United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Democratic 

Member, Subcommittee on Aviation, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives

U.S. AEROSPACE 

INDUSTRY 

Progress in 

Implementing 

Aerospace 

Commission 

Recommendations, 

and Remaining 

Challenges 

September 2006 

GAO-06-920 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

U.S. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY 

Progress in Implementing Aerospace 

Commission Recommendations, and 

Remaining Challenges 

Highlights of GAO-06-920, a report to the 

Ranking Democratic Member,

Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives 

The U.S. aerospace industry’s wideranging activities—including

commercial aviation, national

security, and space exploration—

make it critical to the economic

health and strategic strength of our 

nation. However, the industry faces

challenges, such as a national air

traffic management system that, in 

its present form, cannot handle 

expected increases in demand; an

aging aerospace workforce; and an 

increasingly competitive global

market. In response to these and

other challenges, Congress

established the Commission on the 

Future of the United States

Aerospace Industry in 2001 to

recommend potential actions by

the federal government and others

to support a robust aerospace 

industry in the 21st century. In 

2002, the Commission made 

recommendations to address these 

challenges. 

This report discusses (1) the extent 

to which federal agencies have

addressed selected Commission 

recommendations and (2) the 

challenges that remain in

addressing the recommendations.

Based on the opinions of former

Commissioners and GAO research, 

GAO selected recommendations 

dealing with the national airspace 

system, space policy, governmentwide management structure,

international issues, the aerospace

workforce, and research and 

development. This report is based

on reviews of agency documents, 

literature, and interviews with 

aerospace experts and officials 

from relevant federal agencies. 

Federal agencies have taken actions that address selected Commission 

recommendations to varying degrees, from establishing new offices, 

programs, and policies to changing existing programs or policies; however, 

the actions the agencies have taken are still in the early stages of 

implementation. For instance, the creation of the Joint Planning and 

Development Office (JPDO) addresses the recommendation to establish an 

interagency office to plan a new, highly automated air traffic management 

system; however, JPDO faces challenges in leveraging resources and 

maintaining the commitment of nonfederal stakeholders. Additionally, the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) created a 

directorate to implement the President’s new space exploration policy, 

which addresses the Commission’s space exploration recommendation. 

Aerospace experts told us that they believe this may negatively affect other 

space exploration programs that have significant benefits. Changes to 

existing programs include NASA’s restructuring of its aeronautics research 

program and FAA’s attempts to increase the U.S. presence in international 

aviation partnerships. Federal agencies have taken few, if any, actions to 

address other Commission’s recommendations, such as creating a 

government-wide management structure for aerospace. 

Challenges remain for federal agencies in further addressing the 

Commission’s recommendations, including dealing with difficult budgetary 

trade-offs and collaborating on actions involving multiple agencies. For 

example, federal agencies may have to give priority to some programs that 

address Commission recommendations at the expense of other programs 

because of budget limitations. In addition, with multiple agencies involved in 

the U.S. aerospace industry, a lack of coordination among them, aerospace 

companies, and universities could result in duplication and inefficient 

resource leveraging. GAO provided a draft of this report to the relevant 

federal agencies. The Department of Defense had no comments; the other 

agencies generally concurred with the report, but provided clarifications and 

technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. 

Proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle with Lunar Lander Is an Example of Aerospace Research 

and Development 

Sources: NASA; John Frassanitio and Associates.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-920.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gerald L. 

Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Federal Agencies Have Addressed Commission Recommendations 

to Varying Degrees through Different Types of Actions 10 

Federal Agencies Face Challenges in Addressing the Commission’s 

Recommendations 29

Concluding Observations 33 

Agency Comments 34 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36 

Appendix II Aerospace Research and Development Funding 

Trends 39 

Aerospace R&D Includes a Wide Range of Activities 39 

Federal Support of R&D Remains Critical to the Aerospace 

Industry 40

Objectives of Federal Funding for Aerospace R&D Differ by 

Agency and Mission 41 

Appendix III Federal Actions That Address Selected Aerospace 

Commission Recommendations 48 

Appendix IV Joint Planning and Development Office 71 

Role of the Joint Planning and Development Office in the National 

Airspace System Modernization 71 

JPDO Organization Structure and Partner Agencies 72 

JPDO’s Integrated Plan 74 

JPDO Efforts to Leverage Partner Agency Resources 74 

JPDO Is Involving Nonfederal Stakeholders 75 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Labor 76 

