeholders and others, including the FAA and regional airport authorities.

Q3f. What equipage issues need to be addressed for the general aviation community

to exploit SATS?

A3f. SATS research is focused on flight deck and flight path technologies that minimize the equipage required at the Nation’s underutilized, non-towered and nonradar airports and runway ends. Equipment required in the aircraft for SATS capability includes an approach-certified instrument flight rules global positioning system receiver, an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS–B) transceiver,

a communications data link, a cockpit display of traffic information, plus software

and display graphics for self-separation and onboard conflict detection and alerting,

and self-spacing.

The SATS operational concept includes procedures for suspending HVO operations

to accommodate aircraft without the required equipment via procedural separation.

These unequipped aircraft would be required to have radios for communication with

an air traffic controller.

Q4. NASA has a goal to develop technologies to reduce noise emissions from aircraft

by 10 decibels by 2007.

Q4a. Does NASA plan to continue to pursue technologies to reduce noise emissions

once the goal is met?

A4a. Yes. Within its Vehicle Systems Program, NASA is currently developing plans

to pursue technologies that can further reduce noise emissions, improving upon

those goals of the Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) Project. Representatives from

Government, Industry and Academia are assisting NASA with development of the

most appropriate goals and the roadmap from which to achieve those goals.

Furthermore, the FY 2004 request includes an augmentation for the QAT Project

to ensure the maturation and transfer of the noise reduction technology. This research would be conducted with aircraft and engine manufacturers as cost sharing

partners.

Q4b. Assuming this goal is met as planned, what is a realistic goal to reduce noise

emissions further?

A4b. NASA’s goal is to contain objectionable noise within the airport boundary. Initial results from an industry, government and academia workshop to develop longterm roadmaps for the Vehicle Systems Program held in April 2003 indicate that

there exists a potential to limit average day-night noise level outside of the airport

boundary to 55 dBA.

Q4c. Is it feasible to reduce aircraft noise to levels on takeoff and on airport approach and landing to a level that does not exceed ambient noise levels in the

absence of flight operations? If so, what technologies would be required? How

much would this cost?

A4c. Yes, this is a challenge we believe to be achievable. Roadmapping activities

being undertaken by the Vehicle Systems Program are exploring the goal of containing all objectionable noise within airport boundaries. Some examples of technologies expected to be required include: Advanced low noise fan designs, active, intelligent noise suppression, advanced concepts with integrated low-noise features,

including noise shielding, distributed propulsion, very low-speed landing, reduced

landing gear and landing gear bay/cavity noise, thrust vectoring, unconventional

propulsion systems and integration, and application of low-spool noise technologies

to the engine core.

At this point in time, many of these concepts are at the embryonic stage of development. Costs estimates for this long-term effort have only just begun to be assembled.

Q5. NASA canceled its High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) program in 2000.

Q5a. How much did NASA spend on HSCT?

A5a. From 1990 through 1999 NASA spent $1,560.2 million, excluding personnel

costs, on the High Speed Research program.

Q5b. Why did NASA cancel the program?

59

A5b. The High Speed Research (HSR) program was created to explore technologies

necessary to enable an industry decision on development of a supersonic commercial

aircraft, or ‘‘High Speed Civil Transport’’ (HSCT). The HSR program was dependent

on an active partnership between the government and industry. Dramatic technology advances were made against the original HSR program goals. However,

planned ramp-ups in industry cost sharing to bring an HSCT to market did not materialize as originally planned. NASA terminated HSR at the end of FY 1999, when

the major industry partner in the program dramatically reduced support for the

project, shrinking staff devoted to HSR from 300 to 50 and pushing the operational

date for a high-speed commercial transport from 2010 to 2020. This industry action

was the result of market analysis and technology requirement assessments indicating that the introduction of a commercial HSCT cannot reasonably occur prior

to the year 2020 from an economically and environmentally sound perspective. Industry and NASA also questioned whether technologies being pursued today would

appropriately address environmental standards and other challenges in 2020. In response, NASA reduced activity in the High Speed Research program to a level commensurate with industry interest.

Q5c. Have any of the factors that led to the program’s cancellation changed in such

a way that NASA would consider resuming a significant research program in

civil supersonic transport? If so, what are the appropriate goals for a supersonic

civil transport program?

A5c. NASA is performing research in technologies that have general applicability

across many vehicle classes, including supersonics. However, these technologies are

directed toward areas that have a direct impact on the public at large, including

increasing safety and security, reducing noise and emissions and transforming the

National Airspace System to increase its capacity and efficiency. Supersonic technology does not have the wide public impact for it to be a priority given current

funding levels.

The challenge in making supersonic transports viable, and hence the goals of a

technology effort in this area, included sonic boom mitigation and reduction of noise

and emissions.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. FAA and NASA are involved in efforts to establish a unified interagency aviation R&D program (NASA, FAA, DOD, DOC and DHS), including a process for

developing a research plan and for providing periodic program reviews.

Q1a. Is OMB part of this planning process?

A1a. While there have been some informal discussions with OMB, they have not

been directly involved in this planning process. OMB, however, is highly supportive

of this type of interagency cooperation in aviation R&D.

Q1b. What is the current status of the consolidated interagency research plan?

A1b. FAA and NASA have established a working team to begin the development of

a first version of a National Plan for the transformation of the Air Transportation

System of 2020 and beyond. DOD, TSA, and OSTP are also participating on this

team. Our goal is to complete the first draft of this plan by December 2003. This

will include an interagency research plan for transforming the National Airspace

System.

Q1c. Will we see results of this effort in the President’s FY 2005 budget?

A1c. Yes. Development of NASA’s FY 2005 budget for air transportation management research and technology is occurring in parallel to and in close coordination

with the development of the National plan.

Q2. The 2002 National Research Council (NRC) report, ‘‘For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation,’’ goes on to suggest that federal agencies

should realign research goals with funding allocations to avoid raising unrealistic expectations for reducing aviation noise. That is, either relax noise goals or

increase R&D funding. For example, the report shows the declining trend in aircraft noise generation from 1960 to 1997 suddenly needing to change sharply

downward in order to meet NASA’s stated 2007 and 2022 noise goals, while the

annual federal noise reduction R&D budget, in constant dollars, is now only

about 50 percent of its average level for the past 10 years.

