PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER

SERVICES TO THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND

OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 16, 2009

Serial No. 111–43

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–747PDF 2010

PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER

SERVICES TO THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND

OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 16, 2009

Serial No. 111–43

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chair

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHY DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director

JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member

TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member

MOLLY O’ROURKE Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

July 16, 2009

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 6

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7

Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 8

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

Witnesses:

Mr. David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,

U.S. Government Accountability Office

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12

Biography .......................................................................................................... 28

Dr. John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;

Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30

Biography .......................................................................................................... 34

Mr. Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37

Biography .......................................................................................................... 39

Discussion

Involvement of Air Traffic Controllers in Reform ............................................. 40

The Effects of Reducing the Number of Meteorologists .................................... 41

Safety and Potential Degradation of Service ..................................................... 41

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;

Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .................................................... 54

Mr. Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................... 56

Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

#1: Interagency Agreement DTFAWA–08–X–80000 between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service for the Provision of Meteorological Support

to the Air Route Traffic Control Centers (December 19, 2007) ........................ 58

#2: FAA Order 7210.38A, Center Weather Service Units (April 6, 1984) ............ 70

#3: National Weather Service Instruction 10–803, Support to Air Traffic Control Facilities (September 3, 2008) ...................................................................... 104

#4: National Weather Service Instruction 10–814, Center Weather Service

Unit Site Review Program (November 10, 2008) ............................................... 138

#5: Federal Aviation Administration Center Weather Service Unit Requirements Document (December 2007) ...................................................................... 154

#6:Federal Aviation Administration Center Weather Service Unit Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (December 2007) ...................................................... 180

#7: Letter from Nancy Kalinowski (Vice President, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, FAA) to Dr. John Hayes (Assistant Administrator of Weather Services, NOAA) (September 24, 2008) ............................... 202

#8: Letter from Dr. Hayes to Eugene Juba (Senior Vice President for Financial Services, FAA) (June 3, 2009) ...................................................................... 203

#9: Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) Technical/Price Response for New

CWSU Services (June 3, 2009) ............................................................................ 204

#10: CWSU cost proposal (June 3, 2009) ............................................................... 239

#11: NOAA/NEWS Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan (June 3, 2009) ........................................................................ 264

#12: AVIATION WEATHER: FAA is Re-evaluating Services at Key Centers;

Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to Better Ensure Product

Quality, Government Accountability Office (January 2008) ............................. 290

#13: Center Weather Service Units (CWSUs) Restructure Efforts, FAA presentation slides (July 7, 2009) .................................................................................. 321

#14: Higgins, Will. ‘‘Some Worried About Plan to Cut Airport Meteorologists,’’

Printout from FederalTimes.com (February 20, 2009) ...................................... 337

#15: KTVU–TV, ‘‘FAA Plan Panned by Bay Area Air Traffic Controllers,’’

Printout from Foxreno.com (February 20, 2009) ............................................... 338

#16: Letter from Mark Rosenker, Chairman (Acting), National Transportation

Safety Board, to Chairman Miller (July 16, 2009) ............................................ 339

#17: Site Reviews for the CWSUs at Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Atlanta,

Oakland, New York (Ronkonkoma), Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Memphis .. 341

(1)

PROVIDING AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES

TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad Miller

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Providing Aviation Weather

Services to the

Federal Aviation Administration

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009

11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Witnesses

• Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, Government Accountability Office

• Dr. John L. (Jack) Hayes, Assistant Administrator for National Weather

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Mr. Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organi- zation, Federal Aviation Administration

Introduction: Aviation Weather Service Consolidation

The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight meets on July 16, 2009 to ex- amine the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s efforts to reorganize the aviation

weather services provided by the National Weather Service (NWS). The Federal

Aviation Administration has been pushing the National Weather Service to reorganize its aviation weather services by consolidating from the twenty-one regional centers, called Central Service Weather Units (CWSUs), down to one national center.

The ostensible reasons for this request were a desire to reduce the costs to FAA,

which reimbursed NWS for their aviation services, and to improve and make more

consistent the weather products provided by NWS forecasters. However, no proposal

from NWS to consolidate services has shown significant savings and the lack of

metrics on the performance of the CWSUs or the quality of services from CWSUs

as perceived by FAA makes it impossible to demonstrate reliably whether the proposed alternative organization would provide better forecast services or enhance air

traffic management. Finally, any reorganization carries real risks to air traffic flow

and public safety. In light of these risks, the lack of clear baseline metrics of the

current systems’ performance and assurance that the proposed reorganization will

offer benefits in terms of safety, traffic management or costs, the decisions to reorganize the current system and to consider only one option for that reorganization

are not well justified or supported.

The Current System for Providing Aviation Weather Services

The FAA and NWS have operated an aviation weather system in which NWS forecasters are co-located with air traffic controllers at the twenty-one Air Route

Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) around the country. Weather conditions have a

significant impact on air transport. Many flight delays and disruptions to air traffic

flow are attributable to unfavorable weather conditions and weather has been a factor in a number of accidents. The current system evolved out of recommendations

from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that such regional distribution of forecasters would enable them to work directly with air traffic controllers to

deal with severe or rapidly changing weather conditions and emergencies. This distributed approach to services was endorsed in a 1995 National Academy of Science

report as well.

The ARTCCs handle planes as they traverse the country. Planes are managed by airport traffic control towers for take-offs and landings and then are passed to the

Terminal Radar Approach Towers for the Departure and Approach phases of a

flight. Aircraft en route between airports are managed by the ARTCCs. Each

ARTCC has an NWS Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) housed in the same

4

building with four forecasters assigned to each of the 21 ARTCCs. The forecasters

typically provide services 16 hours a day, seven days a week—which is the peak

time for commercial and general aviation.

Aviation weather forecasts out of the CWSUs are not the sole source of weather

information for the national air space. Weather Forecasting Offices (WFO) around

the country provide continuous weather updates twenty-four hours a day and support local airports. However, aviation forecasting is a specialized application because

of the specific needs of aviation. Winds and weather at different altitudes can make

an enormous difference in aviation, but may be purely academic from the perspective of forecasting whether the local community will get showers or just clouds.

Weather patterns vary enormously from region-to-region and from season-to-season.

Aviation weather forecasters develop very specific local knowledge to help support

the work of the air traffic controllers and the aviation community. The large airlines

typically have their own weather service that they get under contract with private

providers. These private providers use NWS data, but run the data through their

own models designed to meet the specific needs of the commercial carrier.

The Subcommittee has reviewed more than a dozen documented cases of air traffic controllers seeking emergency help from weather service forecasters to get a

plane safely back on the ground. Frequently, those stories do not involve severe

weather, but simple common occurrences such as a private aircraft losing instrumentation and finding itself stranded above endless cloud cover. Forecasters who

can find the break in the clouds, work with the air traffic controller to get the heading right and work to bring the plane to the ground before it runs out of fuel make

the difference between a safe return and potential tragedy.

The annual costs for running this distributed system are in the range of $12 million. This covers both the technology acquired for the CWSUs as well as the 84

weather forecasting positions assigned across the network.

FAA Pushes to Change this System and the NWS Responds

In 2005, FAA asked NWS to propose a consolidation of weather services down to

one center with the goal of saving $2 million a year in aviation weather forecasting

costs. NWS provided a proposal that would move the aviation weather forecasters

back to local Weather Forecast Offices and would meet the $2 million savings goal.

FAA rejected that proposal as well as a subsequent proposal that would have

brought some consolidation, but not down to one center. As of July 2009, NWS has

now submitted their third proposal to the FAA. FAA intends to respond to that proposal by early August.

The new NWS proposal would consolidate the CWSUs down to two centers (this

is similar to their last, rejected proposal)—one in Kansas City to handle the Southern Tier of the U.S. and one in Silver Spring, Maryland to handle the Northern

Tier. Staffing would be reduced from 84 forecasters to just 50 forecasters and managers split between the two centers as well as the one remaining ARTCC in Anchorage, Alaska. Coverage would be 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

FAA argues that consolidating to one center will provide a ‘‘single authoritative

source’’ for aviation weather forecasts and eliminate variation in the quality of service and products that have been found across the current, distributed system. In the

mid-2000s, FAA argued that some CWSUs were not as good as others and that the

variation in products from one center to the next led to confusion. NWS took these

criticisms to heart and has been working to improve and standardize the services

provided by CWSUs across the country. However, according to the National Air

Traffic Controllers Organization, air traffic controllers at the ARTCCs—the men and

women who rely on the CWSUs—are very strong advocates for keeping the forecasters on site and available to them to deal with emergencies. Their view is that

consolidation would negatively impact their ability to do their jobs of keeping the

national airspace safe.

FAA also argues that such a consolidation should produce savings. However, the

NWS proposal suggests that it will take a decade or more to realize any savings.

The annual costs reimbursed to the NWS by FAA run on the order of $12 million.

Under the new proposal, the annual costs of a consolidated system will be in the

$11 million range. Transition costs for setting up two new centers, acquiring new

technologies, running a demonstration test, and relocating staff will run $12 million.

It would take a decade to earn back the costs of the transition.

The NWS proposes to set up a center to run a side-by-side test of the performance

of a consolidated center for comparison with the performance of the 21 regional centers. They would ask the National Academy of Sciences to monitor and evaluate the

outcome of the test. However, there are problems with the proposed test and challenges in designing any reliable test, especially within the time period currently alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

lotted. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) highlights these challenges in

their testimony.

Degraded Service and Safety Questions

One lost asset that would come from consolidation is the specialized local knowledge that currently informs aviation weather forecaster’s work. The experts who

currently work in the 21 regions have developed very precise knowledge of how

weather patterns tend to emerge in each area. FAA hopes (as does NWS) that these

experienced forecasters will be willing to relocate to the new centers. However, NWS

admits that because of the turmoil and uncertainty surrounding the future of the

existing 21 centers, the centers have been having trouble retaining staff in the last

few years. Between projected retirements of more than 20 percent of the workforce

and the uncertain fate of the CWSUs that has led many forecasters to seek other

opportunities, the amount of local knowledge in the centers has been declining.

These factors are making it more unlikely that the Kansas City and Silver Spring

centers will be able to attract experienced aviation weather forecasters with a diverse mix of specialized, local information. One might argue that the national airspace has been made less safe simply because of the protracted efforts by FAA to

force a consolidation of the CWSUs on the NWS.

GAO finds that neither FAA nor the NWS have established meaningful metrics

for performance for the current 21 CWSUs. Further, GAO finds that FAA requirements for the weather service are in flux and not fully articulated. This makes it

difficult, if not impossible, to run any meaningful test. If performance cannot be

measured, one cannot accurately judge whether a new organizational approach is

better or worse. Further, to staff up the center, NWS is proposing to take some of

the most senior people out of the 21 CWSUs. This would leave CWSUs weaker and

concentrate expertise in the consolidated center, leaving doubts about the fairness

of the test results, especially if many of these senior staff are the same experienced

people that the NWS projects to retire if they down-size from 84 forecasters to 50

staff.

Finally, there is a valid question about whether 50 staff would be sufficient to provide safe services. Each of the two centers will have five senior forecasters and 13

forecasters. Each center will operate 24 hours a day seven days a week for a total

of 21 shifts. Projecting a morning and evening shift of six forecasters each and one

forecaster on the midnight shift, the two centers together would have 12 forecasters

for the entire lower-48 states on the morning shift as the national airspace swings

into full flight. That compares to at least 20 forecasters on duty on any given morning shift right now. It is hard to see how the Nation’s aviation system will be safer

or how air traffic will be improved by cutting the people in weather forecasting by

40 percent. On a day where you have brush fires over L.A., fog in San Francisco,

ash plumes over the Northwest, and thunder storms and tornadoes developing from

the east face of the Rockies to the Great Lakes and the Gulf, that reduction in staffing could become a matter of life and death.

To his credit, the head of the National Weather Service is adamant that no

change to the organization of the CWSUs will occur unless it can be clearly demonstrated that safety is not degraded. Given the lack of meaningful performance

metrics, and the obvious decline in staffing that comes with the consolidation proposal, it appears on its face that this approach to aviation weather services will be

impossible to convincingly demonstrate as being as safe or responsive to the needs

of the Air Traffic Controllers and the aviation community. In light of the inevitable

risks of moving from a proven system to an unproven system, the continued pressure from FAA for consolidation of NWS services is difficult to fathom.

6

Chairman MILLER. The hearing will now come to order. Good

morning. Welcome to today’s hearing, Providing Aviation Weather

Services to the Federal Aviation Administration. This subcommittee

has frequently struggled with the peculiar nonchalance of some

government agencies in the face of the obvious dysfunction of critical programs.

Today we struggle with the equally-peculiar determination by

the FAA to solve a problem that appears not to exist. To fix what

ain’t broke or appears not to be broke. The current system of delivering aviation weather products for air traffic controllers appears

to work pretty well.

For 30 years the National Weather Service, the NWS, has provided support to the Federal Aviation Administration through aviation weather forecast units that are located at each of the 21 regional air centers. There are 84 weather forecasters spread among

those 21 centers, offering 16 hours of service each day at an annual

cost of $12 million. The system appears to be lean and well-suited

to air traffic controllers’ needs.

In 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a survey of air traffic

controllers at seven of the regional air traffic centers under a contract with the FAA. Their conclusion was apparently not what FAA

wanted to hear. Booz Allen found that air traffic controllers have

a strong desire to have on-site weather forecasters and considered

the services of the meteorologists highly valuable, and the air traffic controllers expressed ‘‘sensitivity’’—that is the phrase of Booz

Allen—to any actions that might terminate or severely alter the delivery method of those services.

This weather forecasting supports, by the FAA’s own calculations, a $1 trillion aviation industry. Currently the FAA is spending approximately $1 billion a year on NextGen development, so

the $12 million for aviation weather forecasting that FAA pays the

NWS for seems like a bargain.

Now, still, FAA has pushed the National Weather Service to consolidate their aviation weather service to a single center since

2005. The FAA’s determination to force the NWS to reorganize does

not appear supported by any particular evidence of a significant

problem with the current system that cannot be addressed within

the system, or any evidence that there is substantial waste in the

current system.

FAA’s determination appears not supported by any evidence that

a consolidated system would provide better service or even service

as good as what the NWS now provides.

Again, air traffic controllers like the NWS system just fine and

don’t want to change it. GAO concludes that the FAA settled for

a solution for reorganizing aviation weather services before they

could clearly articulate their own requirements for those services

and before they had given any thought to how to measure existing

performance. In other words, FAA decided on a solution before they

figured out if they had a problem.

Only since the last GAO report of 2008 has the FAA and the National Weather Service begun to develop performance metrics for

the aviation weather units. Now, for the first time, an exercise is

underway by FAA and NWS to baseline the performance of existing

units through these baselines—though these baselines are built on

7

1The National Air Traffic Controllers Association

2The National Weather Service Employees Organization

impressionistic interviews rather than a steady aggregation of hard

performance numbers.

We all support performance-based decisions and a commitment

to continuing improvement, two slogans the FAA and other government agencies frequently use, but the reality is that performancebased decisions-making—performance-based decision-making requires meaningful, rigorous performance metrics. The FAA does

not have those but has determined that a new organizational structure is needed.

The FAA says that this consolidation will provide a solid platform to transition to the NextGen Air Transportation System, but

we have—but they have not included NextGen’s weather planning

office in the discussion, about the requirements of the NWS, or in

their evaluation of any of the proposed reorganizations.