Page i GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix VI Comments from the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 77 

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 79 

Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Aerospace Commission Recommendations 9 

Table 2: Grants Awarded by Labor for Aerospace Workforce 

Projects 19

Table 3: Reshaped Strategy of NASA’s Aeronautics Research 

Mission Directorate 24 

Table 4: Experts Providing Input during Our Review 37 

Table 5: JPDO’s Strategies and Responsible Agencies 74 

Figures 

Figure 1: Federal Funding for Industrial R&D in the Aerospace 

Industry 7

Figure 2: Key Federal Entities for Selected Recommendations 11 

Figure 3: Extent to Which Selected Recommendations Have Been 

Addressed 12

Figure 4: JPDO’s Seven Partner Agencies 14 

Figure 5: Proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle with Lunar Lander Is an 

Example of Aerospace R&D 17 

Figure 6: Projected Trends in Major Aerospace-Related Missions 

within NASA, Fiscal Years 2005–2011 31 

Figure 7: Defense Budget for Science and Technology for Air and 

Space Platforms, Fiscal Years 2001-2005 42 

Figure 8: Defense Budget Authority for Basic and Applied 

Research, and for Development, Fiscal Years 1999–2007 43 

Figure 9: Actual and Projected Funding Trends in Major AerospaceRelated Missions within NASA, Fiscal Years 2005–2011 44 

Figure 10: NASA’s Budget Authority for Basic and Applied 

Research, and for Development, Fiscal Years 1999–2007 45 

Figure 11: FAA Outlays for R&D, Including R&D for Facilities and 

Equipment, Fiscal Years 1999–2007 47 

Figure 12: Global Positioning System Display Screen Used in 

Capstone Program 51 

Page ii GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Figure 13: Information Regarding the Moon and Mars 56 

Figure 14: Proposed Advanced Orbital Transfer Propulsion 

Technology 57

Figure 15: ASTS Membership 59 

Figure 16: Engineers at NASA Langley Research Center 68 

Figure 17: Computational Fluid Dynamic Image of the Hyper-X 

Vehicle 69

Figure 18: NASA Glen Research Center’s Research on Aircraft 

Noise 70

Figure 19: JPDO Organization Chart 73 

Abbreviations 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast 

ASTS Aeronautics, Science, and Technology Subcommittee 

ATO Air Traffic Organization

DOT Department of Transportation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IPT integrated product team 

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NGATS next generation air transportation system 

OSTP Office Science and Technology Policy

R&D research and development 

RNP required navigation performance 

SESAR Single European Air Traffic Management Research 

 Programme

SMART Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent 

STEM science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 13, 2006 

The Honorable Jerry F. Costello 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jerry F. Costello 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Costello: 

The U.S. aerospace industry is critical to the economic health and strategic 

strength of the nation. The industry’s wide-ranging activities—including 

aircraft manufacturing and commercial aviation—make it a major 

contributor to U.S. economic growth. The Aerospace Industries 

Association estimates that the industry employs approximately 625,000 

people with sales of approximately $170 billion in 2005. This economic 

benefit is in part due to the United States’ global leadership in the 

development of a robust commercial aviation industry, the industry’s 

employment of a highly skilled and trained workforce, and the 

manufacture of civil and defense aerospace products. These factors have 

allowed the U.S. aerospace industry to produce significant improvements 

in science, technology, and national security in and beyond the aerospace 

field. For example, the global positioning system uses satellites, ground 

control networks, and user equipment to provide navigational information 

for land, sea, and airborne navigation; surveying and mapping; farming; 

telecommunications; and a wide variety of other applications.