Q2a. What is your reaction to the NRC report’s recommendation?

60

A2a. We agree with the recommendation and propose to increase funding to attain

the noise reduction goals. NASA’s FY 2004 budget request includes an augmenta- tion to its Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) project of $100 million.

Q2b. Do you believe that the NASA noise goals can be reached with the current level

of R&D investment, or should the goals be watered down?

A2b. With the additional funding in the FY 2004 budget request, we believe that

our goal of developing technology to enable a 10 dB reduction (based on 1997 levels)

can be met at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, which is the readiness level

that is adequate to ensure the transfer of technology out to industry partners. Discussions with industry partners have been initiated to determine what efforts would

be required to achieve TRL 6.

Q3. The NRC report recommends that NASA should fund the most promising noise

reduction concepts long enough to reduce the technical risk and make it worthwhile for industry to complete development and deploy new technologies in commercial products. This would mean bringing a new technology to NASA’s technology readiness level 6.

Q3a. Please respond to this recommendation. What is current NASA policy regarding the technology readiness level for noise technology projects for which funding is provided?

A3a. The Aerospace Technology Enterprise has in its mission statement that ‘‘suc- cess will be measured by the extent to which our results improve quality of life.’’ To be successful requires technology to be transferred to customers. The FY 2004

Budget request includes an augmentation of $100 million, partly to ensure that the

technology is matured and ready to be transferred to industry—the equivalent of

technology readiness level 6.

Q3b. Are you concerned that NASA-developed noise reduction technologies may not

transition to commercial applications?

A3b. NASA’s Vehicle Systems Program has included industry, FAA and academia

in the development of long-term planning. Representatives have been participating

most recently to identify the most appropriate technology sectors for long-term efforts and have been providing inputs on specific goals and paths to achieve them.

Additionally, the Quiet Aircraft Technology Project held its semi-annual meeting

on April 29–30, 2003 to present and discuss with its partners the latest accomplishments and future directions.

Inclusion of industry, FAA, airport representatives and academia in NASA’s planning for technology investment sectors and in the road mapping to achieve these

technologies substantially improves the applicability of R&D and the potential it

will be transitioned into commercial use.

NASA has had a long track record of transitioning noise reduction technologies

to applications that industry can use. The cost sharing agreements being negotiated

ensure that industry has a vested interest in the technologies, and that they will

be transitioned to real aircraft applications.

Q4. The NRC report states that research to reduce oxides of nitrogen and improve

engine efficiency has been significantly reduced at NASA and that the research

that is supported does not carry the work far enough so that results can be readily adopted by industry. And in general, the report finds that even though large

uncertainties remain regarding aviation’s effects on the atmosphere, research

budgets for examining the issue have been cut by two-thirds in recent years.

Q4a. Do you agree with the report’s findings?

A4a. NASA has been examining its aeronautics programs to facilitate adoption of

technology. In the area of emission reduction, we have extended the Ultra-Efficient

Engine Technology (UEET) project—a major effort to reduce aircraft emissions—

through FY 2007 and are working with our industrial partners to ensure that transfer of the technology occurs. We are also working in partnership with the DOD turbine engine program to assure alignment and mutual benefit.

Q4b. Why does aviation emissions research have such a relatively low priority at

NASA?

A4b. Aviation emissions research continues to have a high priority at NASA. The

Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project is a major effort to reduce aircraft emissions. A number of partnerships have been developed through the Ultra-Efficient

Engine Technology Project, and we are expanding the scope of this project to include

cost-shared technology demonstrations at TRL 6.

61

Q5. The NRC report notes there is a current trend of lessening industry involvement

in NASA-sponsored environmental research and technology development.

Q5a. Why has this occurred? Doesn’t this contribute to problems in transitioning

technology to commercial applications?

A5a. With the termination of the Advanced Subsonic Technology and High Speed

Research programs in 1999, funding directed toward propulsion research declined.

From a funding standpoint, that may be viewed as a lessening of industry involvement. However, NASA’s Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project has continuing

partnerships with industry and signed agreements in place for cooperative activities.

The emissions reduction effort is a partnership with industry to develop combustors

that produce reduced levels of oxides of nitrogen. Partners from engine and airframe

manufacturers, academia and government agencies are participating in materials

and structures research and activities to optimize the integration of propulsion and

airframes. These partnerships ensure that NASA is working on the right problems

to facilitate the transfer of the technology.

Q5b. What would you suggest be done?

A5b. A specific long-term plan for technology investments is being developed within

the Vehicle Systems Program. This effort has received significant input from industry, academic and government representatives to ensure funding is focused on the

critical problems, including emissions. We see a continuing role for industry partnerships and cost-sharing of technology maturation to ensure technology transfer.

Q6. Your aircraft noise R&D budget includes both institutional costs (e.g., facilities,

infrastructure, travel, benefits) and actual project procurement funds in the fiveyear runouts.

Q6a. If we strip away the institutional costs that the budget office has allocated to

the Quiet Aircraft Technology program, how much funding is actually being

proposed for R&D procurements for Quiet Aircraft Technology in each of the

next five years? Is that an increasing or a flat funding profile?

A6a. The FY 2004 request includes an augmentation for the Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) project in order to mature noise reduction technology to levels appropriate for transfer to industry. The funding profile for QAT is shown in the table

below for both the total funding and the amount planned for direct procurements.

This funding is to develop and transfer technology that results in a 10-decibel reduction in aircraft noise by 2007 (based on 1997 production aircraft).

While no final decision has been made on whether to conduct additional noise reduction Research and Technology beyond OAT, plans are being formulated for technology development beyond OAT to bring objectionable noise within airport boundaries.

Q6b. What specifically is included in the institutional costs allocated to the Quiet

Aircraft Technology program?

A6b. The non-procurement dollars are an important contributor to the research.

Non-procurement dollars fund a cadre of world-recognized NASA researchers who

are dedicated to noise reduction research, and who work hand-in-hand with external

researchers funded with procurement dollars. The recent transfer of chevron nozzle

technology for noise reduction was the result of a concept first proposed and developed by a NASA researcher. Non-procurement dollars also fund world-class laboratories, wind tunnels, test aircraft and other facilities that are used by NASA’s partners as well as civil servants to research, mature and transfer technology.