The Federal Aviation Administration has claimed that the consolidation will save at least $2 million, but those savings can only

come through reducing the number of weather forecasters who are

dedicated to supporting the needs of aviation.

Ultimately, the FAA has pushed for a plan to consolidate aviation weather services that does not respond to a clearly-articulated

need or problem and would change a system that has air traffic

controllers’ full support. A shift in how services are delivered will

cost money to test, and if adopted, will create new risks that don’t

exist in the current system. Perhaps that will result in a greater

mass, critical mass of expertise in one place, but the down-sizing

of the staff will leave each forecaster responsible for more air space

and deprive air traffic controllers of a forecaster to stand over their

shoulder in a weather crisis, a critical mass of expertise that air

traffic controllers care about a lot.

In preparing for this hearing the Subcommittee gathered information from the FAA, the NWS, the National Transportation Safety Board, the air traffic controllers’ union,1 the weather service employees’ union,2 and the Government Accountability Office. We also

received the witnesses’ testimony in recent days. The point of the

exercise of this new structure is still hard to understand.

And with that I now recognize the Ranking Member, Dr. Broun

from Georgia, for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRAD MILLER

Good morning.

This subcommittee has frequently struggled with the peculiar nonchalance of

some government agencies in the face of that obvious dysfunction of critical programs. Today we struggle with the equally peculiar determination by the FAA to

solve a problem that appears not to exist, to fix what ain’t broke.

The current system for delivering aviation weather products for air traffic control

appears to work pretty well. For thirty years, the National Weather Service (NWS)

has provided support to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through aviation

weather forecast units that are located at each of the twenty-one regional air traffic

centers. There are 84 forecasters spread among those 21 centers offering 16 hours

of service each day at an annual cost of $12 million; the system appears to be lean

and well suited to air traffic controllers’ needs.

In 2006, Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a survey of air traffic controllers at seven

of the regional air traffic centers under a contract with the FAA. Their conclusion

8

was apparently not what FAA probably wanted to hear. Booz Allen found the air

traffic controllers ‘‘have a strong desire to have on-site’’ weather forecasters and that

they ‘‘considered the services of the . . . meteorologists highly valuable and expressed sensitivity to any actions that might terminate or severely alter the delivery

method of these services.’’

This weather forecasting supports—by the FAA’s own calculations—a one trillion

dollar aviation industry. Currently, the FAA is spending approximately $1 billion

a year on NextGen development, so the $12 million for aviation weather forecasting

that the FAA pays the NWS seems like a bargain.

Still, FAA has been pushing the NWS to consolidate their aviation weather service to a single center since 2005. The FAA’s determination to force the NWS to reorganize does not appear supported by any evidence of a significant problems with the

current system that cannot be addressed within that system, or any evidence that

there is substantial waste in the current system. FAA’s determination appears not

supported by any evidence that a consolidated system would provide better service,

or even service as good as what the NWS now provides. Again, air traffic controllers

like the NWS’ service just fine and don’t want to change it.

GAO concludes that the FAA settled on a solution for reorganizing aviation

weather services before they could clearly articulate their own requirements for

these services, and before they had given any thought to how to measure existing

performance—in other words, FAA decided on a solution before they figured out if

they had a problem. Only since the last GAO report of 2008 has the FAA and the

National Weather Service begun to develop performance metrics for the aviation

weather units. Now, for the first time, an exercise is finally underway by FAA and

NWS to baseline the performance of the existing units-though these ‘‘baselines’’ are

built on impressionistic interviews rather than a steady aggregation of hard performance numbers.

We all support performance-based decision-making and a commitment to continuous improvement—two slogans that the FAA likes to intone—but the reality is

that performance-based decision-making requires meaningful, rigorous performance

metrics. The FAA doesn’t have those, but has already determined that a new organization structure is needed.

The FAA likes to claim that this consolidation will provide a solid platform to

transition to the NextGen air management system. However, they have not included

NextGen’s weather planning office in the discussion about requirements for the

NWS or in the evaluation of any of the proposed reorganizations.

The Federal Aviation Administration has claimed that consolidation will save at

least $2 million, but those savings can only come through reducing the number of

weather forecasters who are dedicated to supporting the needs of aviation.

Ultimately, the FAA has pushed for a plan to consolidate aviation weather services, that does not respond to a clearly articulated need or problem, and would

change a system that has air traffic controllers’ full support. A shift in how services

are delivered will cost money to test and, if adopted, will create new risks that don’t

exist in the current system. Perhaps that will result in a greater ‘‘mass’’ of expertise

in one place, but the down-sizing of the staff will leave each forecaster responsible

for more air space, and deprives air traffic controllers of a forecaster to stand over

their shoulder in a weather crisis.

In preparing for this hearing, the Subcommittee gathered information from the

FAA, the NWS, the National Transportation Safety Board, the air traffic controllers

union, the weather service employees union and the Government Accountability Office. We also received the witnesses’ testimony in recent days. The point of the

FAA’s exercise is hard to understand.

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the

witnesses here today and thank them for participating in this important hearing on the National Weather Service’s aviation weather forecasting proposal to the FAA.

As an instrument-rated pilot myself, I understand that aviation

weather forecasting is critically important. Aside from the obvious

and primary concern of safety, the FAA estimates that weather-related delays have cost $41 billion in the socioeconomic impact on

the U.S. economy. In order to ensure safety and mitigate these impacts, the Weather Service provides aviation weather information

on a reimbursable basis to the FAA.

9

Since these organizations are tasked with providing aviation

weather information and ensuring air traffic safety, coordination is

imperative. Unfortunately, several reviews in recent years have

found opportunities where coordination could be strengthened and

services improved.

In an attempt to address these issues and decrease operating

costs, the FAA requested the Weather Service to restructure its

center, weather service units by consolidating offices, provide remote services, reduce personnel costs, and provide services 24

hours a day, seven days a week.

On June 3 the Weather Service issued its current plan after having two previous proposals rejected by the FAA. The proposal put

forward in June by the Weather Service is far from perfect. I think

they will even admit this. They clearly have to work—have work

to do to establish performance baselines to ensure that service will

not be degraded. They have challenges relating to infrastructure

and technology. Questions remain about how this will fit within the

FAA’s NextGen initiative, if at all, and interagency collaboration

remains a concern.

While it may seem that recent GAO reviews are critical of the

Weather Service’s proposals, one has to realize that the Weather

Service is simply responding to the FAA’s direction. This coordination process between the two entities is unique and perplexing. The

FAA is acting as a customer for weather service products and has

provided the Weather Service with its requirements. Because the

FAA no longer considers private vendors an option for fulfilling

these requirements, the Weather Service is in essence a sole source

contractor for FAA; a situation vendors usually relish as it puts

them in an advantageous negotiating position.

Instead, the Weather Service has put forth several proposals only

to have them rejected, most recently because of cost. I hope the

FAA realizes that new requirements are usually accompanied by

new costs.

Sure, technological advancements improve processes, can achieve

cost savings, but when a customer demands more from its vendor,

it should be willing to pay for it. Similarly, if a customer wants to

pay less for a product, they shouldn’t be surprised when they get

less in return.

This may seem like trivial bureaucratic bickering, but it has real

world implications to both commerce and airline passenger safety.

I am happy to hear the coordination between the two entities is

strengthening and hope that the partnership can find a solution

that is amenable to both parties because ultimately the customers

are our constituents and the vendor is the government.

As a pilot myself, I will do everything I can to make sure this

transaction goes smoothly and that the pilots and passengers in the

air have the information that they desperately need to perform safe

operations in their aviation endeavors.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]

10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PAUL C. BROUN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the witnesses here today, and thank them for participating in this important hearing on the National Weather

Service’s (NWS) aviation weather forecasting proposal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

As an instrument rated pilot myself, I understand that aviation weather fore- casting is critically important. Aside from the obvious and primary concern of safety,

the FAA estimates that weather related delays have a $41 billion socioeconomic impact on the U.S. economy. In order to ensure safety and mitigate these impacts, the

NWS provides aviation weather information on a reimbursable basis to the FAA.

Since these organizations are tasked with providing aviation weather information

and ensuring air traffic safety, coordination is imperative. Unfortunately, several reviews in recent years have found opportunities where co- ordination could be strengthened and services improved. In an attempt to address

these issues and decrease operating costs, the FAA requested that the NWS restructure its center weather service units by consolidating offices, provide remote services, reduce personnel costs, and provide services 24 hours a day, seven days a

week. On June 3, the NWS issued its current plan after having two previous proposal rejected by the FAA. The proposal put forward in June by the NWS is far from perfect—I think even they will admit this. They clearly have work to do to establish performance baselines to ensure that service will not be degraded; they have challenges relating to

infrastructure and technology; questions remain about how this will fit in with the

FAA’s NextGen initiative—if at all; and interagency collaboration remains a concern. While it may seem that recent GAO reviews are critical of the NWS proposals, one has to realize that the Weather Service is simply responding to the FAA’s direction. This coordination process between the two entities is unique and perplexing.

The FAA is acting as a customer for NWS products and has provided NWS with

its requirements. Because the FAA no longer considers private vendors an option

for fulfilling these requirements, the NWS is in essence a sole-source contractor for

FAA—a situation vendors usually relish as it puts them in an advantageous negotiating position. Instead, the NWS has put forth several proposals, only to have them

rejected—most recently because of cost. I hope that the FAA realizes that new requirements are usually accompanied by new costs. Sure, technological advancements and improved processes can achieve cost savings, but when a customer demands more from its vendor, it should be willing to pay for it. Similarly, if a customer wants to pay less for a product, they shouldn’t be surprised when they get

less in return.

This may seem like trivial bureaucratic bickering, but it has real world implica- tions to both commerce and airline passenger safety. I am happy to hear that coordination between the two entities is strengthening, and hope that the partnership can

find a solution that is amenable to both parties, because ultimately the customers

are our constituents, and the vendor is the government. As a pilot myself, I’ll do

everything I can to make sure this transaction goes smoothly. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Thank you.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Broun. I am not a pilot, but I am a frequent passenger as are all Members of Congress. I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening statements submitted by Members be included in the record, and without objection is so ordered.

It is now my pleasure to introduce our first panel of witnesses.

First is Mr. David Powner, a fairly frequent witness here for the

Subcommittee. He is the Director of Information Technology Management Issues at the Government Accountability Office, the GAO.

Dr. Jack Hayes is the Assistant Administrator for National Weather Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. And Mr. Richard Day is the Senior Vice President for

Operations of the Air Traffic Organization at the U.S. Federal

Aviation Administration, the FAA.

Each of our witnesses should know you will have five minutes for

your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in

11

the record for the hearing. When you have completed your spoken

testimony, you will be given—you will begin—we will begin with

questions, and each Member will have five minutes to question the

panel.

It is the practice of the Subcommittee to receive testimony under

oath. Do any of you have any objection to taking an oath? The

record will reflect that none of the witnesses expressed an objection.

You also have the right to be represented by counsel. Do any of

you have counsel here? The record will reflect that all the witnesses indicated that they did not have counsel.

And will you now please stand and raise your right hand? Do you

swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? The record will

reflect that all of the witnesses took the oath.

We will now begin with Mr. Powner of GAO. Mr. Powner, please

begin.

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on our aviation weather work.

The National Weather Service supports the Federal Aviation Administration by providing aviation-related forecasts and warnings

at air traffic control and route centers across the country. These

forecasts and warnings include information on thunderstorms, air

turbulence, and icing. These services are provided through an

interagency agreement, and FAA reimburses NWS approximately

$12 million annually for them.

Last year I testified on the many issues with this arrangement,

which included NWS providing inconsistent weather products

across the 21 en route centers, FAA’s inability to clearly define requirements or what it needs, both agencies’ lack of performance

measures to ensure quality of weather observations, and multiple

proposals to restructure that were each rejected.

A brief history of these proposals is worth revisiting. In 2005,

FAA requested that NWS restructure to a smaller number of sites

to reduce costs. In 2006, a proposal was submitted which FAA rejected in 2007, because it did not reduce the number of sites or

costs. In December, 2007, FAA provided NWS with a new set of requirements and requested a proposal for three operational concepts. NWS provided this proposal in May, 2008, but FAA rejected

it because the costs were too high.

In September, 2008, NWS—FAA requested that NWS provide

another restructuring proposal by December, 2008, to go to two

sites. NWS submitted this proposal last month, six months later

than when it was due. The proposal reduces the weather units

from 20 to two locations, reduces NWS staff from 84 to 50, is

planned to take three years, will cost almost $13 million, and is expected to reduce the annual cost by roughly $2 million per year.

FAA plans to respond to this proposal by August 3.

So four years into this we are now on our third major restructuring proposal with no clear business case driving the potential

change. In addition, there are many challenges FAA and NWS

12

must address if they decide to move forward with the latest proposal.

Before getting into these challenges I would like to acknowledge

that there has been some progress by NWS in improving the consistency of their weather products and defining and baselining certain performance measures, but much work still remains here on

both fronts.

Turning to the challenges. My written testimony lays out several

major challenges if the current weather aviation structure is modified. I would like to highlight five of these.

First, interagency collaboration. These agencies have not worked

well together to resolve issues and to accomplish meaningful

change. Since 2005, FAA has rejected all proposals, and we have

had four years of very little action.

Second, solidifying requirements. FAA provided a comprehensive

set of requirements in January, 2008, and these have not been updated despite the fact that modifications have been discussed by

the two agencies. It is extremely important to formally update requirements given the historical working relationship.

Third, aligning restructuring with the Next Generation Air

Transportation System. Neither agency has ensured that the restructuring aligns with the NextGen national vision for restructuring air traffic facilities.

Fourth, ensuring no degradation of service. In its proposal NWS

plans to demonstrate the new two-site operational concept in a

nine-month demonstration project. In addition, NWS has proposed

that an independent evaluation team of both government and industry officials review this demonstration. While these are logical

steps, the performance measures to demonstrate no degradation of

service have not been defined, and as we have stated prior, baseline metrics are limited. Ensuring no degradation of service will be

extremely difficult, if not impossible, without having a clear set of

performance metrics.

Fifth, technology transition. To restructure aviation weather

services, both agencies need to modify weather systems. Moving

forward NWS and FAA need to improve performance measures and

continue to baseline performance, improve interagency collaboration by agreeing to a future concept of operations, finalize and

clearly document requirements for aviation weather services, ensure that any restructuring is aligned with the NextGen initiative,

undertake a comprehensive demonstration that measures success

against baseline performance measures to ensure that any restructuring does not result in degraded service and does not jeopardize

safety.

And finally, NWS and FAA need to effectively transition the

technologies to a new operational concept, if, in fact, this is pursued.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased

to respond to questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID A. POWNER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

13

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on the proposed changes to the aviation weather services provided at the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) en route centers. The National Weather Service (NWS) plays a significant role in providing weather services to the aviation community. NWS’s weather products and data are vital components of FAA’s air traffic control system, providing weather information to local, regional, and national air traffic management,

navigation, and surveillance systems. NWS aviation weather products include forecasts and warnings of meteorological conditions that could affect air traffic, including thunderstorms, air turbulence, and icing. In addition to providing aviation

weather products that are developed at its own facilities, NWS also provides staff

on-site at each of FAA’s en route centers—the facilities that control high-altitude

flight outside the airport tower and terminal areas. This group of NWS meteorologists—called a center weather service unit—provides air traffic staff with forecasts,

advisories, and periodic weather briefings on regional conditions. Over the last few years, FAA and NWS have been exploring options for enhancing the efficiency of the aviation weather services provided at en route centers. In September 2005, FAA asked NWS to restructure its services to be more efficient. Since

then, NWS has developed and submitted two proposals to FAA, both of which were

rejected. NWS subsequently submitted another proposal. As requested, this statement summarizes our draft report that (1) determines the status and plans of efforts to restructure the center weather service units, (2) evaluates efforts to establish a baseline of the current performance provided by the center weather service

units so that FAA and NWS can ensure that any operational changes do not degrade aviation weather services, and (3) evaluates challenges to restructuring the

center weather service units.