The U.S. aerospace industry is critical to the economic health and strategic 

strength of the nation. The industry’s wide-ranging activities—including 

aircraft manufacturing and commercial aviation—make it a major 

contributor to U.S. economic growth. The Aerospace Industries 

Association estimates that the industry employs approximately 625,000 

people with sales of approximately $170 billion in 2005. This economic 

benefit is in part due to the United States’ global leadership in the 

development of a robust commercial aviation industry, the industry’s 

employment of a highly skilled and trained workforce, and the 

manufacture of civil and defense aerospace products. These factors have 

allowed the U.S. aerospace industry to produce significant improvements 

in science, technology, and national security in and beyond the aerospace 

field. For example, the global positioning system uses satellites, ground 

control networks, and user equipment to provide navigational information 

for land, sea, and airborne navigation; surveying and mapping; farming; 

telecommunications; and a wide variety of other applications.

However, the aerospace industry faces a host of challenges, such as a 

national air traffic management system that, in its present form, lacks the 

capacity to handle expected increases in air traffic; an aging aerospace 

industry workforce; and an increasingly competitive global market that 

may threaten the U.S. industry’s traditional leadership in aerospace 

manufacturing. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

the demand for both passenger and cargo air service will continue to grow 

for the foreseeable future, and these increases will place a greater strain 

on the current national airspace system—increasing airspace congestion 

and delays, and resulting in negative economic effects. Additionally, the 

government has reported that an estimated 26 percent of aerospace 

workers will be eligible to retire by 2008, and there are concerns about the 

availability of sufficiently trained workers to fill these positions. 

Furthermore, the industry has reported having difficulty not only retaining 

However, the aerospace industry faces a host of challenges, such as a 

national air traffic management system that, in its present form, lacks the 

capacity to handle expected increases in air traffic; an aging aerospace 

industry workforce; and an increasingly competitive global market that 

may threaten the U.S. industry’s traditional leadership in aerospace 

manufacturing. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

the demand for both passenger and cargo air service will continue to grow 

for the foreseeable future, and these increases will place a greater strain 

on the current national airspace system—increasing airspace congestion 

and delays, and resulting in negative economic effects. Additionally, the 

government has reported that an estimated 26 percent of aerospace 

workers will be eligible to retire by 2008, and there are concerns about the 

availability of sufficiently trained workers to fill these positions. 

Furthermore, the industry has reported having difficulty not only retaining 

Page 1 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
its existing workforce, but also attracting young people into the field.

Finally, increased global competition from both foreign companies and 

governments will place even more pressure on the industry. For example, 

the European Union published two reports—STAR-211

 and Vision 20202—

that establish European aerospace policy objectives, including the use of 

government resources to pursue global leadership by European aerospace

companies. 

In response to these and other challenges, Congress established the 

Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (the 

Commission) in 2001 to study the issues associated with the future of this 

industry in the global economy, and to recommend potential actions by 

the federal government to support the maintenance of a robust aerospace 

industry in the 21st century.3

 In 2002, the Commission made 

recommendations to address these challenges.4

 Some of the 

recommendations proposed by the Commission included transforming the 

national air transportation system, creating a U.S. space exploration 

imperative, creating a government-wide management structure to support 

aerospace, establishing a level playing field for the United States in global 

markets, promoting the growth of the U.S. aerospace workforce, and

increasing government investment in aerospace research and development 

(R&D). 

You asked us to determine the status of federal actions that address the 

Commission’s recommendations. Accordingly, this report focuses on the 

following questions: (1) To what extent have federal agencies addressed 

selected Commission recommendations? (2) What challenges remain in 

addressing these recommendations? 

To address these two questions, we obtained and analyzed information 

from a variety of sources. We reviewed the relevant empirical literature to

understand the circumstances under which the Commission was formed 

 1

European Union, Strategic Aerospace Review for the 21st Century (STAR-21) (Brussels,

Belgium: July 2002). 

2

European Union, European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020 (Brussels, Belgium: 

Jan. 2001). 

3

Section 1092 of Pub. L. No. 106-398, Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2001. 

4

Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Final Report 

(Arlington, Va.: Nov. 2002). 