Non-procurement dollars include:

• The cost, including civil service salaries, for the technical operations and

maintenance of laboratories, wind tunnels and test facilities in support of

projects.

• NASA Civil Service employees, including both researchers and support staff.

• Travel.

62

• G&A—General and administrative expenses associated with Administrative

Operations.

Q7. Will NASA’s Quiet Aircraft Technology meet the 10-year noise reduction goals

by 2007 that NASA had previously signed up to meet? Will that require any industry funding? If so, how much?

A7. With the additional funding in the FY 2004 budget request, we believe that our

goal of developing technology to enable a 10 dB reduction (based on 1997 levels) can

be met at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, which is the readiness level that

is adequate to ensure the transfer of technology out to industry partners. However,

the effective transfer of technology requires a willingness on the part of the user

to implement this technology. We are developing cost-sharing partnerships to ensure

that the user community has adequate buy-in to the technology transfer process. We

anticipate industry to cost-share $50 million from FY 2004 to FY 2007 to facilitate

the technology maturation.

Q8. In his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Armstrong noted his concern that no formal

coordination occurs between NASA and the users of the national airspace system

regarding NASA’s research agenda for future technology developments aimed at

improving the efficiency, safety and capacity of the airspace system.

Q8a. Is this concern of the air transportation industry something that NASA is

aware of?

A8a. NASA is aware that some National Airspace System (NAS) users believe that

more formal coordination of NASA’s research agenda is desired. It is incorrect, however, to state that no formal coordination occurs. The formal coordination between

NASA and the users of the NAS occurs through NASA’s Advisory Committee structure, specifically the Revolutionize Aviation Subcommittee (RAS) of the Aerospace

Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC). Recently, under the auspices of the RAS

and the ATAC, a Task Force was convened to specifically review NASA’s Airspace

Systems Program. The members of that Task Force included representatives from

airlines and other user organizations, from academia and from other research organizations. Additionally, NASA participates in forums sponsored by organizations

representing industry where the content of NASA’s research is a subject for discussion. Forum sponsors include RTCA, the Air Traffic Control Association, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Society of Automotive Engineers

and others. NASA also participates in discussions with industry representative

groups either at their initiation or at NASA’s. Recent such discussions include those

with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association and the Air Transport Association.

Q8b. Do you believe better communication between NASA and airspace system users

is important, and if so, how might it be addressed?

A8b. Interactive communication between NASA and the airspace users is essential

for allowing these users to take maximum advantage of the content and value of

NASA research efforts. NASA always strives to develop the best communication

channels for improving the input of community users to the content and value of

our research efforts. NASA will continue to make concerted efforts to improve interactions with the NAS user community both directly, through their representative organizations, and through NASA’s formal Advisory Committee structure.

Q9. The FAA RE&D Advisory Committee recommended (4Feb02 letter to FAA on the

FY04 budget review) that FAA develop a ‘‘fully competent and expertly staffed

organization to absorb and use the results of NASA’s R&D.’’ FAA’s response to

this recommendation was that its Free Flight Office does this. What efforts have

been made by NASA to help ensure that new technology developed by NASA

transitions to use by FAA?

A9. For the past several years, the primary FAA customer for NASA’s Air Traffic

Management technology has been the Free Flight Program Office. Three products

were delivered to the Free Flight Phase 1 Program and an additional three are

under development for delivery to the Free Flight Phase 2 Program. Of these six

products, five were also included in the FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan.

Transition to FAA of technologies developed by NASA generally requires several

steps, many of which can be lengthy. In addition to acquisition, these include resolution of issues related to changes in roles and responsibilities, acceptance of change

in those roles and responsibilities, policy development, and the ability of the user

community to provide their financial support for equipage.

63

In an effort to mitigate these issues, NASA has worked with the FAA to develop

plans that provide longer-range visibility, so that many of these issues can be addressed early enough to eliminate them as roadblocks. For example NASA, under

some conditions, has provided funds to allow FAA personnel to participate in development tests. However, NASA cannot assume any role in the implementation of

technology in FAA facilities beyond providing support for FAA activities.

The long-term solution to this issue is the development of a National Plan for National Airspace System (NAS) transformation, which will define future ‘‘target’’ goals

for the NAS. With significant participation from NASA and other government agencies, FAA is leading the development of this multi-agency plan. It will identify the

requirements for development of technologies and procedures and for the implementation of the changes to the NAS. Implementation will consider the aspects mentioned above including acquisition, policy, and management of change and life cycle

costs to accomplish the respective goals. The plan will describe the expectations of

each of the parties responsible for implementing it, from technology development to

implementation, thereby facilitating the transition of NASA technology to implementation by the FAA.

Questions submitted by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Q1. Many nations are under pressure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in

order to come into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

A1. The governing document concerning aviation and its impact on global climate

change is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change document entitled Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. This multi-year effort, which

concluded in 1999 with the publishing of the final report, is the prime source for

answers to the questions.

Q1a. Are airplanes important contributors to global warming, due to their types of

emissions, or the fact that they deliver contaminants higher in the atmosphere?

A1a. Global aircraft emissions account for about 3.5 percent of the global warming

generated by human activities. However, jet aircraft are recognized to be the largest

source of emissions deposited directly into the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide

(CO2) is a primary product of jet fuel combustion, and survives in the atmosphere

for over 100 years. CO2 is recognized to be a greenhouse gas. Other outputs from

jet engines include water vapor, nitrogen oxides, soot, and sulfate combined with

carbon dioxide. Atmospheric scientists project that these outputs could have as

much as two to four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as carbon dioxide

alone. However, further study and research are required to further understand and

quantify the impacts.

Q1b. Will these influence choices of civil aviation aircraft for future purchases?

A1b. Currently no rules exist regarding cruise emissions levels for commercial aircraft (subsonic or supersonic). However, the Europeans are advocating the development of such a rule through the International Civil Aircraft organization (ICAO).

It is possible that such a rule will come into existence within the next 5–10 years

and companies that have the technologies and reduced emission product designs

(aircraft and engine) will be at a strong advantage with regard to other competitors.

Q1c. Are we putting adequate resources into developing low-emissions/efficient engines to meet demand?