In preparing our draft report and this testimony, we reviewed NWS’s proposals and transition plans for restructuring the service units and FAA’s response to

NWS’s proposals. We identified both agencies’ efforts to establish a baseline of current performance and compared these efforts to government guidance and best practices of leading organizations in performance management. To identify challenges,

we compared the agencies’ plans with best practices of leading organizations in system development, interagency collaboration, and architecture planning. We also

interviewed relevant agency officials. All of our work for this report was performed

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more detailed description of the scope and methodology of our draft report is provided in Attachment

1.

Background

FAA is responsible for ensuring safe, orderly, and efficient air travel in the national airspace system. NWS supports FAA by providing aviation-related forecasts

and warnings at air traffic facilities across the country. Among other support and

services, NWS provides four meteorologists at each of FAA’s 21 en route centers to

provide on-site aviation weather services. This arrangement is defined and funded

under an interagency agreement.

FAA’s Mission and Organizational Structure

FAA’s primary mission is to ensure safe, orderly, and efficient air travel in the

national airspace system. FAA reported that, in 2007, air traffic in the national airspace system exceeded 46 million flights and 776 million passengers. In addition,

at any one time, as many as 7,000 aircraft—both civilian and military—could be

aloft over the United States. In 2004, FAA’s Air Traffic Organization was formed

to, among other responsibilities, improve the provision of air traffic services. More

than 33,000 employees within FAA’s Air Traffic Organization support the operations

that help move aircraft through the national airspace system. The agency’s ability

to fulfill its mission depends on the adequacy and reliability of its air traffic control

systems, as well as weather forecasts made available by NWS and automated systems. These resources reside at, or axe associated with, several types of facilities:

air traffic control towers, terminal radar approach control facilities, air route traffic

control centers (en route centers), and the Air Traffic Control System Command

Center. The number and functions of these facilities are as follows:

• 517 air traffic control towers manage and control the airspace within about

five miles of an airport. They control departures and landings, as well as

ground operations on airport taxiways and runways.

14

1These centers include the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Central Operations, Aviation Weather Center, Environmental Modeling Center, Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, Ocean Prediction Center, Storm Prediction Center, Tropical Prediction Center/

National Hurricane Center, Climate Prediction Center, and Space Environment Center.

• 170 terminal radar approach control facilities provide air traffic control services for airspace within approximately 40 miles of an airport and generally

up to 10,000 feet above the airport, where en route centers’ control begins.

Terminal controllers establish and maintain the sequence and separation of

aircraft.

• 21 en route centers control planes over the United States—in transit and during approaches to some airports. Each center handles a different region of airspace. En route centers operate the computer suite that processes radar surveillance and flight planning data, reformats it for presentation purposes, and

sends it to display equipment that is used by controllers to track aircraft. The

centers control the switching of voice communications between aircraft and

the center, as well as between the center and other air traffic control facilities. Three of these en route centers also control air traffic over the oceans.

• The Air Traffic Control System Command Center manages the flow of air

traffic within the United States. This facility regulates air traffic when weather, equipment, runway closures, or other conditions place stress on the national airspace system. In these instances, traffic management specialists at

the command center take action to modify traffic demands in order to keep

traffic within system capacity.

See Figure 1 for a visual summary of the facilities that control and manage air

traffic over the United States.

NWS’s Mission and Organizational Structure

The mission of NWS—an agency within the Department of Commerce’s National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—is to provide weather, water,

and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, and its adjacent waters and oceans to protect life and property and to enhance the national

economy. In addition, NWS is the official source of aviation- and marine-related

weather forecasts and warnings, as well as warnings about life-threatening weather

situations.

The coordinated activities of weather facilities throughout the United States allow

NWS to deliver a broad spectrum of climate, weather, water, and space weather

services in support of its mission. These facilities include 122 weather forecast offices located across the country that provide a wide variety of weather, water, and

climate services for their local county warning areas, including advisories, warnings,

and forecasts; nine national prediction centers1 that provide nationwide computer

modeling to all NWS field offices; and 21 center weather service units that are located at FAA en route centers across the Nation and provide meteorological support

to air traffic controllers.

NWS Provides Aviation Weather Services to FAA

As an official source of aviation weather forecasts and warnings, several NWS facilities provide aviation weather products and services to FAA and the aviation sector. These facilities include the Aviation Weather Center, weather forecast offices

15

located across the country, and 21 center weather service units located at FAA en

route centers across the country.

Aviation Weather Center

The Aviation Weather Center located in Kansas City, Missouri, issues warnings,

forecasts, and analyses of hazardous weather for aviation. Staffed by 65 personnel,

the center develops warnings of hazardous weather for aircraft in flight and forecasts of weather conditions for the next two days that could affect both domestic

and international aviation. The center also produces a Collaborative Convective

Forecast Product, a graphical representation of convective occurrence at two-, fourand six-hours. This is used by FAA to manage aviation traffic flow across the country. The Aviation Weather Center’s key products are described in Table 1.

Weather Forecast Offices

NWS’s 122 weather forecast offices issue terminal area forecasts for approximately 625 locations every six hours or when conditions change, consisting of the

expected weather conditions significant to a given airport or terminal area and are

primarily used by commercial and general aviation pilots.

Center Weather Service Units

NWS’s center weather service units are located at each of FAA’s 21 en route centers and operate 16 hours a day, seven days a week (see Fig. 2). Each center weather service unit usually consists of three meteorologists and a meteorologist-in-charge

who provide strategic advice and aviation weather forecasts to FAA traffic management personnel. Governed by an interagency agreement, FAA currently reimburses

NWS approximately $12 million annually for this support.

16

Center Weather Service Units: An Overview of Systems and Operations

The meteorologists at the center weather service units use a variety of systems

to gather and analyze information compiled from NWS and FAA weather sensors.

Key systems used to compile weather information include FAA’s Weather and Radar

Processor, FAA’s Integrated Terminal Weather System, FAA’s Corridor Integrated

Weather System, and a remote display of NWS’s Advanced Weather Interactive

Processing System. Meteorologists at several center weather service units also use

NWS’s National Center Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System. Table 2

provides a description of selected systems.

17

2FAA is also involved in a longer-term initiative to increase the efficiency of the national airspace system and to improve its overall safety. This initiative, called the Next Generation Air

Transportation System, is a joint effort of the Department of Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and

the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and Commerce. FAA anticipates that this initiative may lead to major changes in the aviation weather program that would supersede its

current efforts.

NWS meteorologists at the en route centers provide several products and services to the FAA staff, including meteorological impact statements, center weather

advisories, periodic briefings, and on-demand consultations. These products and

services are described in Table 3. In addition, center weather service unit meteorologists receive and disseminate pilot reports, provide input every two hours to the

Aviation Weather Center’s creation of the Collaborative Convective Forecast Product, train FAA personnel on how to interpret weather information, and provide

weather briefings to nearby terminal radar approach control facilities and air traffic

control towers.

FAA Seeks to Improve Aviation Weather Services Provided at En Route

Centers

In recent years, FAA has undertaken multiple initiatives to assess and improve the performance of the center weather service units.2 Studies conducted in 2003 and

2006 highlighted concerns with the lack of standardization of products and services

at NWS’s center weather service units. To address these concerns, the agency sponVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
18

sored studies that determined that weather data could be provided remotely using

current technologies, and that private sector vendors could provide these services.

In 2005, the agency requested that NWS restructure its aviation weather services

by consolidating its center weather service units to a smaller number of sites, reducing personnel costs, and providing products and services 24 hours a day, seven days

a week. NWS subsequently submitted a proposal for restructuring its services, but

FAA declined the proposal citing the need to refine its requirements.

In December 2007, FAA issued revised requirements and asked NWS to respond

with proposals defining the technical and cost implications of three operational concepts. The three concepts involved (1) on-site services provided within the existing

configuration of offices located at the 21 en route centers, (2) remote services provided by a reduced number of regional facilities, and (3) remote services provided

by a single centralized facility. NWS responded with three proposals, but FAA rejected these proposals in September 2008, noting that while elements of each proposal had merit, the proposed costs were too high. FAA requested that NWS revise

its proposal to bring costs down while stating a preference to move towards a single

center weather service unit with a back-up site.

As a separate initiative, NWS initiated an improvement program for the center

weather service units in April 2008. The goal of the program was to improve the

consistency of the units’ products and services. This program involved standardizing

the technology, collaboration, and training for all 21 center weather service units

and conducting site visits to evaluate each unit. NWS reported that it has completed

its efforts to standardize the service units and plans to complete its site visits by

September 2009. Table 4 provides a chronology of the agencies’ assessment and improvement efforts.

19

3GAO, Aviation Weather: FAA Is Reevaluating Services at Key Centers; Both FAA and the National Weather Service Need to Better Ensure Product Quality, GAO–08–258 (Washington, D.C.:

Jan. 11, 2008). 4 NWS sought two extensions to the December 2008 deadline in order to allow NWS and FAA

a chance to address public misperceptions and to brief the incoming administration and to arrange discussions between the appropriate NWS and FAA executives. 5 NWS proposed that the center weather service unit located in Anchorage, Alaska remain unchanged.

Prior GAO Report Identified Concerns With Center Weather Service Units;

Recommended Steps to Improve Quality Assurance

In January 2008, we reported on concerns about inconsistencies in products and

quality among Center Weather Service Units.3 We noted that while both NWS and

FAA have responsibilities for assuring and controlling the quality of aviation weather observations, neither agency monitored the accuracy and quality of the aviation

weather products provided at center weather service units. We recommended that

NWS and FAA develop performance measures and metrics for the products and

services to be provided by center weather service units, perform annual evaluations

of aviation weather services provided at en route centers, and provide feedback to

the center weather service units. The Department of Commerce agreed with our recommendations, and the Department of Transportation stated that FAA planned to

revise its requirements and that these would establish performance measure and

evaluation procedures.

Proposal to Consolidate Center Weather Service Units Is Under Consideration

NWS and FAA are considering plans to restructure the way aviation weather

services are provided at en route centers. After a six-month delay, NWS sent FAA

its latest proposal for restructuring the center weather service units in June 2009.4

NWS’s proposal involves consolidating 20 of the 21 existing center weather service

units into two locations, with one at the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City,

Missouri and the other at a new National Centers for Environmental Prediction office planned for the DC metropolitan area of Maryland.5 The Missouri center is expected to handle the southern half of the United States while the Maryland center

is expected to handle the northern half of the United States. NWS plans for the two

new units to be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and to function as

backup sites for each other. These new units would continue to use existing forecasting systems and tools to develop products and services. See Figure 3 for a visual

summary of the proposed consolidated center weather service unit facilities that

control and manage air traffic over the United States.

20

While these new units would continue to use existing forecasting systems and

tools to develop products and services, NWS has also proposed new products, services, and tools. Two new products are the collaborative weather impact product and

the terminal radar approach control forecast. The former is expected to expand the

Aviation Weather Center’s existing Collaborative Convective Forecast Product to include convection, turbulence, icing, wind, ceiling/visibility, and precipitation type/intensity. The latter is expected to extract data from the Collaborative Weather Impact Product and include precipitation, winds, and convection for the terminal area;

the display will allow the forecaster to layer this information on air traffic management information such as jet routes. In addition, NWS plans to create a web portal

to allow FAA and other users to access its advisories, forecasts, products as well as

national, regional, and local weather briefings. To support on-demand briefings at

the new center weather service units, NWS plans to use collaboration tools, such

as instant messaging and online collaboration software.

Given the reduced number of locations in the revised organizational structure,

NWS also proposed reducing the number of personnel needed to support its operations from 84 to 50 full time staff—a reduction of 34 positions. Specifically, the

agency determined that it will require 20 staff members for each of the new center

weather service units; four staff members at the Alaska unit; five additional forecasters at the Aviation Weather Center to help prepare the Collaborative Weather

Impact Product; and a quality assurance manager at NWS headquarters. NWS anticipates the staff reductions will be achieved through scheduled retirements, resignations, and reassignments. However, the agency has identified the transition of

its existing workforce to the new centers as a high-impact risk because staff may

decline to move to the new locations.

NWS also proposed tentative time frames for transitioning to the new organizational structure over a three-year period. During the first year after FAA accepts

the proposal, NWS plans to develop a transition plan and conduct a nine-month

demonstration of the concept in order to ensure that the new structure will not degrade its services. Agency officials estimated that initial operating capability would

be achieved by the end of the second year after FAA approval and full operating

capability by the end of the third year.

NWS estimated the transition costs for this proposal at approximately $12.8 million, which includes approximately $3.3 million for the demonstration. In addition,

21

6Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Guide for Developing and

Using Information Technology (IT) Performance Measurements (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2001);

General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy, Performance Based Management Eight Steps To Develop and Use Information Technology Performance Measures Effectively,

(Washington, D.C.: 1996). 7GAO–08–258.

NWS estimated that the annual recurring costs will be about 21 percent lower than

current annual costs. For example, using 2009 prices, NWS estimated that the new

structure would cost $9.7 million—about $2.6 million less than the current $12.3

million cost. See Table 5 for the estimated costs for transitioning the centers.

However, it is not clear when and if the agencies will move forward with the proposal. While FAA plans to respond in early August 2009, the agency could decide

to reject the proposal or to modify its requirements, thereby triggering another NWS

proposal. One consideration that may affect the proposal involves the current interagency agreement. The most recent agreement between the two agencies, signed in

December 2007, is to expire at the end of September 2009. Before it expires, the

two agencies could choose to exercise an option to continue this agreement for another year, terminate the agreement, or sign a new agreement. An FAA official reported that the agency wanted to create a new agreement that includes key dates

from the proposal, such as those related to the concept demonstration. This official

added that such agreements typically take time to develop and coordinate between

the agencies.

NWS and FAA Are Working to Establish a Baseline of Current Performance, But Are Not Assessing Key Measures

According to best practices in leading organizations, performance should be measured in order to evaluate the success or failure of programs.6 Performance measurement involves identifying performance goals and measures, establishing performance baselines, identifying targets for improving performance, and measuring

progress against those targets. Having a clear understanding of an organization’s

current performance—a baseline—is essential to determining whether new initiatives (like the proposed restructuring) result in improved or degraded products and

services.

In January 2008, we reported that NWS and FAA lacked performance measures

and a baseline of current performance for the center weather service units and recommended that they develop performance measures.7 In response to this recommendation, FAA established five performance standards for the center weather

service units. FAA also recommended that NWS identify additional performance

measures in its proposal for restructuring the center weather service units. While

NWS subsequently identified eight additional performance measures in its proposal,

FAA has not yet approved these measures. However, FAA has not yet approved

these measures. All 13 performance measures are listed in Table 6.