Page 2 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
and to develop the context and perspective of the issues facing the 

aerospace industry. We interviewed five of twelve former Commission 

members and the former Commission’s executive director to obtain their

opinions on which of the specific recommendations are the most 

important. Since each of the former Commissioners is an expert in specific 

aerospace issues the Commission examined, we selected these former 

Commissioners to ensure coverage of all Commission recommendations. 

Using their opinions and our research, we selected recommendations that 

address transforming the national air transportation system, creating a 

U.S. space exploration imperative, creating a government-wide 

management structure to support a national aerospace policy, establishing 

a level playing field for the United States in global markets, promoting the 

growth of the U.S. aerospace workforce, and increasing government 

investment in aerospace R&D. To determine the extent to which federal

agencies addressed the selected recommendations and the challenges that 

remain, we interviewed officials from FAA; the Departments of Defense 

(Defense), Labor (Labor), and Transportation (DOT); the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); private aerospace companies; and 

industry associations. In addition, we analyzed agency budget documents, 

strategic plans, briefings on federal agency actions, and our past work 

describing challenges that agencies face in implementing the selected 

recommendations. With the assistance of the National Academy of 

Sciences, we identified experts in the fields of national air transportation 

systems, U.S. space exploration, government aerospace management 

structure, U.S. aerospace workforce and education, and aerospace R&D. 

We then interviewed these experts to obtain their views about the extent

to which federal actions have addressed the selected Commission 

recommendations, and about the challenges that lie ahead. These experts 

are listed in appendix I. We did not analyze the validity of the 

Commission’s recommendations, and our work does not take a position 

on, or represent an endorsement of, the recommendations. We conducted

our work from August 2005 through September 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional information 

on our scope and methodology appears in appendix I. 

Federal agencies have taken actions that address selected Commission 

recommendations to varying degrees, from establishing new offices, 

programs, and policies to changing existing programs or policies; 

however, the actions the agencies have taken are still in the early stages of

implementation. For example, the Commission’s recommendation to 

establish a federal interdepartmental group to plan a new, highly 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
automated air traffic management system was addressed by the creation

of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which consists of 

seven federal agencies, including FAA, NASA, and Defense. However, 

JPDO faces challenges in leveraging partner agency resources and 

maintaining commitment from nonfederal stakeholders as it moves 

forward in planning the new air traffic management system. In addition, 

the President issued a new space exploration policy and NASA created a

directorate to implement the policy, realigning some programs and funds 

to do so. Both the new policy and the directorate address the broad 

Commission recommendation to create a space imperative. Other new 

efforts include a jobs training initiative and education programs that 

address the broad Commission recommendation to promote the growth of 

the U.S. aerospace workforce. Labor and the Department of Education 

have provided grant funding for these efforts, however, there are questions 

about the impact of the grants. Changes to existing programs include 

NASA’s restructuring of its aeronautics research program, which 

addresses the specific Commission recommendation to increase the 

federal focus on long-term aerospace research; FAA’s revisions to its rule 

making and airport environmental review procedures, which address the 

specific Commission recommendations to streamline the regulatory and

airport review processes; and FAA’s attempts to increase the U.S. 

presence in international aviation partnerships, which addresses the 

specific Commission recommendation to commit to international 

partnerships. Federal agencies have taken few, if any, actions to address 

other Commission recommendations such as reforming exports control 

policies and establishing a national aerospace policy. 

A number of challenges remain for federal agencies in further addressing 

the Commission’s recommendations, including dealing with difficult 

budgetary trade-offs and collaborating on actions involving multiple 

agencies. Federal agencies may not give priority to programs that address 

Commission recommendations because of budget limitations. Such 

budgetary trade-offs are all the more likely if implementing a 

recommendation requires launching or expanding large, expensive 

programs. NASA has already realigned some programs that address the 

Commission’s recommendations—such as the recommendation to create a 

U.S. space imperative—and, in so doing, has had to make some difficult 

budgetary prioritization decisions. Since multiple federal agencies are 

involved in the U.S. aerospace industry, a lack of coordination among 

federal agencies, aerospace companies, and universities could result in 

duplicating efforts and not leveraging resources efficiently. For example, 

our prior work has shown that coordination of federal science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs has been 