A1c. NASA believes we are adequately supporting the technologies needed for the

future. Two projects within NASA’s Aeronautics Technology Vehicle Systems program, the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology project and the Propulsion & Power

project, are developing technology to reduce emissions and improve efficiency of aircraft engines. Current objectives for Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology are to develop and transfer technology by 2005 that reduces the emissions of oxides of nitrogen by 65 percent below the 1996 ICAO standards and by 2007 to reduce carbon

dioxide emissions by 15 percent. The Propulsion & Power project has a longer-range

view and is exploring technology to further reduce emissions. Both projects are adequately funded to meet these objectives.

Q1d. How are the European Union and Airbus doing relative to the U.S. in this

area, and do you believe it will affect our already dwindling market share in

civil aviation?

A1d. The European Union has a bold, well-coordinated plan among the government,

industry, and university sectors to develop and demonstrate required technologies

64

for future commercial aircraft opportunities. However, it is not yet clear whether

European resources expended on this effort will be sufficient for them to meet their

ambitious goals. In their published vision document, they indicate they will reclaim

the aerospace leadership role from the United States by 2020. The available documentation for the programs that support this vision indicates they have efforts underway to develop and demonstrate turbine engine technologies that will result in

significant reductions in global and local emissions. The published goals of this

project are very consistent with those of the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology

(UEET) project. The published schedule, including engine demonstrations, is very

ambitious. The European plan also includes aggressively scheduled longer-term

technology efforts for low emissions propulsion concepts beyond turbine engine architectures.

65

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Charlie Keegan, Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions,

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Questions submitted by Chairman Dana Rohrabacher

Q1. What is the rationale for only funding safety and weather-related research in the

R,E&D account?

A1. Safety is the FAA’s highest priority, and research, engineering and development

(R,E&D) is a key element in supporting the achievement of our safety goals. Weather is a significant safety concern, as it plays a role in approximately one fifth of

aviation accidents. Accordingly, FAA’s research program is heavily weighted toward

those programs the agency feels are necessary for accident prevention as well as

crew and passenger protection in the event of an accident. Yet, while safety is our

first priority, the R,E&D account also supports research in other areas including air

traffic management systems and avionics development, as well as a research program directed toward achieving the agency’s goal of reducing the impact of aviation

on the environment.

Q2. What circumstances led FAA to divest itself of performing long-term research

and development for air traffic management technologies within the R,E&D account?

A2. Prior to FY 1999 the FAA included Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technologies Research, Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Research, and Airport Technology Research in its R,E&D budget request. In FY 1999, Congress transferred $52.6M from the R,E&D appropriation to the Facilities & Equipment appropriation, created the Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping budget

item, and moved the Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technologies Research,

Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Research, and Airport Technology

Research into that line item.

It is our understanding that Congress transferred these activities because, according to the House Committee Report (H.R. Rep. No. 105–648), they fit closely with

other F&E funded activities and management of these related programs would be

improved by funding them together in a single budget item.

In keeping with this Congressional guidance, the FAA continues to include these

programs in the Advanced Technology and Prototyping budget item in its request

for Facilities & Equipment reauthorization.

Q3. NASA’s FY04 budget request proposes to spend $100 million over five years for

the National Airspace System Transition Initiative that will support, in part, the

Joint Program Office. How much funding has FAA requested for the Joint Program Office?

A3. Because FAA has just begun informal coordination with NASA, the Department

of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) to

address these long-term research needs, the FAA has not yet identified specific

funding requirements in current funding requests.

Research and development for the highly automated next generation air traffic

management system will be accomplished through collaboration with NASA and

other partners. NASA’s Next NAS is the first step in the research that will fulfill

this national mission. Other activities and resources will be identified through the

creation of a national plan for the air transportation system of 2020 and beyond.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. FAA and NASA are involved in efforts to establish a unified interagency aviation R&D program (NASA, FAA, DOD, DOC and DHS), including a process for

developing a research plan and for providing periodic program reviews. Is OMB

part of this planning process? What is the current status of the consolidated

interagency research plan? Will we see results of this effort in the President’s

FY05 budget?

A1. FAA, NASA, DOD, DOC, and DHS are currently holding preliminary discussions on how to proceed with integrated planning for the creation of a national plan

for the air transportation system of 2020 and beyond. It is difficult at this early

stage to specify the resources we will need. However, as preliminary planning progresses to the point of interagency agreement, we will be in a better position to

66

identify our needs. We will consult with OMB throughout the development of the

plan, as OMB plays an integral role in coordinating multi-agency efforts.

Q2. Since insufficient funding seems to be a problem for both NASA and FAA’s R&D

programs, will the interagency group have the authority to propose and defend

budget requests for the total Federal aviation R&D effort? If not, how can we

be assured that adequate resources are proposed for the R&D areas that are

high priorities?

A2. We do not expect the interagency group to have the authority to propose and

defend budget requests for the total Federal aviation R&D effort. Each agency will,

however, institutionalize within its planning documents and programs the appropriate elements of the National Plan and have responsibility of building and defending their budget based on their contribution to the National Plan. Each department

is expected to manage their related programs in accordance with the National Plan

developed by the interagency group.

Q3. The RE&D Advisory Committee in its July 2002 recommendations to FAA following review of FAA’s planned FY04–08 R&D investments, indicated endorsement of a $15 million budget increase to supplement the NASA Quiet Aircraft

Technology project and to sustain FAA’s Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise

Mitigation. Why didn’t FAA put the recommended funding in your FY 2004

budget request?

A3. While the FAA considers noise research important, safety related R&D programs have a higher priority within our R,E&D program. However, in the Flight100 reauthorization proposal, FAA proposes using a small part ($20 million) of the

noise set-aside of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) fund for research to advance technology to mitigate aircraft noise and aviation emissions in collaboration

with NASA, industry, and academia. Also, FAA will establish by year-end a Center

of Excellence focused specifically on aviation environmental issues. Initially, Center

of Excellence research projects will be funded through grants that require matching

funds from the grantee, thereby leveraging U.S. government research dollars with

funds from participating industry and educational institutions.