22

8The agencies are working to obtain a baseline of the 21 center weather service units’ performance in organizational service provision, format consistency, and briefing service provision.

NWS officials reported that they have historical data for one of the 13 performance measures—participation in the Collaborative Connective Forecast Product—

and are working to obtain a baseline for three other performance measures.8 Specifically, in January 2009, NWS and FAA began evaluating how the center weather

service units are performing and, as part of this initiative, are collecting data associated with organizational service provision, format consistency, and briefing service

provision. As of June 2009, the agencies had completed evaluations of 13 service

units and plan to complete evaluations for all 21 service units by September 2009.

However, the agencies have not established a baseline of performance for the nine

other performance measures. NWS officials reported that they are not collecting

baseline information for a variety of reasons, including that the measures have not

yet been approved by FAA, and that selected measures involve products that have

not yet been developed. A summary of the status of efforts to establish baselines

and reasons for not establishing baselines is provided in Table 7.

23

9GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, GAO–06–15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

While four of the potential measures are tied to new products or services under

the restructuring, the other five could be measured using current products and services. For example, accuracy and customer satisfaction axe measures that could be

tracked for current operations. NWS continually measures the accuracy of a range

of weather products—including hurricane and tornado forecasts. Customer satisfaction measures could be determined by surveying the FAA managers who receive the

aviation weather products.

It is important to obtain an understanding of the current level of performance in

these measures before beginning any efforts to restructure aviation weather services. Without an understanding of the current level of performance, NWS and FAA

will not be able to measure the success or failure of any changes they make to the

center weather service unit operations. As a result, any changes to the current

structure could degrade aviation operations and safety—and the agencies may not

know it.

NWS and FAA Face Challenges in Efforts to Modify the Current Aviation

Weather Structure

NWS and FAA face challenges in their efforts to modify the current aviation

weather structure. These include challenges associated with (1) interagency collaboration, (2) defining requirements, and (3) aligning any changes with the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) )—along-term initiative to increase the

efficiency of the national airspace system. Specifically, the two agencies have had

difficulties in interagency collaboration and requirements development leading to an

inability to reach agreement on a way forward. In addition, the restructuring proposals have not been aligned with the national strategic vision for the future air

transportation system. Looking forward, if a proposal is accepted, the agencies could

face three additional challenges in implementing the proposal, including (1) developing a feasible schedule that includes adequate time for stakeholder involvement,

(2) undertaking a comprehensive demonstration to ensure no services are degraded,

and (3) effectively reconfiguring the infrastructure and technologies to the new

structure. Unless and until these challenges are addressed, the proposed restructuring of aviation weather services at en route centers has a reduced chance of success.

Interagency Collaboration

To date, FAA and NWS have encountered challenges in interagency collaboration.

We have previously reported on key practices that can help enhance and sustain

interagency collaboration.9 The practices generally consist of two or more agencies

24

10 Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development, Version 1.2 (Pittsburgh, PA: August 2006). Capability Maturity Model® and Capability Maturity Modeling are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of- fice. CMM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.

defining a common outcome, establishing joint strategies to achieve the outcome,

agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities, establishing compatible policies and

procedures to operate across agency boundaries, and developing mechanisms to

monitor, evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts.

While NWS and FAA have established policies and procedures for operating across agencies through an interagency agreement and have initiated efforts to establish a baseline of performance for selected measures through their ongoing site

evaluations, the agencies have not defined a common outcome, established joint

strategies to achieve the outcome, or agreed upon agency responsibilities. Instead,

the agencies have demonstrated an inability to work together to resolve issues and

to accomplish meaningful change. Specifically, since 2005, FAA has requested that

NWS restructure its aviation weather services three times, and then rejected NWS’s

proposals twice. Further, after requesting extensions twice, NWS provided its proposal to FAA in June 2009. As a result, it is now almost four years since FAA first

initiated efforts to improve NWS aviation weather services, and the agencies have

not yet agreed on what needs to be changed and how it will be changed. Table 8

lists key events.

Until the agencies agree on a common outcome, establish joint strategies to achieve the outcome, and agree on respective agency responsibilities, they are unlikely to move forward in efforts to restructure weather services. Without sound

interagency collaboration, both FAA and NWS will continue to spend time and resources proposing and rejecting options rather than implementing solutions.

Defining Requirements

The two agencies’ difficulties in determining how to proceed with their restruc- turing plans are due in part to a lack of stability in FAA’s requirements for center

weather service units. According to the best practices of leading organizations, requirements describe the functionality needed to meet user needs and perform as intended in the operational environment.10 A disciplined process for developing and managing requirements can help reduce the risks associated with developing or acquiring a system or product. FAA released its revised requirements in December 2007 and NWS subsequently provided proposals to meet these requirements. However, FAA rejected all three of

NWS’s proposals in September 2008 on the basis that the costs of the proposals

were too high, even though cost was not specified in FAA’s requirements. NWS’s latest proposal is based on FAA’s December 2007 requirements as well as detailed discussions held between the two agencies in October 2008. However, FAA has not revised its requirement to reflect the guidance it provided to NWS in those discussions, including reported guidance on handling the Alaska center and moving to the

two-center approach. Without formal requirements developed prior to the development of the new products and services, FAA runs the risk of procuring products and

services that do not fully meet their users’ needs or perform as intended. In addiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

11GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational Transformation, GAO–06–831 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006). 12The Joint Planning and Development Office has multiple federal partners, including FAA;

the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security; the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy. 13These groups include the NextGen and Operations Planning Service Unit’s Aviation Weather Office, Systems Engineering Office, and NextGen Integration and Implementation Office. 14 NWS’s agreement with its union includes the need to negotiate on the impact and implementation of any changes affecting working conditions before those changes can be implemented. As such, any effort to realign the center weather service units will involve negotiations

between union employees and NWS management.

tion, NWS risks continued investments in trying to create a product for FAA without clear information on what the agency wants.

Alignment with the Next Generation Air Transportation System

Neither FAA nor NWS have ensured that the restructuring of the center weather service units fits with the national vision for a Next Generation Air Transportation

System (NextGen)—a long-term initiative to transition FAA from the current radarbased system to an aircraft-centered, satellite-based system. Our prior work on enterprise architectures shows that connecting strategic planning with program and

system solutions can increase the chances that an organization’s operational and IT

environments will be configured to optimize mission performance.11 Our experience

with federal agencies has shown that investing in IT without defining these investments in the context of a larger, strategic vision often results in systems that are

duplicative, not well integrated, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface. The Joint Planning and Development Office12 is responsible for planning and co- ordinating NextGen. As part of this program, the Joint Planning and Development

Office envisions restructuring air traffic facilities, including en route centers, across

the country as well as a transitioning to new technologies. However, NWS and FAA

efforts to restructure the center weather service units have not been aligned with

the Joint Planning and Development Office’s vision for transforming air traffic control under the NextGen program. Specifically, the Chair of NextGen’s weather group

stated that Joint Planning and Development Office officials have not evaluated

NWS and FAA’s plans for restructuring the center weather service units, nor have

they been asked to do so. Other groups within FAA are responsible for aligning the agency’s enterprise ar- chitecture with the NextGen vision through annual roadmaps that define near-term

initiatives.13 However, recent roadmaps for aviation weather do not include any discussion of plans to restructure the center weather service units or the potential impact that such a change could have on aviation weather systems. Additionally, in

its proposal, NWS stated that it followed FAA’s guidance to avoid tightly linking the

transition schedule to NextGen’s expected Initial Operating Capability in 2013, but

recommended doing so since the specific role of the center weather service units in

NextGen operations is unknown.

Until the agencies ensure that changes to the center weather service units fit

within the strategic-level and implementation plans for NextGen, any changes to

the current structure could result in wasted efforts and resources.

Schedule Development

Looking forward, if a proposal is accepted, both agencies could also face challenges

in developing a feasible schedule that includes adequate time for stakeholder involvement. NWS estimated a three-year transition timeframe from current operations to the two-center approach. FAA officials commented that they would like to

have the two-center approach in place by 2012. However, NWS may have difficulty

in meeting the transition timeframes because activities that need to be conducted

serially are planned concurrently within the three-year schedule. For example, NWS

may need to negotiate with its union before implementing changes that affect working conditions—such as moving operations from an en route center to a remote location.14 NWS officials acknowledge the risk that these negotiations can be prolonged

and sometimes take years to complete. If the proposal is accepted, it will be important for NWS to identify activities that must be conducted before others in order

to build a feasible schedule.

Demonstrating No Degradation of Service

If a proposal is accepted, both agencies could face challenges in demonstrating

that existing services will not be degraded during the restructuring. In its proposal,

26

NWS identified preliminary plans to demonstrate the new operational concept before implementing it in order to ensure that there is no degradation of service. Key

steps included establishing a detailed demonstration plan, conducting risk mitigation activities, and implementing a demonstration that is to last at least nine

months. NWS also proposed that the demonstration will include an independent

evaluation by a team of government and industry both before the demonstration,

to determine if the demonstration is adequate to validate the new concept of operations, and after, to determine the success of the demonstration. In addition,

throughout the nine-month demonstration, NWS plans to have the independent

team periodically provide feedback, recommendations, and corrective actions. However, as noted earlier, NWS has not yet defined all of the performance meas- ures it will use to determine whether the prototype is successful. In its proposal,

NWS stated that the agencies will begin to document performance metrics and develop and refine evaluation criteria during the demonstration. If NWS waits to define evaluation criteria during the evaluation, it may not have baseline metrics

needed to compare to the demonstration results. Without baseline metrics, NWS

may be unable to determine whether the demonstration has degraded service or not.

Technology Transition

Both agencies could face challenges in effectively transitioning the infrastructure and technologies to the new consolidated structure, if a proposal is accepted. In its

proposal, NWS planned to move its operations from 20 en route centers to two sites

within three years. However, to do so, the agencies will need to modify their aviation weather systems and develop a communications infrastructure. Specifically,

NWS and FAA will need to modify or acquire systems to allow both current and

new products for an expanded view of the country. Additionally, NWS will need to

develop continuous two-way communications in lieu of having staff on-site at each

en route center. NWS has recognized the infrastructure as a challenge, and plans

to mitigate the risk through continuous dialogue with FAA. However, if interagency

collaboration does not improve, attempting to coordinate the systems and technology

of two agencies may prove difficult and further delay the schedule.

Implementation of Draft Recommendations Should Improve Interagency Approach to Aviation Weather

In our draft report, we are making recommendations to the Secretaries of Com- merce and Transportation to improve the aviation weather products and services

provided at FAA’s en route centers. Specifically, we are recommending that the Secretaries direct the NWS and FAA administrators, respectively, to improve their ability to measure improvements in the center weather service units by establishing

and approving a set of performance measures for the Center Weather Service Units,

and by immediately identifying the current level of performance for the five potential measures that could be identified under current operations (forecast accuracy,

customer satisfaction, service delivery conformity, timeliness of on-demand services,

and training completion) so that there will be a baseline from which to measure the

impact of any proposed operational changes. In addition, we are recommending that the Secretaries direct the NWS and FAA administrators to address specific challenges by

• improving interagency collaboration by defining a common outcome, establishing joint strategies to achieve the outcome, and agreeing upon each agency’s responsibilities;

• establishing and finalizing requirements for aviation weather services at en

route centers;

• ensuring that any proposed organizational changes are aligned with NextGen

initiatives by seeking a review by the Joint Program Development Office responsible for developing the NextGen vision; and

• before moving forward with any proposed operational changes, address implementation challenges by developing a feasible schedule that includes adequate time for stakeholder involvement; undertaking a comprehensive demonstration to ensure no services are degraded; and effectively transitioning

the infrastructure and technologies to the new consolidated structure.

In summary, for several years, FAA and NWS have explored ways to improve the operations of the center weather service units by consolidating operations and providing remote services. Meanwhile, the two agencies have to make a decision on the

interagency agreement, which will expire at the end of September 2009. If FAA and

NWS are to create a new interagency agreement that incorporates key dates within

the proposal, decisions on the proposal will have to be made quickly.

27

15Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Guide for Developing and Using Information Technology (IT) Performance Measurements (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2001); General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy, Performance-Based Manage- ment Eight Steps To Develop and Use Information Technology Performance Measures Effectively,

(Washington, D.C.: 1996). 16 Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development, Version 1.2 (Pittsburgh, PA: August 2006); GAO, Results-Oriented

Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, GAO–06–15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005); and GAO, Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational Transformation, GAO–06–831 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006).

An important component of any effort to improve operations is a solid under- standing of current performance. However, FAA and NWS are not working to identify the current level of performance in five measures that are applicable to current

operations. Until the agencies have an understanding of the current level of performance, they will not be able to measure the success or failure of any changes to

the center weather service unit operations. As a result, any changes to the current

structure could degrade aviation operations and safety—and the agencies may not

know it.

If the agencies move forward with plans to restructure aviation weather services, they face significant challenges including a poor record of interagency collaboration,

undocumented requirements, and a lack of assurance that this plan fits in the

broader vision of the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Moreover, efforts

to implement the restructuring will require a feasible schedule, a comprehensive

demonstration, and a solid plan for technology transition. Until these challenges are

addressed, the proposed restructuring of aviation weather services at en route centers has little chance of success.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Staff Acknowledgments

Key contributors to this testimony include Colleen Phillips, Assistant Director; Gerard Aflague; Kate Agatone; Neil Doherty; Rebecca Eyler; and Jessica Waselkow.

Attachment 1

Scope, and Methodology

For the draft report on which this testimony is based, we determined the status of NWS’s plans for restructuring the center weather service units by reviewing the

existing interagency agreement, FAA’s proposed requirements, and NWS’s draft and

final proposals for addressing FAA’s requirements. We analyzed NWS’s draft transition schedules, cost proposals, and evaluation plans. We also interviewed NWS and

FAA officials to obtain clarifications on these plans.

To evaluate the agencies’ efforts to establish a baseline of the current performance provided by center weather service units, we reviewed documentation including

FAA’s performance standards, the current interagency agreement, NWS’s restructuring proposals and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, and the agencies’ plans

for evaluating the centers. We compared the agencies’ plans for creating a baseline

of current performance with best practices for performance management by the Department of the Navy and General Services Administration.15 We also interviewed

NWS and FAA officials involved in establishing a baseline of current performance

provided by center weather service units. To evaluate challenges to restructuring the center weather service units, we re- viewed agency documentation, including FAA’s requirements document and NWS’s

proposals to restructure the center weather service units. We also reviewed planning documents for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. We compared

these documents with best practices for system development and requirements management from the Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development; and with GAO’s best practices in interagency collaboration and architecture planning.16

In addition, we interviewed NWS, FAA, and Joint Planning and Development Office

officials regarding challenges to restructuring the center weather service units. We performed our work at FAA and NWS headquarters offices, and FAA’s Air

Traffic Control System Command Center in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan

area. We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to July 2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate eviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

dence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis

for findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DAVID A. POWNER

Experience

Twenty years’ experience in information technology issues in both public and private

sectors.

Education

Business Administration, University of Denver

Senior Executive Fellows Program, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of

Government

Director, IT Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Dave is currently responsible for a large segment of GAO’s information technology

(IT) work, including systems development, IT investment management, health IT,

and cyber critical infrastructure protection reviews.

In the private sector, Dave has held several executive-level positions in the telecommunications industry, including overseeing IT and financial internal audits, and

software development associated with digital subscriber lines (DSL).