Page 4 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
limited, and that better coordination between federal agencies could help 

the agencies to better encourage students to pursue careers in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics. We provided a draft of this 

report to the Departments of Defense, Labor, and Transportation, NASA, 

and the Office of Science Technology Policy for their review and 

comment. The Department of Defense had no comments, and the other 

agencies generally concurred with the report, but provided clarifications

and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

The impact of the aerospace industry on the U.S. economy is significant, 

with the industry estimating $170 billion in sales and approximately 

625,000 people employed in 2005.5

 The importance of this industry to the 

U.S. economy will continue to grow in the future. According to FAA, the 

U.S. commercial aircraft fleet is estimated to grow from 7,836 in 2005 to 

10,677 in 2017. Both passenger capacity and cargo operations are expected 

to continue to grow, with passenger capacity in 2007 increasing by 

4.6 percent and then increasing by an average of 4.2 percent per year until

2017. FAA estimates that over 1 billion passengers will use U.S. airports by 

2015. Domestic cargo revenue-ton miles are projected to increase at an 

average annual rate of 3.2 percent until 2017, exceeding 23 billion. 

Furthermore, the U.S. aerospace industry consistently shows a foreign 

trade surplus—reaching $31 billion in 2004. Aerospace exports constituted 

6.9 percent of the total value of U.S.-exported merchandise in 2004. 

The federal government is involved in many aspects of aerospace, such as

civil aviation transportation management, national security, space 

exploration, and related R&D. FAA, NASA, and Defense are major federal 

agencies significantly involved in aerospace activities.6

Background 

Role of Government and 

Industry in Aerospace Is 

Significant 

• FAA is responsible for maintaining a safe and efficient national airspace

system by managing the nation’s air traffic control system, which 

comprises a vast network of radars; automated data processing, 

navigation, and communications equipment; and facilities. As manager of 

the air traffic control system, FAA provides services such as controlling 

 5

Aerospace Industries Association, Aerospace: Facts and Figures 2005-2006 (Arlington,

Va.: 2005). 

6

Other federal agencies involved in the aerospace industry to some extent are the 

Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and State. 

Page 5 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
takeoffs and landings and managing the flow of traffic between airports. In 

addition, FAA serves as the national aviation regulatory authority and 

implements and enforces safety regulations that include certifications of 

aircraft, aircraft operations, and aviation pilots and mechanics.

• NASA is responsible for the nation’s civil space and aeronautics efforts. In 

this role, NASA conducts human exploration of space, conducts R&D in 

aeronautics and space technologies, and conducts R&D to advance and 

communicate scientific knowledge. NASA’s programs encompass a broad 

range of complex and technical activities—from investigating the 

composition and resources of Mars to providing satellite and aircraft 

observations of Earth for scientific purposes and weather forecasting. 

• Defense is responsible for national security and purchases a variety of 

aerospace products from the private sector such as aircraft, satellites, 

missiles, space launch systems, and supporting products. Defense also 

manages a broad array of space activities, including the development of 

space launch vehicles and satellites used for communication; navigation; 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and weather monitoring. 

The private sector provides aerospace products and services. For 

example, U.S. companies manufacture aerospace products that include 

commercial and military aircraft, satellites, and air traffic infrastructure 

systems. Commercial airlines provide domestic and international aviation 

passenger service. Software and electronics companies produce avionics

and other electronic systems that are used in all types of aerospace 

products. To provide these products and services, companies rely on a 

highly skilled workforce of approximately 625,000 employees, including 

manufacturing technicians, aerospace engineers, and scientists. 

R&D enables the advancement of aerospace technologies, and funding for 

it will continue to be necessary if the industry is to maintain its global 

competitiveness and meet future needs. Traditionally, the federal 

government has provided significant funding for aerospace R&D (see 

fig. 1). However, federal R&D investments in some areas of aerospace, like 

aeronautics, are in decline. For example, NASA estimates that its 2006 

direct aeronautics R&D budget will decline by approximately 43 percent

from 2002, the time of publication of the Commission report. Conversely, 

R&D funding is increasing in space exploration areas as well as defenserelated areas such as ballistic missile defense and defense-related 

Government Funding of 

Aerospace R&D Is 

Significant, but Trends in 

Funding Differ among 

Agencies

Page 6 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
aeronautics.7

 Additional information on federal government R&D funding

trends appears in appendix II. 