Q4. The 2002 National Research Council (NRC) report, ‘‘For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation,’’ goes on to suggest that federal agencies

should realign research goals with funding allocations to avoid raising unrealistic expectations for reducing aviation noise. That is, either relax noise goals or

increase R&D funding. For example, the report shows the declining trend in aircraft noise generation from 1960 to 1997 suddenly needing to change sharply

downward in order to meet NASA’s stated 2007 and 2022 noise goals, while the

annual federal noise reduction R&D budget, in constant dollars, is now only

about 50 percent of its average level for the past 10 years.

Q4a. What is your reaction to the NRC report’s recommendation?

A4a. The FAA welcomes the NRC findings and recommendations. The FAA shares

the concern that unless environmental issues are properly addressed they will increasingly limit air transportation growth. In this regard, the Federal Government

continues to play a vital role in achieving aviation environmental compatibility just

as it has done in achieving the significant decrease in the number of people affected

by aircraft noise. We will continue our balanced approach to noise issues for aviation.

Q4b. Do you believe that the NASA noise goals can be reached with the current level

of R&D investment, or should the goals be watered down?

A4b. The FAA wholly endorses the long-term national goal of containing objectionable aircraft noise within airport and compatible land use boundaries and is working in close partnership with NASA to achieve that goal.

Government-funded research, in which industry and academia play an important

role, is critical in advancing aviation noise reduction technology. The FAA does not

believe that the long-term goal of reducing aviation’s noise impact should be scaled

back. Although reaching NASA’s noise goals will prove challenging, the FY 2002 and

2003 appropriations gave the FAA a new role as a direct, equal partner with NASA

so that we can help accelerate the introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies.

The FAA is seeking to bolster its commitment to long-term noise reduction R&D

in its Flight-100 proposal. The proposal dedicates a limited amount ($20 million)

from the noise-set aside funding in AIP monies for research efforts to reduce aircraft

noise and emissions at the source.

67

Q5. How does the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise function? What

are NASA’s and FAA’s roles? Does the committee produce an interagency research plan? If so, please provide a copy of that plan to the Committee.

A5. The FAA, along with NASA, DOD, the Department of Interior (DOI/NPS), the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) form the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise

(FICAN). The purpose of the FICAN is to provide public forums for debate on future

research needs and to encourage new development efforts in the areas of aircraft

noise assessment, control, and reduction.

The Committee meets at least quarterly, conducts one or more public sessions or

symposium each year, and publishes an annual report of its activities. When appropriate, the FICAN issues findings on particular aviation noise issues such as, the

effects of aviation noise (1997), research on natural quiet (2000), and the effects of

noise in the classroom (2000).

Each participating agency agrees to provide administrative support commensurate

with its level of participation in the FICAN either directly, or by contributing funding for a central administrative support contract. The FICAN does not have its own

research budget and therefore does not have a research plan, but the participating

agencies do conduct research that supports the FICAN objectives.

Q6. In response to a recommendation by the RE&D Advisory Committee that FAA

develop comprehensive human-system integration plans, FAA’s response was

that:

‘‘funding constraints do not accommodate robust assessment of human-system

integration considerations across all operational conditions associated with new

technologies and capabilities.’’

What has been the experience at FAA when new technologies were introduced

into operating environments without adequate consideration of human factors?

A6. Aviation safety and security improvements are dependent on developing a national aviation system that is not only technically sophisticated, but also human

performance based and human-centered. One of the lessons the FAA has learned

from past technology programs is that a lack of focus on human factors can result

in increased costs caused by re-engineering and schedule delays.

Therefore, it is essential that human factors specialists remain full partners in

the development and deployment of advanced aviation technologies. With that in

mind, the FAA now requires that human factors be systematically integrated at

each critical step in the design, testing, and acquisition of new technology introduced into the national aviation system.

We also conduct annual human factors engineering reviews for systems currently

being acquired by the FAA. In FY 2002, for example, 88 of 104 systems were assessed as meeting human factors policies, processes, and best practices. For those

systems that do not meet the human factors policies, processes, and best practices,

the assessments are followed by appropriate corrective actions.

Q7. What is the rationale for the FY04 budget request for human factors research,

which is five percent below the FY03 appropriated level?

A7. While the Human Factors components of the R,E,&D budget request are lower

than last year, because funding for human factors research is spread across multiple

appropriations, the FAA has been able to shift some of its work to other accounts.

For example, to meet critical human factors needs and to ensure effective implementation of new technologies, the Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) use Facilities

and Equipment and Operations funding sources for their human factors specialists

to undertake the necessary studies of human-system integration. Human factors reviews of these studies show that the IPTs can effectively address implementation

issues without impact from reduced FY04 funding for human factors research.

Q8. In response to a recommendation of the RE&D Advisory Committee that FAA

recognize and champion NASA research directed toward achieving capacity and

safety gains for the air traffic management system, FAA stated that:

‘‘FAA has not had the resources to fully participate in the technical effort with

NASA that we feel are necessary to help guide long-term R&D.’’

Q8a. Isn’t this a major impediment to ensuring that NASA research is relevant to

FAA’s needs, and doesn’t it contribute to the problem of transitioning NASA’s

research results to FAA operational systems?

68

A8a. Transitioning NASA research to FAA operational systems has been difficult,

but it is critical that FAA concentrate its resources on the immediate needs of the

Nation’s air transportation system. To improve this situation and to facilitate an

easier transition of NASA products into the National Airspace System (NAS), the

FAA’s NASA Ames Field office has begun an effort with NASA to identify key NASA

technologies suitable for more rapid transition into the NAS. In addition, we have

a technology transfer process now, which we have demonstrated to be very successful.

The Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) is a prime example of a new technology

developed by NASA and successfully transitioned into the NAS. The new TMA technology was first implemented as an operational prototype at the Fort Worth Air

Route Traffic Control Center. The associated prototype software was then re-engineered at six additional sites. The re-engineering involved specific site operational

requirements as well as the necessary artifacts for life-cycle support. The use of

TMA National User Teams comprised of both management and labor facilitated the

transition into the NAS.

Q8b. Given your stated lack of resources, how will you ensure that NASA’s research

is relevant to FAA’s needs?

A8b. FAA’s work with NASA, DOD, DHS, OSTP, and DOC in establishing a unified

national plan for the air transportation system of 2020 and beyond, will provide the

context for NASA’s aeronautics research efforts, as well as continued support of the

interagency integrated product team.