At GAO, Dave has led teams reviewing major IT modernization efforts at Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, the National Weather Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service. These reviews covered many

information technology areas including software development maturity, information

security, and enterprise architecture.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Powner.

Dr. Hayes for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. ‘‘JACK’’ HAYES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES; DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Broun and other

Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on the

National Weather Service provision of aviation weather information to the FAA. I am Jack Hayes, the Assistant Administrator for

Weather Services and the Director of the National Weather Service. The National Weather Service is a line office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Weather Service plays a critical role in providing weather information to the FAA in support of their mission for safe and efficient operation of the National Airspace System. We provide warnings, forecasts, meteorological advice, and consultation throughout

all phases of flight, including pre-flight planning and operations.

These services come from many National Weather Service offices,

including our weather forecast offices, the Alaskan Aviation Weather Unit, the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers, the Aviation Weather

Center, and Center Weather Service Units, CWSUs for short.

We are committed to providing quality aviation weather services.

Let me focus on CWSUs. Meteorologists at our CWSUs provide

weather advisories, forecasts, and advice to air traffic management.

The CWSUs are located at each of the 21 FAA air route traffic control centers. CWSUs operate 16 hours per day, typically between

5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time, seven days a week when air

traffic is at its peak.

29

Since the last hearing in 2008, FAA and the National Weather

Service have worked to refine service requirements. The Weather

Service delivered a revised response to FAA in June of this year.

Our response provides—proposes, rather, to provide CWSU support

from two centers in the lower 48 states. As part of our approach,

we plan to conduct a demonstration validation or dem/val, to objectively test and validate the viability of this solution.

A critical component of our response, and prerequisite before any

decision is made to change the operational structure of CWSU support, is to demonstrate the capability of meeting FAA requirements

from two centers with no degradation of aviation weather services

and no impact to safety. If the demonstration is successful, consolidation of 20 CWSUs in the lower 48 states into two centers is proposed. Each center would serve as an operational backup for the

other.

New weather products and services, including the provision of 24

by seven or 24 hours a day, seven days a week, weather support

services will be introduced to meet FAA requirements in support

of the National Air Space System. We will work collaboratively

with the FAA to plan, conduct, and evaluate the dem/val to ensure

that the proposed structure does not degrade aviation weather

services.

The National Academy of Sciences has agreed to provide unbiased expertise to oversee and evaluate the results of the dem/val.

The FAA has stated that face-to-face services and briefings are no

longer required. We believe new technology can be leveraged to

allow remote service and improved consistency. Our response provides for remote briefing services to FAA Terminal Radar Approach

Control and control tower personnel, which are currently not co-located with our CWSUs but have routine interactions with our forecasters.

The consolidated CWSU structure would reduce the staff from 84

to 50. I am committed to ensuring that any affected CWSU employee who wants a job with the National Weather Service will

have one. We have reviewed our staffing model and are confident

we can absorb the 34 positions through normal attrition.

Our 42-month schedule for transition to a consolidated CWSU

structure, including a planning phase, a nine-month period for

dem/val, followed by transition to the new structure. We have been

working with the FAA to define future CWSU services. In addition,

over the past 18 months we have been working to improve the consistency and quality of existing CWSU aviation weather services.

Our joint CWSU site evaluations and ongoing discussion with the

FAA are helping us to establish and refine baseline performance

measures by this fall. These measures will provide the basis for

evaluating and continuing to improve our services.

NOAA recognizes the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, will result in a system-wide air traffic management transformation. This transformation will affect how we collect, manage, and disseminate weather-related information and

how the FAA makes weather-related decisions. We also recognize

the need for close coordination with the federal weather community

to meet NextGen weather support needs.

30

NOAA is working with the Joint Planning and Development Office to fully integrate NOAA’s weather information and service improvements into the NextGen development. This will enable us to

meet requirements for the transformation and ensure NOAA’s contributions are compatible with NextGen decision support, dissemination, display systems, including inter-operability of any revised

CWSU support structure.

Last week we received the GAO’s draft report, ‘‘Review of Aviation Restructuring.’’ We are reviewing the draft report and developing our action plan. Moreover, we believe our June, 2009, response to the FAA for CWSU services addresses some of the key

recommendations in the draft report, including a dem/val overseen

by the National Academy of Sciences to ensure involvement of

stakeholders in an unbiased evaluation.

Also highlighted in our response to the FAA is the importance of

aligning organizational changes with NextGen initiatives. We agree

with the need to establish baseline performance measures as stated

by the GAO, and we are working to—now collecting data on four

of the five standards originally developed by the FAA and the National Weather Service to establish that baseline.

We will continue to work together to review assessment and

measure methods for the fifth proposed standard (forecast accuracy). These performance metrics are critical data points to evaluate the dem/val.

The National Weather Service reaffirms its commitment to providing critical weather support that assists the FAA in managing

the National Air Space System. The National Air Space System

must remain safe, efficient, and cost-effective for the people of this

country.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am happy

to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hayes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. ‘‘JACK’’ HAYES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity

to testify on the National Weather Service’s provision of aviation weather information to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). I am Jack Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services and the Director of the National Weather Service

(NWS). The Weather Service is a line office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), within the Department of Commerce (DOC).

Background

The NWS has an extensive infrastructure supporting the development of its products and services. The NWS issues more than a trillion forecasts, and 10,000 warnings annually for protection of life and property and enhancement of the national

economy. Every day we process 1.7 billion surface and upper air observations from

across the country and around the globe. These data are assimilated into complex

computer models providing the backbone of weather information for all—government and private weather forecasters both nationally and internationally. The aviation industry uses this vast array of weather information for flight planning and

safety.

The NWS has a long history of providing weather support for aviation dating back

to 1914. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 568), added specific responsibility

for providing weather services to civil aviation. Today, NWS aviation services are

focused on meeting the needs of the Nation in coordination with our partner, FAA.

In 1994, Public Law 103–272 (49 U.S.C. § 44720(a) ) directed the Secretary of Commerce to provide weather support for aviation and to give complete consideration

to the recommendations of the FAA Administrator in doing so:

31

‘‘The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall make recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce on providing meteorological services necessary for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in air commerce.

In providing the services, the Secretary shall cooperate with the Administrator

and give complete consideration to those recommendations.’’

Today, forecasters across the Nation comprise the aviation weather forecast team, including meteorologists at 122 local Weather Forecast Offices, 21 Center Weather

Service Units (CWSUs), the Alaska Aviation Weather Unit in Anchorage, Alaska;

and the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City, Missouri. The Aviation Weather Center operates 24 hours a day, seven days per week, to provide aviation warnings and forecasts of hazardous flight conditions at all levels

within domestic and international air space including turbulence, icing, and convection forecasts. The Collaborative Convective Forecast Product, a graphical representation of expected convective occurrence at two-, four-, and six-hours, is produced

by the Aviation Weather Center after collaboration with Meteorological Service of

Canada, CWSUs, and meteorological offices of airlines and service providers. On the local scale, the Weather Forecast Offices provide terminal area forecasts

for approximately 625 locations every six hours, with additional updates as conditions change. These forecasts consist of the expected weather at a given airport or

terminal area and are used primarily by commercial and general aviation pilots.

The Alaska Aviation Weather Unit provides specialized products for the unique general aviation community and severe weather conditions in Alaska, and also includes

the Anchorage Volcanic Ash Advisory Center, one of nine such advisory centers

worldwide.

Center Weather Service Unit Support to the FAA

My testimony today will focus on services provided in support of the FAA by fore- casters at our 21 CWSUs. CWSUs were established in 1978 in response to National

Transportation Safety Board recommendation A–77–68 resulting from a serious

weather-related accident over New Hope, Georgia, which caused numerous fatalities. This recommendation called for the FAA to, ‘‘Formulate rules and procedures

for the timely dissemination by air traffic controllers of all available severe weather

information to inbound and outbound flights in the terminal areas.’’ Based on this

recommendation, FAA, with the assistance of NWS, formed the CWSUs.

NWS forecasters at CWSUs provide weather advisories and forecasts to the FAA,

and advise and consult with air traffic controllers, which helps to maintain a safe

and efficient national airspace. The CWSUs are located at each of the 21 FAA Air

Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC). CWSU meteorologists provide weather

advisories valid for two hours or less describing areas of hazardous weather in

progress or forecast to develop; forecasts for up to 12 hours describing areas of

weather that may impact air traffic operations; twice daily face-to-face briefings;

and on-demand consultations to ARTCC traffic managers. CWSU meteorologists

also provide remote briefings telephonically, as needed, to FAA Terminal Radar Approach Control and control tower personnel, and they train controllers on the interpretation of weather information.

Under an interagency agreement, the FAA provides basic equipment, communications, space, and supplies for the CWSUs, and currently reimburses the NWS about

$12 million per year. Based on local requirements, CWSUs operate 16 hours per

day, typically between 5:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. local time, seven days a week, when

air traffic is at its peak. If weather conditions pose a threat to an ARTCC’s area

of responsibility, our CWSU forecasters may work additional hours to support the

ARTCCs.

Recent History of NWS and FAA Interactions to Improve CWSU Services

In 2005, the FAA provided NWS with feedback that service improvements from

CWSUs were needed. In 2006, NWS proposed changes to CWSU services, which

were not accepted by the FAA. The FAA determined the requirements for CWSU

services were not well defined and needed to be solidified before any changes to

CWSU services were made.

In January 2008, FAA provided a requirements document to the NWS for CWSU

services. The requirements included an increase in coverage to 24 hours a day service seven days per week, improved product and service consistency, and a national

situational awareness for weather. The FAA requested the NWS provide service solutions for three CWSU business models: a single site model; a regional model (more

than one CWSU, but less than the current 21); and a model reflecting the current

structure of 21 CWSUs. The NWS submitted its initial response to FAA in May

2008.

32

In September 2008, FAA determined that although there were positive elements

in each of the three business models, none of models were acceptable and all were

too costly. In their responding letter to NWS, FAA stated they did not require direct,

face-to-face contact at each of their ARTCCs and they would support an approach

utilizing two CWSUs. FAA agreed to work with NWS to further refine the CWSU

requirements, with a final response from the NWS expected by the end of 2008. In

October 2008, FAA and NWS worked together to revise the CWSU requirements to

reflect the FAA’s request to reduce costs and consolidate 20 CWSUs in the lower

48 states into two centers, leaving the Alaska CWSU as it is. The NWS prepared

an updated response by December 2008, but did not provide it to FAA until June

2009 which allowed for review and consideration by the new Administration.

Overview of the NWS Response to the FAA for CWSU Services

The NWS’s revised response proposes to meet FAA requirements by developing

the capability to provide CWSU support from two centers in the lower 48 states.

The response calls for development and demonstration test of a prototype. As a

point of emphasis, a critical component of our response, and a prerequisite before

any decision is made to change the operational structure of NWS CWSU support,

is to demonstrate the capability of meeting FAA requirements from two centers with

no degradation of aviation weather services and, at a minimum, no impact to safety.

If the demonstration is successful, the response plans for a consolidation of 20

CWSUs in the lower 48 states into two centers: one in Kansas City, Missouri, colocated with the Aviation Weather Center; and the other co-located at the National

Centers for Environmental Prediction in the Washington, D.C. area Each of these

centers would serve as an operational backup for the other, should those services

be necessary. The response also introduces a suite of new national forecast guidance

products to emphasize consistency across the National Airspace System to meet the

revised FAA requirements. We and the FAA believe this will enhance aviation safety.

We will work collaboratively with the FAA to plan, run, and evaluate a prototype,

referred to as a demonstration/validation, to ensure the proposed structure for aviation services does not degrade aviation weather services. The Board on Atmospheric

Sciences and Climate (BASC) of the National Academy of Sciences has agreed to

oversee and evaluate the results of the demonstration/validation. The NWS believes

this outside, unbiased group of experts is critical for determining the feasibility and

prudence of moving to any revised CWSU structure while ensuring no degradation

of service.

The FAA has stated face-to-face services and briefings from NWS forecasters at

the ARTCCs are no longer required. The NWS believes new technology can be leveraged to allow remote service and improve consistency. Our response also provides

for remote briefing services to FAA Terminal Radar Approach Control and control

tower personnel, which are currently not co-located with CWSUs but have routine

interactions with NWS forecasters. However, a rigorous demonstration of any new

technology, products, and services must be conducted and independently evaluated

before we modify our current structure. We will not proceed with any change that

would jeopardize safety.

The consolidated CWSU structure would reduce NWS staff from 84 to 50. Any affected NWS CWSU employee who wishes to continue to work for the NWS will have

the option of doing so. We have reviewed our staffing model and are confident we

can absorb the 34 positions through normal attrition.

Our 42-month schedule for transition to a consolidated CWSU structure includes

a planning phase, a nine-month period for the demonstration/validation, followed by

transition to the new structure provided the demonstration/validation demonstrates

no degradation of aviation weather services and aviation safety is enhanced. During

the nine-month demonstration/validation period, current weather support will remain unchanged.

Ongoing Improvements to CWSU Services

While working with FAA to define future CWSU services, over the past 18 months

we have been working to improve the consistency and quality of existing CWSU

aviation weather services. Improvements to our aviation weather services include

improved weather information with new graphic capabilities, a more concentrated

focus on National Airspace System weather impacts, and improved consistency between forecasts across multiple ARTCCs. We also are improving our customer service by increasing CWSU meteorologists’ understanding of air traffic flow management and FAA operations, initiating proactive communication to controllers, towers,

and others in air traffic management, and improving access and usefulness of

33

CWSUs Internet presence. We have implemented a methodology to measure weather impact on air traffic across 35 major airports, customized forecast criteria to specific airports to meet specific ARTCC needs, and are conducting CWSU site reviews.

These site visits are conducted jointly by NWS and FAA management. Thirteen site

reviews are complete and eight more will be done by September 2009. Taken together, we believe these are significant steps that have already improved weather

services to our ARTCC partners.

Weather Information in the Next Generation Air Transportation System

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is intended to meet

projected 2025 U.S. air transportation needs—significant growth in air traffic is projected. Given that weather is a factor in 70 percent of air traffic delays, NOAA is

actively involved in NextGen through its participation on the Joint Planning and

Development Office (JPDO) Board and in providing leadership for the JPDO Weather Working Group.

NOAA recognizes the NextGen will result in a system-wide air traffic management transformation that will affect the manner by which weather-related information is collected, managed, disseminated, and used in decision-making. The robust

integration of weather data envisioned by the FAA will improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of airspace use and airport throughput, and is expected to reduce the

impacts to our nation’s travelers and businesses when weather is a factor. To that

end, NOAA is working with FAA to fully integrate NOAA’s weather information and

services improvements into NextGen development to meet requirements for the

transformation and ensure NOAA’s contributions are compatible with NextGen decision support, dissemination, and display systems. The NWS response to restructure

CWSU support provides key links to NextGen and will ensure inter-operability of

any revised CWSU support structure during the NextGen era. NWS planners will

work closely with the FAA during any CWSU restructure to ensure a linkage into

the NextGen program.

The vision of NextGen requires NOAA to develop a four dimensional grid of environmental data (referred to as the ‘‘4D Weather Cube’’) with fine scale forecasts of

wind, temperature, cloud heights, visibility and thunderstorms. There are scientific

challenges we must address to meet this vision. For example, we are developing the

capability to forecast the development of a thunderstorm within airport airspace 30

minutes before it starts. Thunderstorms are a significant cause of air traffic delays.