Figure 1: Federal Funding for Industrial R&D in the Aerospace Industry 

Despite the economic importance of the aerospace industry, many 

challenges face both government and private industry in maintaining the

industry’s health. First, the current approach to managing air 

transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally 

obsolete. The government will be faced with transforming the U.S. air 

traffic management system to accommodate expected increases in 

demand while ensuring the continued safety and security of the flying 

public. Second, given the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.

government has had to reevaluate whether existing arms export-control 

policies support national security and foreign policy goals. Finally, the U.S. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: National Science Foundation.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in billions

Aerospace Industry Facing 

Multiple Challenges 

 7

The Department of Homeland Security also funds a variety of R&D activities, including

some related to aviation security. These activities are overseen by the Department of

Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate. This directorate requested 

approximately $1 billion for fiscal year 2007, but these funds are primarily for homeland 

security-capabilities R&D.

Page 7 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
aerospace workforce is aging and a significant percentage of the 

aerospace workforce will be eligible to retire by 2008. Therefore, the 

industry must attract, train, and retain new workers with the engineering,

science, and technical capabilities it needs. But recent trends show 

declines in the future supply of such workers. For example, the 

Commission highlighted that the number of doctorate degrees awarded 

annually in engineering had declined by 15 percent from the mid 1990s. 

To confront these challenges, the U.S. Congress established the 

Commission and gave it a broad mandate to study the health of the 

aerospace industry and recommend actions that the U.S. government 

should take to ensure the industry’s future health. Congress directed the 

Commission to take an integrated, long-term view of the entire aerospace

industry from the perspective of government, industry, labor, and 

academia. Therefore, its 12 members came from manufacturing firms, 

industry groups, aerospace consultancies, financial institutions, and labor 

groups with expertise in space and aeronautics in both civil and defense 

areas. In 2002, the Commission issued its final report on the major 

challenges facing the U.S. aerospace industry and recommended actions to 

address these challenges. The Commission’s recommendations covered a

wide variety of aerospace issues and included both broad government 

policy recommendations and specific actions for individual federal 

agencies.8

 For example, one recommendation called for the United States 

to pioneer new frontiers in aerospace while another recommendation 

specifically called for FAA to reform its certification process. Table 1 

provides a summary of some of the major issue areas identified by the 

Commission report, as well as some challenges and nine broad

recommendations made by the Commission to address the issues. 

Aerospace Commission 

Made Recommendations 

to Address Challenges 

 8

Federal agencies were not required to implement any of the Commission’s 

recommendations. 

Page 8 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Table 1: Summary of Aerospace Commission Recommendations

Area addressed Sample of challenges identified by the Commission 

Summary of broad recommendation

made by the Commission 

Aerospace vision U.S. leadership in the global aerospace industry is in jeopardy, 

in part because the U.S. aerospace sector lacks capital 

investment, innovation, and capacity for growth; and foreign 

competitors are increasingly implementing policies to gain 

global market share in commercial aviation. 

The United States should pioneer new 

frontiers in aerospace technology, 

commerce, and exploration. 

National air 

transportation system 

America’s air transportation system faces serious challenges; 

the commercial air transport system is becoming unpredictable 

because the current air traffic system is approaching gridlock, 

regulatory processes have failed to keep pace with rapidly 

evolving technologies, and environmental limits on noise and 

emissions restrict airport runway development. 

Transformation of the U.S. air transportation 

system should be a national priority. 

U.S. space policy The nation faces limitations to space progress, such as the 

significant expense to get to orbit, a hostile and highly limited 

environment once in orbit, and lack of a strong public 

advocacy for moving ahead. 

The United States should create a space 

imperative, through government and private

sector partnerships, to enhance national 

security, stimulate the economy, explore the 

universe, and open up space for new 

commercial opportunities. 