Questions submitted by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Q1. Many nations are under pressure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in

order to come into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

Q1a. Are airplanes important contributors to global warming, due to their types of

emissions, or the fact that they deliver contaminants higher in the atmosphere?

A1a. Although airplanes do have an impact on global warming, aviation emissions

remain a very small source of air pollution. A recent GAO study noted that in the

United States, aviation contributes less than 0.5 percent of air pollutants. Also, due

to recent reductions in aviation activity, aviation-related air pollution emissions

have declined significantly in the past two years. However, because of the altitude

at which aviation emissions occur, their proportionate impact on global warming is

arguably higher.

In 1999 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United

Nations Environment Program (UNEP), published a special report on Aviation and

the Global Atmosphere, which constitutes the most current authoritative view on the

state of the science and technology related to aviation’s potential impact on the atmosphere.

The report concludes that, ‘‘Aircraft emit gases and particles directly into the

upper atmosphere and lower stratosphere where they have an impact on atmospheric composition. These gases and particles alter the concentration of atmospheric

greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, ozone, and methane; trigger formation

of condensation trails (contrails); and may increase cirrus cloudiness, all of which

contribute to climate change.’’

Q1b. Will this influence choices of civil aviation aircraft for future purchases?

A1b. Yes, it will have an impact. An airline’s choices of future aircraft purchases

are driven by a variety of factors including fuel efficiency. All other factors being

equal, the amount of emissions produced by an aircraft is essentially proportional

to fuel consumption, which is proportional to flight activity.

To the extent that airlines purchase aircraft with improved fuel efficiency, there

is the potential for reduced emissions. However depending upon the aircraft and engines selected there can be tradeoffs between reduced carbon dioxide emissions and

increased emissions of nitrogen oxides, which can be specific to the engine combustor. Nitrogen oxide emissions are precursors of ozone.

In addition to concerns over climate change, national ambient air quality standards established by the EPA drive the need to reduce emissions during the landing

and takeoff (LTO) cycle of aircraft around airports. These air quality standards also

include ozone.

Again, depending upon the aircraft and engine selected there can be tradeoffs to

consider in achieving reduced nitrogen oxide emissions during the LTO cycle versus

nitrogen oxide emissions at altitude, as well as other tradeoffs with emissions of carVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
69

bon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons that are primarily generated during

ground idle and taxi operations. Thus, the choice of aircraft is a complex decision

that cannot be solely tied to emissions that potentially impact climate change.

Q1c. Are we putting adequate resources into developing low-emissions/efficient engines to meet demand?

A1c. The FAA’s research in developing low-emissions/efficient engines, like much of

our work on environmental technology, is done collaboratively with NASA and industry. So far, this collaboration has been productive, examining new approaches to

engine design, retrofit of older engines, and changes to airfoil design to improve aircraft engine efficiency and thereby reduce emissions.

At present, it is very difficult to quantify the demand for low emission aircraft.

However, it is likely that as concern about the impact of aircraft emissions continues to grow that additional regulations and requirements in various markets,

such as Europe, will likely increase the demand for aircraft that use low emission

technology.

Q1d. How are the European Union and Airbus doing relative to the U.S. in this

area, and do you believe it will affect our already dwindling market share in

civil aviation?

A1d. The European Union and Airbus have taken an interest in emissions reduction technology. However, the FAA and NASA are strongly committed to pursuing

initiatives, both in a research and operational environment, to reduce aircraft emissions. While it is extremely difficult to predict, what, if any, market share advantage there might be at such an early stage of the technology’s development, the U.S.

is making strong efforts to stay competitive in this aspect of aviation research. Several projects, conducted jointly with NASA, are developing and testing new engine

technologies that can have a substantial impact on aircraft emissions. One of these

is an initiative to substantially reduce the level of nitrous oxide in high level jet

aircraft emissions through more efficient combustion in large jet aircraft engines.

70

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by R. John Hansman, Jr., Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Director, MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. You pointed out in your testimony that research funding level sat NASA and

FAA for activities related to the National Airspace System have been flat or declining for the past five years.

Q1a. Has your advisory committee made explicit recommendations to FAA regarding

what would be an adequate funding level for such research?

A1a. First, I must point out that while I am a member of the R,E&D Advisory Committee, I am not it’s Chair so my responses represent my personal view or my best

recollection.

The R,E&D Advisory Committee has recommended some specific programs and

funding levels but I am not sure if we have recommended an aggregate funding

level. The Committee has generally worked with the preliminary budget assumptions presented by the FAA and attempted to help the FAA prioritize within these

budget constraints.

While there has been a clear sense that the budget levels were not adequate, it

was thought that general requests for increased funding would not be considered

credible.

Q1b. Is this matter discussed between the FAA and NASA advisory committees,

which now have some members in common?

A1b. It has been discussed in general terms.

Q2. In your testimony, you mentioned the need for more research on the processes

of air transportation system transition. Has your advisory committee made specific recommendations to FAA, and how has the agency responded?

A2. The issue of transition and modernization has been a focus of the Air Traffic

Services Subcommittee of the R,E&D advisory committee for a number of years.

While the FAA has made improvements in their transition process with the Operational Evolution Plan and other efforts, I am not aware of research being done in

identifying fundamental barriers to transition.

Q3. What guidance has the R,E&D advisory committee provided FAA regarding

human factors research and what level of priority would you ascribe to such research?

A3. The R,E&D advisory committee has a Human Factors Subcommittee. We review the elements of the Human Factors research program although we do not review the human factors efforts in the F&E programs. The FAA has increased it’s

awareness of human factors issues and has maintained reasonable support for

human factors over the past few years.

I would note a specific area of concern for human factors research is the lack of

access to the operational environment for the research community. Since September

11, security considerations have limited access to operational environments such as

air traffic facilities, flight decks, and maintenance facilities. Such access is critical

to develop systems which include consideration of the real human factors issues.

While there is a legitimate need to maintain a secure air transportation system,

processes need to be developed to give legitimate members of the research community access to the operational environment.

Q4. How helpful and forthcoming is FAA in assisting your committee in its review

of R&D programs? Does you committee have access to information about all

FAA R&D programs? If not, what information is withheld?

A4. The FAA has beef very helpful and forthcoming in assisting the R,E&D advisory committee and it’s subcommittees. The most significant difficulty has been the

limited time the committee members can devote to the process which limits the

depth of review. The R,E&D advisory committee is reviewing it’s own processes to

see if it can become more efficient and effective in it’s advisory role.