By forecasting the beginning of thunderstorms, we can provide greater advance notice, and air traffic managers can change aircraft routes and headings before the

threat appears, which will mitigate the impact through the system, resulting in less

impact to passengers and businesses. Forecasting the beginning of thunderstorms

is a difficult scientific challenge, requiring greater sensing of the atmosphere

through satellites, radars, and other methods, as well as higher resolution forecast

models. NOAA is focused on meeting the scientific challenges associated with developing earlier thunderstorm forecasts, as well as improving forecasts for cloud

heights and visibility, two other weather-related threats that impact aviation operations.

Another key component of the 4D Weather Cube will be probabilistic information

that will help FAA decision-makers make more informed, risk-based decisions when

appropriate. The probabilistic 4D Weather Cube will support both tactical decisionmaking (radar, one- to six-hour thunderstorm forecasts, observations, emergency

support) and strategic decision-making (six to 30-hour forecasts of key parameters

including icing, turbulence, convection, and winter weather ground support forecasts). The vision of the 4D Weather Cube is to support aircraft specific, runway

specific, trajectory specific information as early as possible in the planning phase.

The NWS vision is to issue ‘‘Warnings-on-Forecast’’ in four dimensions when probabilities of certain hazards exceed user agreed upon probabilistic thresholds within

hazard areas. The key take-away for operations is to avoid the hazard areas.

Weather in the data cube will contain a constantly refreshed source of critical information, keeping the eyes of all decision-makers on target. All of the data will be

network-enabled, using common standards and architectures. Network-enabled information access will foster a private-public partnership to keep the National Airspace System as efficient and safe as possible. Weather information in digital forms

can ‘‘speak’’ from machine to machine, supporting the NextGen vision of integrating

current and future sources of weather data. NWS efforts to build the 4D Weather

Cube will include working closely with partners to ensure a fully unidirectional approach to National Airspace System support.

Finally, the NWS forecaster will remain a key component of the future forecast

system supporting the FAA. The NWS forecaster will continue to assist FAA traffic

34

managers and decision-makers, alerting them of rapidly changing conditions and

the impacts on operations and safety. The vision described above and the service improvements envisioned are still

under development. Today, aviation products are generally in textual and graphic

formats and their development is very labor intensive. Over the next five years,

aviation elements will become available in digital as well as textual and graphical

formats as we move forward towards the NextGen era. Furthermore, advances in

the automation and rapidly updated (hourly) forecast routines of convective, low

ceiling and visibility, icing, turbulence and wind in a digital environment will enable

the NWS to focus our forecasters on improving decision support services to the FAA

by allowing the forecaster to focus not only on the weather, but how the weather

will potentially impact aircraft operations. These science and technology enablers,

together with attention to risk management, will evolve CWSU products and services over the next five years and into the NextGen era. The anticipated advances

in the science and technology underpinning aviation weather support will enable

evolution of CWSU products and services to make them more effective.

GAO Review of Aviation Weather Restructuring

Late last week we received the Government Accounting Office (GAO) Draft Report: ‘‘Review of Aviation Weather Restructuring.’’ We are reviewing the draft and

will develop our action plan once the final report is completed. We believe our response to the FAA for CWSU services addresses some of the key recommendations

in the draft GAO report. For example, our response to FAA includes, as the centerpiece, a nine-month demonstration/validation. The planning, execution, and evaluation of this demonstration/validation will be overseen by the BASC to ensure involvement of stakeholders and an unbiased review to ensure no degradation of aviation weather services. The current 21 CWSUs will continue to operate during that

period. Our response to FAA also highlights the importance of aligning organizational changes with NextGen initiatives. We have been working with our representative to the NextGen JPDO to ensure the NWS connection to NextGen. In addition,

I serve on the JPDO Executive Weather Working Group, where I highlight important NextGen weather issues for discussion with other members of the board including representatives from the Department of Defense, FAA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Consistent with the GAO report, the NWS agrees

there must be a linkage between the CWSUs and NextGen. I believe we have taken

the necessary first steps to ensure this, and we will continue to incorporate NextGen

concepts into our CWSU plans.

We also agree with the need to establish baseline performance measures, as stated by the GAO. NWS is now collecting data on four of the five standards developed

by FAA and proposed by NWS, to establish a baseline. Methods by which to measure the fifth proposed standard (forecast accuracy) will be reviewed by FAA and

NWS. These measures are critical data points to allow the BASC to evaluate the

demonstration/validation and to determine its success. The FAA also recommended

that NWS identify in our proposal additional performance measures that involve

proposed products and services. To address this, NWS has identified eight additional performance measures which are listed in our response to FAA.

Conclusion

Much has changed since the CWSUs were first established in 1978. The science

and our understanding and ability to observe, analyze, and predict the weather has

improved tremendously; new technology to support our products and services continues to evolve. We believe a disciplined test of new service alternatives incorporating the best and newest science and technology has the potential to improve

air traffic management and provide the capabilities needed in NextGen. We believe

new 21st century technologies provide a viable option for remote weather support.

We will support a change of the current operational model after a successful demonstration/validation shows no there would be no degradation in current services.

The NWS mission is to provide weather forecasts and warnings for the protection

of lives and property and enhancement of the national economy. We will not take

any steps that would jeopardize our ability to deliver life-saving weather information. It is our goal to help the FAA ensure the National Airspace System remains

safe, efficient, and cost effective for the people of this country.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN L. ‘‘JACK’’ HAYES

John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Weather Services and National Weather ServVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
35

ice (NWS) Director. In this role, Dr. Hayes is responsible for an integrated weather

services program, supporting the delivery of a variety of weather, water, and climate

services to government, industry, and the general public, including the preparation

and delivery of weather warnings and predictions, and the exchange of data products and forecasts with international organizations.

Dr. Hayes returned to the NWS in 2007 after serving as the Director of the World

Weather Watch Department at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a

specialized agency of the United Nations located in Geneva, Switzerland. In that position, he was responsible for global weather observing, weather data exchange telecommunications, and weather data processing and forecasting systems.

Before joining the WMO, Dr. Hayes served in several senior executive positions

at NOAA. As the Deputy Assistant Administrator for NOAA Research, he was responsible for the management of research programs. As Deputy Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (NOS), he was the Chief Operating Officer

dealing with a multitude of ocean and coastal challenges, including the NOS response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in August 2005. As Director of the Office

of Science and Technology for the NWS, Dr. Hayes had oversight of the infusion of

new science and technology essential to weather service operations.

Dr. Hayes was also an executive in the private sector and the military. He was

General Manager of the Automated Weather Interactive Processing System

(AWIPS) program at Litton-PRC from 1998 through 2000. AWIPS is the interactive

computer system used by all weather service forecasters. From 1970 through 1998,

Dr. Hayes spent a career in the United States Air Force. He held a variety of positions, culminating his career as the Commander of the Air Force Weather Agency

in the rank of Colonel.

Dr. Hayes received both his Ph.D. and Master of Science degrees in meteorology

from the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. A Fellow in the

American Meteorological Society, he also graduated from Bowling Green State University, with a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics.

Dr. Hayes has been married to his wife, Sharon, for over 37 years and has three

grown children.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Hayes.

Mr. Day for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

FOR OPERATIONS, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. DAY. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, Members of

the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to testify about

the future of Center Weather Service Units.

Our job at the FAA is to oversee a safe and efficient National

Airspace System. Reliable aviation weather forecasting is an integral part of that, and the National Weather Service’s support has

been a key component of that as well.

Our operations data tells us that 70 percent of air traffic delays

are caused by weather. To address this problem we are collaborating with the National Weather Service on aviation weather forecasting and how to improve that forecasting to promote safety and

reduce weather delays.

In our constant quest to improve aviation safety and efficiency,

we are looking to capitalize on technological improvements that

have emerged over the last 30 years since CWSU operations began.

Technological improvements have changed the way in which

weather information is generated, disseminated, and used.

In addition, we have also asked the National Weather Service to

examine three different service methods. First, using the existing

CWSU configuration, second, using a reduced number of CWSUs,

and third, using one centralized facility to provide improved, consistent, and continuous weather service to centers 24 hours per

36

day, seven days per week, versus the current 16 hours per day,

seven hours—seven days per week service presently provided.

Since the Committee’s last hearing on CWSUs, the National

Weather Service responded to our request with three alternatives.

Each of these had some innovative ways to meet our requirements.

However, none were accepted because the costs were too high for

each alternative compared to the cost of the program.

Last year the FAA advised the National Weather Service that we

preferred the single weather center solution but recognized the

need for backup and requested the National Weather Service refine

its proposal. We were served—we received the National Weather

Service revised proposal last month and expect to complete our assessment of the proposal in early August.

Although our assessment of the National Weather Service proposal is not complete, with a two weather center approach, we see

an opportunity to improve aviation weather forecasting services in

the near-term. We expect this approach to provide finer resolution

and more consistent and accurate forecasts that will improve the

safety and efficiency of traffic flows through the National Airspace

System.

This consolidation—or, excuse me, this consolidated CWSU

model would allow meteorologists to dynamically allocate resources

to areas with active weather conditions having the most impact on

aviation operations. We understand that there may be some concern about providing weather services remotely. I want to assure

you that we have considerable experience with remote weather

briefings. Today CWSUs provide remote support to Terminal Radar

Approach Controls and select towers, just as Flight Service Stations provide remote weather briefings to pilots.

In addition, providing weather services using this model is consistent with centralized weather operations used internationally, by

the Department of Defense, and by airlines. And CWSUs will not

be the only source of aviation weather information for FAA’s air

traffic operations. The National Weather Service would continue to

have approximately 130 meteorologists providing meteorological

watch and issuing forecasts for parts of the National Airspace System from its weather forecast offices and the Aviation Weather

Center providing both terminal and end-route forecasts.

In addition to the benefits we expect to see in the near-term, a

two-weather center approach will also help aviation weather services towards the FAA’s future needs envisioned in the Next Generation Air Traffic System or NextGen. One key concept of

NextGen is a common operational picture of weather information

for all air traffic management decisions. This concept is already

being put into practice through the Collaborative Convective Forecast Product or CCFP. The CCFP provides a common operational

picture of convective weather on which they build the air traffic

management plan.

FAA and National Airspace System stakeholders now rely on the

CCFP as the primary forecast product for NASS-wide operations

planning during the convective season. Consistent with NextGen,

we need a common operational picture of all weather elements that

impact air traffic.

37

1 ARTCCs provide air traffic control services to aircraft operating on instrument flight rule

(IFR) flight plans within controlled airspace and principally during the en route phase of flight.

When equipment capabilities and controller workload permit, certain advisory/assistance services may be provided to visual flight rule (VFR) aircraft.

In conclusion, we are very hopeful about the benefits of the Na- tional Weather Service proposal. However, I want to assure the

Committee that our assessment of the National Weather Service

proposal is not the final consideration prior to implementation. Let

me be clear. We will not change the current configuration until a

demonstration and validation show that we are able to effectively

disseminate the most timely and accurate weather forecasting for

the safe operation of flights in our system. This concludes my remarks, and I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD DAY

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here to testify about the status of Center Weather Service Units (CWSU). As this is my first opportunity to testify before this subcommittee, I would like to take just a moment to introduce myself. My name is Rick

Day, and I am the Senior Vice President for Operations for the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO). As Senior Vice President for

Operations, I oversee the safe and efficient delivery of air traffic services provided

by the FAA. My career with the FAA began 35 years ago as an air traffic controller

at the Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center. I have first hand experience relying on CWSU forecasts so it is especially fitting that in my first appearance before

you I will testify about the CWSUs and their future. The FAA has had a longstanding, productive relationship with the National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS).

We want to continue to this relationship with a renewed focus of improved aviation

weather forecasting. A little history of our working relationship may be helpful. Aviation weather fore- casting services have always been integral to safe and efficient operations within

the National Airspace System (NAS) and support from the NWS has been key. The

formal arrangement by which the NWS now provides aviation weather services to

the Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC)1 originated with the NTSB rec- ommendation issued on October 28, 1977, following its investigation of the crash of

Southern Airways Flight 242. The NTSB recommended that FAA develop rules and

procedures for the timely dissemination by air traffic controllers of all available severe weather information to inbound and outbound flight crews in the terminal

area. To address this recommendation, the FAA entered into an Interagency Agreement with the NWS, to create CWSUs at each FAA ARTCC.

Today, CWSUs are located at each of the FAA’s 21 ARTCCs throughout the United States. They are staffed by 84 NWS meteorologists, 16 hours a day, seven

days a week. Typically, the CWSU forecaster on duty works with the ARTCC Traffic

Management Unit (TMU), providing two scheduled weather briefings and updates

throughout the day. The CWSU forecast is used in the development of the operational plan for air traffic, including runway configurations and routing traffic

around significant weather. The original Interagency Agreement with the NWS that established the CWSUs has been renewed a number of times since it was first entered into in 1978. The

current agreement will expire in September of this year but we expect to execute

the agreement’s one-year extension option to continue the existing CWSU operations

through September 2010. Over the last several years, the FAA has been exploring opportunities to improve safety and efficiency within the NAS and capitalize on technological improvements

that have emerged over the last 30 years since CWSU operation began. Technological improvements have changed the way in which weather information is generated, disseminated and used. In addition to the change in technology, we found

that the CWSUs were not providing the same level of services at all of its locations,

and the services and forecasts were not standardized across the 21 locations. There

was also little collaboration or communication between the different CWSUs. In addition, neither the FAA nor the NWS had a formal quality assurance program for

38

CWSU products and services. To this end, in 2005, the FAA asked the NWS to examine different service methods to provide improved, consistent and continuous (24

hours per day, seven days per week) weather support to ARTCCs. In response to

this request, the NWS submitted a restructuring proposal in October 2006. In April

2007, the FAA declined this proposal because we were in the process of an internal

requirements review. We completed that review in late 2007.

Following this review, we refined our requirements for services provided by the CWSUs because our existing requirements were too broad to ensure the efficiency

and cost effectiveness of the services. Also, as GAO found, FAA did not have a system in place to gather information about the effect of forecasts on delays and diversions in the NAS.

In December 2007, the FAA asked NWS to provide a new proposal based on more

narrowly tailored requirements for the future weather forecasting needs and the

need for performance evaluation. Our requirements included 24-hour, seven-days-aweek staffing, standardized services to promote consistency in service delivery

across the NAS as well as NAS-wide monitoring and a new Terminal Approach Control (TRACON) forecast that provided higher resolution information for 10 of our

busiest TRACONs. The FAA also asked that NWS outline three different service

methods to meet these requirements using: (1) the existing CWSU configuration at

21 ARTCCs; (2) a reduced number of CWSUs; and (3) one centralized weather facility. NWS responded with three proposals, each of which had some innovative ways

to meet our requirements, however we did not accept any of them because the costs

were too high for each alternative compared to the current cost of the program. In September 2008, the FAA advised the NWS that we preferred the single weather center solution but recognized the need for back up and requested the NWS

refine their proposal. Safety and efficiency have always been and will continue to

be the driving forces behind any improvements to the CWSU service. We received

the NWS revised proposal last month. Currently, the FAA has a team assessing the

proposal and we expect to have the assessment completed in early August. Although our assessment of the NWS proposal is not complete, with a two weath- er center approach, we see an opportunity to improve aviation weather forecasting

services in the near-term. The agency expects the two center approach to provide

finer resolution and more consistent and accurate forecasts that will improve the

safety and efficiency of traffic flow through the National Airspace System 24 hours

a day versus the 16 hours currently covered. This consolidated CWSU model would

also allow meteorologists monitoring the NAS to dynamically allocate resources to

areas with ‘‘active’’ weather conditions, having the most impact on aviation operations.