Q5. Does the advisory committee review all R&D programs, regardless of the appropriations account from which it is budgeted? At a minimum, does the committee

71

review all of the programs described in the annual National Aviation Research

Plan?

A5. The R,E&D advisory committee reviews all the research in the National Aviation Research Plan although the depth of review varies due to time limitations and

different processes used by the subcommittees. The committee does not review in

a systematic or comprehensive manner research and development elements supported by Facilities and Equipment funds. The committee also does not review the

content of research and development activities at MITRE.

Q5a. If not, why not?

A5a. There is some ambiguity as to what research and development is within the

purview of the R,E&D advisory committee.

Q6. In its comments on its review of the FAA’s planned FY04–08 R&D investments,

your advisory committee stated that the ‘‘movement of money from R&D to Facilities and Equipment creates several impediments to the conduct of research.’’

Q6a. Could you elaborate on what the committee believes are the most significant of

these impediments?

A6a. The movement of a significant fraction of the R&D funds to Facilities and

Equipment (F&E) makes it difficult to have an balanced research portfolio. The

F&E activities constitute a significant fraction of the research funds but must be

narrowly applied. There is a loss of capability in more basic, anticipatory or cross

cutting research which cannot be tied to a specific acquisition effort. For example,

it is my understanding that basic research grants cannot be funded from F&E funds

even if the work would have significant relevance to F&E acquisitions.

Q7. The R,E&D Advisory Committee in its comments on its review of FAA’s planned

FY04–08 R&D investments stated that it supports FAA’s aviation weather program being funded at the ‘‘base level.’’ FAA’s FY04 request for weather research is $21 million, compared with FY03 appropriate of $34 million. What does your

committee recommend as the ‘‘ base level’’?

A7. I believe that the ‘‘base level’’ was in the range from $25 million to $30 million.

Q8. The R,E&D Advisory Committee has called on FAA to conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of current research in aircraft noise and emissions reduction

technologies. What findings led the committee to this recommendation? What entity should carry out this study?

A8. This was motivated by the 2002 National Research Council (NRC) report, ‘‘For

Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation’’ report and by the observations of the members of the subcommittee on environment and energy. The entity that carries out this study should be independent such as the national research

council with membership from academia and the stakeholder groups, airlines, airports, community groups, etc.

Q9. The R,E&D Advisory Committee made recommendations regarding increased efforts for characterization of aircraft emissions and provision for modeling of the

effects of emissions that seem to suggest the relevant FAA budget is deficient.

The FY04 R&D request for engine emissions is $2.4 million.

Q9a. Is this adequate, and if not, has the Advisory Committee made any explicit

funding recommendations?

A9a. After conferring with the Chair of the Environmental Subcommittee, it was

his best recollection that this was not considered adequate and that the subcommittee discussed a 50 percent increase although it was not formally recommended.

Q9b. Has your advisory committee made explicit recommendations for what would

constitute an appropriate funding level for the FAA Environment and Energy

program, and if so, what has been the agency’s response to your recommendations?

A9b. The recommendation of the R,E&D Advisory Committee on funding for environment and energy was that funding should be at the $22 million level.

Q10. The 2002 National Research Council (NRC) report, ‘‘For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation,’’ recommends that federal expenditures

to reduce noise should be reallocated to shift some funds from local abatement,

which provides near-term relief for affected communities, to research and technology that will ultimately reduce the total noise produced by aviation. CurVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 085418 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\SA03\030603\85418 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
72

rently, funding for abatement activities by FAA totals approximately 18 times

federal R&D related to noise.

Q10a. Please commend on the feasibility of this recommendation.

A10a. There are no significant problems with this recommendation that I am aware

of although Congress may have to direct that the funds be spent in this way.

Q10b. In general, does FAA consider cost/benefit tradeoffs of the kind suggested here

across different major categories of its budget?

A10b. I am not aware that they do.

Q11. The R,E&D Advisory Committee in its July 2002 recommendations to FAA following review of FAA’s planned FY04–08 R&D investments, indicated endorsement of a $15 million budget increase to supplement the NASA Quiet Aircraft

Technology project and to sustain FAA’s Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise

Mitigation.

Q11a. Do you understand why this funding did not materialize in the FY04 budget

request?

A11a. No.

Q11b. Do you believe FAA’s FY04 request for noise research, $4 million, is sufficient?

A11b. No.

Q11c. What level of funding would be consistent with its importance and with being

able to exploit opportunities for aircraft noise reduction?

A11c. Funding at the $19 million level would be appropriate.

Q12. The R,E&D Advisory Committee recommended (4Feb02)letter to the FAA on the

FY04 budget review) that the FAA develop a ‘‘fully competent and expertly

staffed organization to absorb and use the results of NASA’s R&D.’’ FAA’s response to this recommendation was that its Free Flight Office does this.

Q12a. Does the Advisory Committee find this to be a satisfactory response: does the

Free Flight Office function effectively in the tech transfer role?

A12a. It does not appear that the Free Flight Office can fulfill the role that the

R,E&D Advisory Committee envisioned.

Questions submitted by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Q1. Many nations are under pressure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses in

order to come into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

Q1a. Are airplanes important contributors to global warming, due to their types of

emissions, or the fact that they deliver contaminants higher in the atmosphere?

A1a. Airplanes contribute about 3.5 percent of total man-made forcing. Their emissions contain the same chemical species as those from land-based hydrocarbon combustion (e.g., automobiles). However, the deposition at altitude causes more severe

impacts because of physical processes (e.g., contrails) and chemical processes (e.g.,

lower background concentrations of some species—relatively more pristine environment). To first order, burning a gallon of fuel at 30,000 ft. has double the impact

of burning a gallon of fuel at sea-level. Another significant difference is the very

asymmetrical distribution of pollution (northern versus southern hemisphere). This

is expected to further augment the role of aviation in climate change.

Q1b. Will this influence choices of civil aviation aircraft for future purchases?

A1b. It is likely that it will. There is some evidence that local and national governments may institute emissions based restrictions and trading programs.

Q1c. Are we putting adequate resources into developing low-emissions/efficient engines to meet demand?

A1c. We are putting in enough on engines, but it is the whole aviation system that

produces the emissions. Within the engine there are some difficult trades—such

trades may not be apparent within airframe or operations. Work to find emissions

improvements in these areas is under funded. Further, much of the science is a

moving target right now and we are not investing enough money in understanding

the unique impacts of aviation.

73

Q1d. How are the European Union and Airbus doing relative to the U.S. in this

area, and do you believe it will affect our already dwindling marketshare civil

aviation?

A1d. The European Union and Airbus are putting more effort and resources into

environmental effects. If they also put in place strict standards (like emissions trading, which they intend to do), then we may be at a disadvantage.

74

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Malcolm B. Armstrong, Senior Vice President, Aviation Operations and

Safety, Air Transport Association

Question submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. You point out that NASA funding for environmental research in noise and emissions has been less than half of what has been needed over the past few years.

You also note the importance of federal funding to develop new technologies to

a level of technological readiness sufficient to allow the private sector to perform

testing and advanced development to transition promising technologies to commercial applications. In addition to inadequacies in the funding level for environmental R&D, does NASA support R&D for new technologies far enough in

the development path to bring them to the technology readiness level at which

industry will take over?

A1. The question appears to ask us to distinguish the funding level issue from other

NASA support that may be provided in the development of new aeronautics technologies.

Unfortunately, if there is insufficient funding for aeronautics research, new technologies generally cannot be developed to the technology readiness level (‘‘TRL’’)

that is needed for industry to fully take over, even if NASA is willing to continue

to provide other non-funding support.

As you no doubt are aware, NASA’s TRL scale includes nine steps. As applied to

aeronautics, the scale typically is presented as follows:

Technology Readiness Levels Summary

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-ofconcept

TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in flight environment

TRL 8 Actual system completed and ‘‘flight qualified’’ through test and demonstration

TRL 9 Actual system ‘‘flight proven’’ on operational flight

While the public-private partnership continues throughout the TRLs of a typical

aeronautics R&D project, it is well accepted that to have a reasonable chance at

commercial development and application, R&D programs must be brought through

TRL 6 with government funding. In fact, this was a specific finding in the recent

report of the National Research Council with respect to new technologies to enhance

environmental performance. See National Research Council, ‘‘For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation,’’ at 21, 47 (2002). The same report found

that the NASA and FAA aeronautics programs for environmental development are

under funded, such that they are bringing many of their noise and emissions programs only to TRL 4.

We are seeing the same trend overall in aeronautics research and development

generally, as research funds are diminishing (as I pointed out in my testimony, in

some cases because they are being diverted to the space program). Accordingly,

based on these trends, we are concerned that NASA will have greater and greater

difficulty providing the support necessary to bring new aeronautics technologies forward to TRL levels adequate to have significant chances at commercial application.

Questions submitted by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Q1. Many nations are under pressure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in

order to come into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

Q1a. Are airplanes important contributors to global warming, due to their types of

emissions, or the fact that they deliver contaminants higher in the atmosphere?

75

A1a. Aviation emits ‘‘greenhouse gas emissions’’ that are attributed to climate

change. However, studies show that aviation is a small contributor, even taking into

account the fact that much of the emissions from commercial aviation occur at significant altitudes. In 1999, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a technical body established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme, released a comprehensive study on this issue.

Using radiative forcing (‘‘RF’’) as a metric, which allows the location and volume of

the various emissions attributable to climate change (whether positive or negative)

to be taken into account, the IPCC found that aviation contributes approximately

3.5–4.0 percent of total RF attributed to human sources as measured against a preindustrial atmosphere. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘‘Aviation

and the Global Atmosphere,’’ at 187–88 (1999) (hereinafter ‘‘IPCC Report’’). While

this contribution is not particularly significant compared to other sources, we take

our contribution to the environment very seriously, and seek to minimize our emissions to the extent possible.

Q1b. Will this influence choices of civil aviation aircraft for future purchases?

A1b. Greenhouse gas emissions, particularly the most prevalent one—carbon dioxide (CO2)—are products of the combustion of fossil fuel. Given that fuel is the second highest cost to airlines, we have long had an incentive to buy the aircraft within

mission parameters that are as fuel-efficient as possible. We likewise have an incentive to manage our operations as fuel efficiently as possible. In fact, Federal Aviation Administration statistics confirm that the North American airlines have

achieved a 109 percent gain in fuel efficiency since 1975. This is a ‘‘win-win’’ for industry and the environment, as greenhouse gas emissions are minimized as we minimize our fuel burn and, hence, our operating expenses.

Q1c. Are we putting adequate resources into developing low-emissions/efficient engines to meet demand?

A1c. ATA and its airlines are very supportive of the programs at NASA and FAA

to make further strides in low-emissions/efficient engines. However, we are concerned that funding cuts in recent years puts the results of those programs in jeopardy. NASA’s Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (‘‘UEET’’) Program is intended to

seek ways to reduce CO2 and oxides of nitrogen (NOΧ) emissions from aircraft engines. However, this program is funded at significantly lower levels than previous

NASA emissions programs and does not address other aviation emissions. As confirmed by the National Research Council, this program is not funded sufficiently to

meet its own milestones and federal research dollars for emissions-related R&D are

insufficient to meet the challenges for continued environmental progress. See National Research Council, ‘‘For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of

Aviation,’’ at 33 (2002).

Q1d. How are the European Union and Airbus doing relative to the U.S. in this

area, and do you believe it will affect our already dwindling marketshare in

civil aviation?

A1d. Federal investment in aeronautics R&D has been shown to play an important

role in the competitiveness of our industry. At the same time that the United States

has been decreasing our investment in aviation R&D, the European Community has

been increasing their investment. In fact, the various States in the European Union

have now created an over-riding entity, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (‘‘ACARE’’), to combine and leverage their R&D investments, with

the stated goal of making Europe ‘‘the uncontested world leader in aeronautics’’ by

2020. See ‘‘European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020,’’ (January 2001) and ACARE

web site, at http://www.acare4europe.org/. To the extent that the Europeans continue to put greater R&D dollars into their aeronautics program, and the United

States continues the trend of decreased investments, it is inevitable that this will

affect the competitiveness of our industry.

(77)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

78

79

80

81

82