We understand that there may be some concern about providing weather services ‘‘remotely.’’ We think this concern is unfounded because we have considerable experience with remote weather briefings. Today, CWSUs provide remote support to

TRACONS and select towers just as Flight Service Stations provide remote weather

briefings to pilots. In addition, providing weather services using this model is consistent with centralized weather operations used by NavCanada, Eurocontrol, and

the U.S. Department of Defense as well as the airlines.

Further, CWSUs will not be the only source of aviation weather information for

FAA’s air traffic operations. NWS would continue to have, at any one time, approximately 130 meteorologists providing meteorological watch and issuing forecasts for

parts of the NAS from its weather forecast offices and the Aviation Weather Center

providing terminal and en route forecasts.

The current requirements for the CWSUs to provide ‘‘consistent’’ information will

also help move aviation weather services towards the FAA’s future needs envisioned

for the Next Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen. One key concept

of NextGen is a common operational picture of weather information for all air traffic

management decisions. This concept is already being put into practice through the

Collaborative Convective Forecast Product (CCFP). Several years ago we asked the

NWS to develop and provide the CCFP based on user feedback that there were several convective forecasts available, often providing different answers. FAA needed

a ‘‘common operational picture’’ of convective weather on which to build the air traffic management plan. The CCFP provides this common forecast of convective weather. It is developed from collaboration among meteorologists from CWSUs, the Aviation Weather Center, Meteorological Service of Canada, and the airlines. FAA and

NAS stakeholders now rely on the CCFP as the primary forecast product for NASwide operations planning, during the convective season. Consistent with the

NextGen Concept of Operations, we need a common operational picture of all weather elements that impact air traffic.

In the time since the GAO’s January 2008 evaluation of weather services provided

by CWSUs, we have taken steps to address GAO’s recommendations for establishing

39

standards by which to evaluate CWSU performance. We have already established

standards for participation in the development of the Convective Forecast, when

convective weather is expected to occur within that specific ARTCC domain; consistency of CWSU product formats, information content, and procedures for issuance,

across all CWSUs; and, provision of on site or back up daily services 16 hours per

day, seven days per week. We began baselining these performance standards with

the NWS during site evaluations we started this year. We have also established a

standard for accuracy of forecasts used in decisions for traffic management initiatives. The metric that results from this is being developed jointly by FAA and NWS.

This metric will take a little more time to refine, but we believe that building on

a developing tool called the Weather Impact Traffic Index, which translates weather

and weather forecast impact on air traffic, will help us in these efforts.

As I mentioned, the NWS and the FAA are also in the process of conducting a new series of site evaluations. As of June, we had evaluated 13 of the 21 CWSUs

and expect to complete the remaining site evaluations by September. So far, we

have found what previous FAA, NWS and GAO reports have documented: a lack of

standardization in CWSU services. Having said that, we have also found that

CWSUs are well integrated into air traffic management operations. We have also

found positive dividends from new FAA and NWS initiatives. Specifically, NWS has

provided all CWSUs with a common tool set—standardized technology, collaboration

and training—which is producing improved and consistent service. The FAA has

funded a hardware and software technology upgrade of the AWIPS Remote Display

(the standard meteorological workstation used by the NWS) which has improved

system performance and weather information availability because it provides faster,

more effective manipulation of forecast data.

In conclusion, we are very hopeful about the benefits of the NWS proposal. How- ever, I want to assure you that our assessment of the NWS proposal is not the final

consideration prior to implementation. Let me be clear—we will not change the current configuration until a demonstration and validation show we are able to effectively disseminate the most timely and accurate weather forecasting for the safe operation of flights in our system. We will work with the NWS to plan, execute and evaluate the demonstration and

validation to prove whether the consolidated CWSU model will be able to provide

on-demand services remotely. In addition, we understand that the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Academy of Sciences has agreed to

oversee the demonstration and validation, providing an independent assessment of

the consolidated CWSU model. We also expect the NTSB to contribute to the demonstration and validation by participating in the independent review. Finally, during the demonstration and review, we expect to develop the data necessary to assess, in quantitative terms, the improvements we have identified.

We have an opportunity to couple the art and science of aviation weather to re- duce the impact weather has on aviation and increase the safety of operations. FAA

and NWS will continue to learn and grow together as we move towards our common

goal of improved aviation weather services. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Broun, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions at this

time.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RICHARD DAY

Rick Day was named the Senior Vice President for Operations in September 2008. In this capacity, he is responsible for leading all segments of Operations—Terminal,

En Route, Systems Operations and Technical Operations—and representing those

service units on the Executive Council. Operations also directs the Office of Technical Training and Office of Service Center. In addition, Day will work to help Operations prepare for the transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

From 2005–2008, Day served as Vice President of En Route and Oceanic Services.

He was responsible for providing air traffic services that met customer target levels

of safety, efficiency and security in the national airspace system and international

airspace assigned to U.S. control. He also concentrated on bolstering ties with civil

aviation authorities to promote harmonization and cooperation as the world moves

to the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

Day joined the Federal Aviation Administration in 1974, beginning his career as

an air traffic control specialist at Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center. He

eventually moved to the Central Region and Great Lakes Region where he served

as Manager of the Kansas City ARTCC. He held various branch and staff manager

positions, before serving as Assistant Air Traffic Division Manager for three years.

He later served as acting Regional Administrator.

40

He also spent time as an instructor/evaluator at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical

Center following the PATCO strike from 1980–1984.

In 2001, Day became Manager of the Air Traffic Division of the Federal Aviation

Administrations Southern Region in Atlanta, eventually serving as Area Director for

Eastern En Route and Oceanic Operations in February 2004.

In March 2005, Day was selected as Vice President for En Route and Oceanic

Services. He leads nearly 9,000 employees supporting 47 million operations a year

over more than 5.6 million square miles of airspace in the U.S. and 24.6 million

square miles of oceanic airspace. This domain equates to more than 15 percent of

the world’s airspace.

Day holds a Bachelor’s degree in management from Mid-America Nazarene University. He chartered and was the first President of the Kansas City Metropolitan

Chapter 293 of the Federal Managers Association.

Day lives with his wife, Jill, in Springfield, Va.

DISCUSSION

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Day. We will now begin our

first round of questions. I now recognize myself for five minutes.

INVOLVEMENT OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS IN REFORM

Again, I understand based upon our staff interviews and other

information that the air traffic controllers strongly support keeping

meteorologists where they are in the regional air traffic control centers where they can stand over their shoulder in times of weather

crisis.

Mr. Day, since the air traffic controllers are the consumers, the

customers for the weather services, what role have they played in

developing this proposal for the consolidation of services?

Mr. DAY. The air traffic controllers have not had a central role

in developing the requirements for those services, however, there

has been assessments ongoing between the FAA and the National

Weather Service going out and reviewing the services currently

provided in Center Weather Service Units. And as I understand,

they have gotten feedback from the Center Weather Service employees, as well as the controllers on those assessments.

Chairman MILLER. Would those be the CWSU’s site reviews? I

think we have now gotten a copy of.

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir, and there has been 13 completed out of the

21 sites.

Chairman MILLER. My understanding is that in every case the

view of the air traffic controllers is they like things the way they

were a whole lot better than the proposed change. Is that correct?

Mr. DAY. This is change, and having been a controller many

years ago, I have gone through a number of technological changes,

and oftentimes I would resist those changes because I felt comfortable with the tools and the assets and the advice around me.

And our controllers are the same way, and we have done a number

of technological changes, and what we often find is after we introduce the change safely and we work to resolve concerns, we oftentimes find that—in most cases we find that they—it is hard to pry

the new technology from their hands.

We also find that our new controllers, the ‘NextGen-ers’ and ‘Gen

X-ers’ really do embrace technology, and they are actually pushing

us to continue to look for new technologies and new ways to do

business.

41

So we do find that while—and we do understand resistance to

the change, we do want to address their concerns and feel that as

we work through a successful demonstration and validation process, which would include their involvement and feedback, we will

resolve those concerns and come up with a much superior service

than we have today.

THE EFFECTS OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF

METEOROLOGISTS

Chairman MILLER. I understand the consolidation proposal

would require at least a 60 percent reduction in the staffing of meteorologists during the heaviest traffic hours. Understanding that

there is continuing new technology and we certainly want to overcome resistance to using new technology where it does actually improve weather forecasting, will the reduction by 60 percent of the

people, the forecasters, not have some significant effect on the quality of the forecasting? Will the skies really be as safe if there are

eight forecasters on duty as opposed to 20?

Dr. Hayes.

Dr. HAYES. Well, I would say that our—any—on any given day

we don’t have significant weather affecting aviation covering the

entire United States, and so in our existing structure we have people who are monitoring areas where there is no significant weather, and our consolidation plan is really to reduce the number of employees involved in this from 84 to 50. We will have eight people,

and our plan here is actually to put more eyes on where weather

has an impact on aviation in our proposal.

So it is our view that we will actually increase the attention that

we are putting on weather that has an impact on aviation safety.

Chairman MILLER. Okay, and I suppose it is also true that on

most days firefighters have the easiest job in America.

SAFETY AND POTENTIAL DEGRADATION OF SERVICE

Mr. Powner, do you have a comment on that?

Mr. POWNER. Well, clearly, these are all very fair questions, Mr.

Chairman. I think the rubber is going to meet the road on the demonstration project. I mean, the key here is to demonstrate no degradation of service, and you know, and not having that face-to-face,

on-demand consultation is a concern. We heard that during the

course of our work also, and we really won’t know that until we

have that demonstration in place.

And, again, I would like to reiterate that demonstration is going

to be very difficult because as we heard here, we still have performance measures to agree to in terms of what we are measuring, and

then once we get those in place, then we have to baseline those so

that we have baseline performance to measure against.

It is tough to demonstrate no degradation of service if you do not

have baseline performance metrics.

Chairman MILLER. Okay. My time has expired.

Dr. Broun for five minutes. Ranking Member and licensed pilot,

Dr. Broun.

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Day, are you a pilot?

Dr. Hayes, are you a pilot?

42

1 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Dr. HAYES. No, sir, I am not.

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Day, I have used Atlanta Center. I flew out of

Athens, Georgia, for a long period of time and then I flew out of

South Georgia a long period of time and worked out of Jack Center

or flying into Atlanta Center a lot, and I appreciate your centers’

good service that I have gotten.

But I want to make a statement. As a pilot, instrument-rated

pilot, frequently I would be talking to a controller at a center and

would talk to the controller about what weather I was facing, and

this is—we would fly at night as well as in the daytime. And just

to make a statement to begin with, I don’t like this change as a

pilot, that you are proposing, and I think it is not going to be a

good change for pilots.

I think it is—and the reason I say that is because frequently I

have talked to the center controllers and asked about weather—

and have talked to a National Weather Service specialist in the

center about what I was dealing with. Trying to consolidate that

and working with the controller that was handling my aircraft at

the time, being pilot in command, talking to the controller, talking

to the Weather Service specialist trying to figure out the safest way

for me and my aircraft and frequently passengers to traverse

through a weather system, I think it is absolutely critical for pilots

to have that ability.

So my change that I would suggest as a pilot to FAA is to—let

us go to a 24/7, 52 weeks out of the year service with somebody

in each control center and not trying to consolidate these things.

I think it is absolutely critical.

Now, Mr. Day, have you all at FAA consulted AOPA about their

opinion about this change that you all are proposing?

Mr. DAY. We have had conversations with AOPA1 just like we

had with the flight service consolidation and the many pilots like

yourself, oftentimes they do want that comfort of having face-toface briefings or assets available, and what I would say, because

I used to work down in that area, and I have been to all those facilities, including Athens Airport, the CWSU forecasting is not the

only product.

You know, as a controller they have the corridor information or

corridor information weather service services, as well as an integrated terminal weather services——

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Day, let me interrupt you because my time is

very limited. I understand all that, and I understand that we are

still going to have towers as well as approach and departure control help on that, but there is a lot of territory in Georgia, Florida,

South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi,

Texas, Louisiana that I have been flying in that is not covered by

a tower, it is not covered by a terminal radar. It is covered by the

Center, and I have talked to those weather specialists, and I

have—it is not about having the comfort.

It is about having safety, and I think it is absolutely critical to

have those specialists in the Centers to be able to talk to those

folks and talk to a controller with the weather specialist looking

over their shoulder so I can talk to both of them at the same time.

43

And I think you all, just as the Chairman said in his opening statement, and I really appreciated his opening statement, I think you

all are looking for solutions for a problem that is not broken.

I would like to see you guys go to 24/7 personally. I think that

is going to be the safest way. You know since you worked in the

Atlanta control, Atlanta Center that we have a lot of thunderstorms. Daytime, nighttime. I need as a pilot to know where those

are and how to circumnavigate them. And talking to somebody in

Silver Springs, Maryland, with a controller being in Hampton is

not going to get it as far as I am concerned.

I like technology. I want to stay on the cutting edge of technology, but I think you all are—you have no metrics to measure

what is going on today. You have no possibility of determining

what is going on from the National Weather Service absolutely providing the services that the pilots desperately need in operating a

safe aircraft in the Air Traffic Control System, and I think until

we have the metrics in place, until we have all the things that are

absolutely necessary to make sure that we continue in a safe manner and operate in the air traffic control system, I think you are

premature in just jumping out and trying to do what you are doing.

Now, my time is just about expired. Mr. Chairman, you have

been very gracious in allowing some variance on time. Dr. Hayes,

I have got a question for you very quickly, because my time is up,

and the Chairman is being very gracious to offer me some extra

time.

Can NOAA provide weather specialists in the centers to give—

to use all the technology that is available to help us as pilots to

provide safe travel within the center structure? Can you all do that

and do it in a cost-effective manner and utilize all the technology?

Dr. HAYES. Mr. Broun, are you referring to Centers as currently

configured today or in the proposed——

Mr. BROUN. No. I am talking about in Centers as they currently

are configured today.

Dr. HAYES. And the answer is an unqualified yes.

Mr. BROUN. Okay.

Dr. HAYES. I think our view is that the system works well today,

but it needs to work better. There are challenges we face, and as

you look to the future of aviation in the United States, the demands for air traffic management are only going to grow, and

weather, as you noted, being a significant impact on traffic, is

going to grow in its importance.

We need to bring to bear new science and technology. We need

to improve the consistency of our forecasts. These are part of what

causes some of the delays you experience. I want to assure you I

am committed to enhancing the services that we provide to the

FAA. I am—and I am also committed to doing it in a way that ensures safety.

So I have responded to their requirement because I believe that

what they are asking is viable, and I have a responsibility since I

am the service provider to test what I consider to be scientificallyviable solutions, have an objective, independent, third-party evaluate, and if there is any concern about degradation, then there is

no commitment on our part to move forward.

Thank you.

44

Mr. BROUN. I appreciate the great services you all provide.

My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Dr. Broun.

Ms. Dahlkemper.

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I want to piggyback on what we were just talking about,

but as you were talking about the conclusions regarding the CWSU

baseline performance, are they going to be evaluated by the National Academies? Dr. Hayes, Mr. Day, one of you.

Dr. HAYES. Our plan with the involvement in the National Academies is that they will bring together the expertise and that will

be involved in looking at the plan, looking at the metrics we have,

overseeing the execution of the dem/val, evaluating the results, and

again, part of their evaluation, if there is any concern with the

baseline metrics that we have, whether they are strong enough,

whether the execution is strong enough to indicate that there is no

degradation, we expect them to tell us that.

In addition, internally I have a responsibility to the American

people that every step of the way I evaluate our internal processes,

and if I see something that they don’t see, I have a responsibility

to say, hold everything. So I think there is a dual aspect to this

evaluation, both external and internal.

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Will all the metrics that are proposed by the

recent GAO strictly be adopted in that?

Dr. HAYES. I think we have got four of them in work, in implementation today. We are looking at forecast accuracy. We are working with the FAA, and we hope to have that soon, and I would say

that if there are additional metrics, again, our intent here is not

to cut any corners with regard to safety of air flight and our services.

Thank you.

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Powner, when FAA rejected the second

NWS proposal for consolidation, they stated that they believe the

technology has moved to a point where face-to-face communication

between forecasters and air controllers is not needed. Given your

experience looking at the technology acquisitions in use in federal

agencies, are there risks in this approach that relies on technology

to fill in for direct human contact?

Mr. POWNER. Well, clearly the on-demand consultation you can’t

put in—there are technologies to put in place, you know, with various communication mechanisms. We could have that—I will tell

you, though, during the course of our review we actually visited

four centers, and three of the four preferred to move forward with

a face-to-face, on-demand consultation. So I still think that is the

mode that most folks are comfortable with. I think the technology

when you want to continue to pursue that, I think that what we

are talking about here is consistent with where FAA is going with

their longer-term NextGen initiatives where you do more remotely,

not just weather but other things associated with air traffic control.

So you want to continue to push that, but, again, you want to

make sure—you need to listen to the users, and you want to make

sure there is no degradation of service.

45

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. And I guess I just want to go back to Dr.

Hayes and Mr. Day and, again, kind of piggyback on what has already been asked.

I guess what is it that we are trying to fix through this consolidation? Exactly what is it we are trying to fix, because there seems

to be unanimity among meteorologists that this—they are a necessary part of this safety team. So what is it that we are trying

to fix?

Mr. DAY. Thank you. So first of all, through evaluations by both

the GAO as well as our site visits and from customer feedback we

lack the consistency and accuracy of our forecasts, and as—what

we have seen is that many times our very competent and committed meteorologists provide a regional view, however, that becomes murky as you look at a National Airspace System and a

common operational picture by which to make mission-driven decisions and ensure safety and a successful mission.

So we believe that by moving to this new model we can resolve

some of those inconsistencies and accuracy like we realize with the

CCFP product for convective weather.

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Dr. Hayes, did you want to comment on that?

Dr. HAYES. I would say that I have seen evidence in the past 18

months since I have been in the job where we have some challenges with consistency. FAA identified an impact three weeks ago

in the New York City area where our weather forecast office Terminal Aerodrome Forecast was inconsistent with the CCFP product, and so we are taking action now to address that.

And that will be part—and that is part of our response, is to

focus on a consistent message to air traffic controllers. I mentioned

in my opening——

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. And that can’t be done in the current system

that we have right now? The consistency issue can’t be fixed?

Dr. HAYES. No. It can. It can be with the existing system.

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. It can be or it cannot?

Dr. HAYES. It is. There are challenges there that we would have

that we wouldn’t have with fewer locations. Obviously the more

people in the message generation, the more difficult it is to ensure

consistency.

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Okay. My time has expired. I yield back.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Ms. Dahlkemper.

My current plan is to represent Mr. Lipinski for five minutes of

questions, and at that point we probably need to go to vote, so we

will be gone for votes for a sufficiently long time. It does not make

sense to come back, so Mr. Lipinski for five minutes.

Mr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent

to enter into the record a statement from the air traffic controllers,

from the Weather Union folks, as well as AOPA?

Chairman MILLER. That would be fine.

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MILLER. It is so ordered.

[The information follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Broun for, both of you for holding

this important hearing and for allowing me to join in on the Subcommittee here this morning.

As some of you may know, Midway Airport is in my District, and

O’Hare is close, and air traffic safety is very important to me. I

51

have been following this proposed consolidation with increasing

concern.

A little over a month ago we had Administrator Babbitt in before

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee, and I was asking him questions that we have—are focusing on here this morning. Unfortunately, he had just gotten into

that position and at that time he really didn’t have much to tell

me. He said he hadn’t had a chance to review the latest version of

the NWS proposal. So I am hoping that today with this very helpful GAO report we can get a clearer picture.

I have a lot of questions here. Let me try to focus, and I will have

some questions for the record, but focus in on two if we have time.

Dr. Hayes, the meteorologists who currently work the 21 CWSUs

have developed very precise knowledge of how weather patterns

have emerged in each area. During the test phase of the consolidated program how do you intend to staff this new consolidated

center? If, for instance, you were taking some of the most senior

people out of the existing 21 centers, how can you fairly and accurately evaluate the current system versus a new proposal? And

what will become of the meteorologist at the existing CWSUs if

consolidation occurs?

Dr. HAYES. For staffing the dem/val, Mr. Lipinski, our plan is to

not take the people out of the existing CWSUs. Our plan is to take

aviation weather expertise out of our Science and Operations Officers at our Weather Forecast Offices. Some of our meteorologists in

charge will staff the dem/val sites so that we do have, I think, a

fair and objective comparison of ‘as is’ versus ‘to be.’

Mr. LIPINSKI. Do you see any problem with the difference in experience that you will have at the—comparing two different, the

two different systems?

Dr. HAYES. Actually, I think if it biases it at all, it would bias

it toward the as is today because that is where the aviation experience is today. And so, no, I don’t think that it is an unfair comparison.

Mr. LIPINSKI. So what happens with the meteorologists at the existing CWSUs?

Dr. HAYES. Well, we would offer them a job elsewhere if they

were, if we were to reduce or to eliminate that CWSU and offer

them a job ideally at one of the two that we are going to—that we

have proposed, and if we also have vacancies at nearby Forecast

Offices, and we would attempt to offer them opportunities.

One other aspect of the proposal that we put forward that we

think will enhance its attractiveness to members of our CWSU

staff is to raise the GS grade of aviation weather forecasters, and

I think what this will in a long-term create an aviation career opportunity that they don’t have today.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. I just want to—I don’t have much time here.

I would quickly move onto the second question for Dr. Hayes, and

on May 9, 2008, when the National Weather Service sent the FAA’s

latest consolidation proposal, you accompanied the proposal with a

transmittal letter that included some language which concerned

me. You wrote that, ‘‘The non-remote option expands and improves

CWSUs’ services at the 21 current locations. This option sustains

the capability to provide face-to-face decision support, which reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
52

duces risk when rapidly changing weather has a potential for first

order impact on aviation.’’

I think we can all agree that if the proposal increases the risk

relative to the current system, that it is not going to be acceptable.

There are two things I want to understand.

First, what did you mean by ‘‘first order impact’’ on aviation, and

second, how could a new system with less local weather knowledge

possibly reduce risk? And haven’t the air traffic controllers spoken

out in favor of keeping the forecasters co-located?

Dr. HAYES. Well, I think, Mr. Lipinski, when you are trying to

communicate, one has to say that face-to-face does lessen risk,

whether it is a significant reduction or—I don’t think I can categorically say one way or the other. There is—it just depends on

the situation.

I guess my position is and has been that I think that what the

FAA has asked me to do is viable, and I am willing to test it and

then see what the results show with an independent evaluation.

Mr. LIPINSKI. How much of an increase in risk are we going to

allow?

Dr. HAYES. Well, again, the risk is to communicating what we intend. Whether that risk translates into an impact on safety or not,

I don’t, again, I don’t think I can say.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. I have some more questions for the record,

but I know that we don’t have much time here, and so I will yield

back.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and the record will

remain open for three days, three legislative days for records.

We have provided to the minority a list of documents, and I now

move or ask unanimous consent that they be entered into the

record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information appears in Appendix 2: Additional Material for

the Record.]

Chairman MILLER. Under the rules of the Committee the record

will remain open for two weeks, excuse me, for additional statements from the Members and for questions for follow up and for

answers to any follow-up questions that the Committee may submit.

And it certainly appears based on today’s testimony that by the

time we have developed a reasonable, careful criteria for the dem/

val for determining whether the new procedure is the equal of the

old, NextGen will be here, and playing out the clock may not be

such a bad thing.

And with that the hearing is adjourned. The witnesses are excused.

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(53)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

54

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John L. ‘‘Jack’’ Hayes, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services;

Director, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. Mr. Powner’s GAO report stated that ‘‘It is important to obtain an understanding of the current level of performance in these measures before beginning

any efforts to restructure aviation weather services.’’ If we cannot quantify how

the current Central Weather Service Units (CWSUs) are working, I do not understand how we can rigorously compare them to the proposed consolidated centers. How can you design a reliable test when you cannot even characterize the

control in your experiment? What steps are you taking to quantify current CWSU

performance, and how well do those steps capture differences due to local weather patterns?

A1. In February 2008, the GAO recommended NWS ‘‘. . . perform annual evaluations of aviation weather services provided at en route centers and provide feedback

to the Center Weather Service Units.’’ In response to this recommendation, the

NWS developed and implemented the CWSU Site Review Program in January 2009.

These documented site reviews assess the current level of performance at each of

the Centers (including local aviation weather support) through observation, interaction, and dialogue. In addition, the review includes interviews with FAA representatives to assess CWSU performance and determine how well NWS meteorologists are addressing FAA weather concerns. By September 2, 2009, a total of 18 site

reviews will have been completed.

We continue to gather data on CWSU performance using performance metrics

identified in the GAO report. These metrics will provide a baseline for performance

metrics for each CWSU and will be available prior to the demonstration/validation

(dem/val) period for NWS’ proposal.

When the dem/val starts, we will have a standard baseline from which all CWSUs

will be performing. We are working collaboratively with the FAA before the dem/

val period to define and quantify additional metrics; this collaboration will continue

during the dem/val. We will have independent verification and validation of all

metrics, and we have engaged the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a final,

objective assessment of the dem/val.

CWSUs are tasked with providing a regional and national weather picture, and

collaborate with NWS’s 122 Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) to gain additional

local expertise. [The proposal continues these fundamental concepts of operations.]

FAA’s requirement is for a common national picture of weather affecting the National Airspace System (NAS), and the proposed CWSU structure will be better suited to provide this support. Airport-specific weather forecasts, which address the

local weather patterns, will continue to be provided by the local WFOs. CWSUs will

continuously communicate and collaborate with local WFOs to ensure data consistency as we support Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs), Terminal Radar

Approach Control (TRACONs), and Control Towers.

Q2. The meteorologists who work in the 21 current Central Weather Service Units

have developed detailed local knowledge of weather patterns. During the test

phase of the consolidated program, I am wondering how you intend to staff the

new consolidated center. If, for instance, you take the some of the most senior

people out of the 21 existing centers, how can you fairly and accurately evaluate

the current system versus the new proposal? What will become of the meteorologists at the existing CWSUs if consolidation occurs?

A2. While the CWSUs have developed local knowledge of weather patterns, much

local expertise also resides with forecasters at the 122 WFOs, who provide specific

airport forecasts via the Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts (TAF). In the new aviation

services model, we will continue to combine the expertise of the WFO and CWSU,

and the flying public will receive the benefit of a total collaboration to show a more

consistent weather picture, enhanced by the new technology, 24x7 service, and improved weather products.

For the dem/val phase, we propose to use a mix of CWSU Meteorologists-inCharge, WFO management staff (including Meteorologists-in-Charge, Warning Coordination Meteorologists, Science and Operations Officers), Regional Aviation Meteorologists (each of the six NWS Regions has one), and other regional management

staff. Any person participating in the dem/val will have a solid background in aviaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:04 Jan 29, 2010 Jkt 050747 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\I&O09\071609\50747 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
55

tion meteorology and the NWS aviation program. This dem/val staffing proposal

would bring in experienced aviation meteorologists while leaving the current forecasting core undisturbed at all 21 CWSUs.

Should this consolidation occur, no NWS employee will be without a job opportunity. Anyone who wishes to continue their employment with NWS will have the

opportunity to do so, either by bidding on one of the new positions at the CWSUs

or by moving to another NWS position. The NWS anticipates that the majority of

the FTE reductions will come from CWSU retirement-eligible employees electing to

retire.

56

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Richard Day, Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. Mr. Powner’s GAO report stated that ‘‘It is important to obtain an understanding of the current level of performance in these measures before beginning

any efforts to restructure aviation weather services.’’ If we cannot quantify how

the current Central Weather Service Units (CWSUs) are working, I do not understand how we can rigorously compare them to the proposed consolidated centers. How can you design a reliable test when you cannot even characterize the

control in your experiment? What steps are you taking to quantify current CWSU

performance, and how well do those steps capture differences due to local weather patterns?

A1. In January 2009, the FAA provided the National Weather Service (NWS) with

five performance standards for Center Weather Service Units. The performance

standards are:

(1) participation in the development of the Collaborative Convective Forecast

Product (CCFP), 100 percent of the time when convection is expected to

occur within that specific ARTCC domain;

(2) consistency of Meteorological Impact Statements (MIS) and Center Weather

Advisories (CWA) product formats, information content, and procedures for

issuance, across all CWSUs;

(3) support for twice-daily stand-up briefings to ARTCC leadership 100 percent

of the time;

(4) provision of on-site or backup services 16 hours per day, seven days per

week, 100 percent of the time; and

(5) accuracy of forecasts used in decisions for traffic management initiatives.

Both the NWS and FAA are currently base-lining the performance standards we

established and will be prepared to use these to compare services during the proposed demonstration/validation to ensure no degradation of services from those

which are currently provided by CWSUs, locally and on-site. The standard and corresponding metric for the accuracy of forecasts used in decisions for traffic management initiatives will take a little more time to refine, but we believe that building

on a developing tool called the Weather Impact Traffic Index, which translates both

weather and weather forecast impact on air-traffic, will help us in our efforts.

Additionally, if we move forward with a demonstration/validation phase, we expect to develop a standard for response time for on-demand services provided remotely as we do not do measure this today.

Q2. The most recent NWS proposal is actually the latest in a long series of steps that

began with two FAA goals: saving $2 million a year and ensuring uniform, high

quality data from all Central Weather Service Units. While I am a strong advocate of saving taxpayers money, I worry that for a savings of only six cents per

flight, we may be compromising public safety. As I understand it, the current

proposal would only save about $1 million per year, savings that would be offset

by transition costs of about $12 million. This means that it would take a decade

to earn back the costs of transition. Are these figures correct? If so, can you explain the FAA’s rationale for pursing these changes?

A2. The primary reason FAA is pursing changes in CWSU services is improved

services, not a reduction in cost. These improvements include weather forecasting

services available 24/7 as opposed to the current 16/7 coverage; higher-resolution,

consistent forecasts, both temporally and spatially, for high demand terminal areas;

standardized weather forecast operations; and performance based services.

The current NWS proposal indicates estimated savings of $2.6M per year. This

equates to an approximate 20 percent savings compared to the current program. In

addition, we expect transition costs to be offset by operational savings within five

years.

(57)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385