National security Today’s military capabilities are robust, but at significant risk. 

They rely on platforms and an industrial base—measured in 

both human capital and physical facilities—that are aging and 

increasingly inadequate. 

The United States should adopt a policy that 

invigorates and sustains the aerospace 

industrial base and includes removing 

barriers to international sales of defense 

products, removing barriers to defense 

procurement of commercial products and 

services, and transferring defense 

technology to the civil sector. 

Government-wide 

management structure 

The health and future of the aerospace industry will depend on 

the federal government being able to efficiently and effectively 

serve as leader, customer and operator, facilitator, and 

investor. 

The federal government should establish a 

national aerospace policy and promote 

aerospace by creating a government-wide 

management structure. 

Open and fair global 

markets 

Foreign governments or coalitions of countries are distorting

the aerospace market through policies, regulations, or 

subsidies that provide foreign competitors with a competitive 

advantage. 

Federal regulations and policies should be 

reformed to enable the movement of 

products and capital across international 

borders on a fully competitive basis and to 

establish a level playing field for U.S. 

industry in the global marketplace. 

A new business model 

for the aerospace 

sector 

The aerospace industry has been characterized as a lowgrowth sector, chronically hampered by high cyclicality, low 

margins, revenue instability, and inadequate returns on 

investment, amplified by the uncertainty in the government 

budgeting and acquisition process. 

A new business model, with increased and 

sustained government investment and the 

adoption of policies that stimulate the flow of 

capital into the industry, should be designed 

to promote a healthy and growing U.S. 

aerospace industry. 

U.S. aerospace 

workforce 

There is a major workforce crisis in the aerospace industry.

Over 600,000 scientific and technical aerospace jobs have

been lost since 1998, and these losses, coupled with pending 

retirements, represent a loss of skill, experience, and 

intellectual capital to the industry. 

The nation should immediately reverse the 

decline in, and promote the growth of, a 

scientifically and technologically trained U.S. 

aerospace workforce. 

Page 9 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Area addressed Sample of challenges identified by the Commission 

Summary of broad recommendation

made by the Commission 

U.S. aerospace R&D The lack of sufficient and sustained public funding for research 

and associated infrastructure for research, development, 

testing, and evaluation limits the nation’s ability to address 

critical national challenges and to enable breakthrough 

aerospace capabilities. 

The federal government should significantly 

increase its investment in basic aerospace 

research, which enhances U.S. national 

security; enables breakthrough capabilities; 

and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe 

aerospace transportation system. 

Source: Commission report. 

Additionally, since the publication of the Commission report, other studies 

by such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences and the 

National Institute of Aerospace also provided information on the 

importance of the aerospace industry, along with challenges and 

recommendations for addressing the issues.9

The federal government has addressed a number of the Commission’s 

recommendations; however, the extent to which it has done so varies 

significantly across the individual recommendations. Figure 2 identifies 

the key federal entities that have taken steps to address the 

recommendations or, because of their missions, were identified by the 

Commission as the entities that would be responsible for addressing the 

recommendations. 

Federal Agencies 

Have Addressed 

Commission 

Recommendations to 

Varying Degrees

through Different 

Types of Actions 

 9

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Decadal Survey of Civil 

Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future (Washington, D.C.: 2006) and the National 

Institute of Aerospace, Responding to the Call: Aviation Plan for American Leadership

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2005).

Page 10 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Figure 2: Key Federal Entities for Selected Recommendations

Transform the U.S. air transportation system as a national priority 

Recommendation

Create a space imperative

Establish a national aerospace policy and promote aerospace 

Enable the movement of products and investment across

international borders on a fully competitive basis

Reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of the U.S.

aerospace workforce 

Enable breakthrough aerospace capabilities through focused federal

R&D efforts

Source: GAO analysis.

Commerce, Defense, DOT,

FAA, Homeland Security,

JPDO, NASA, OSTP

Defense, NASA 

Congress, Office of

Management and Budget,

OSTP, White House

Defense, DOT, Education,

Labor, NASA

Defense, FAA, NASA 

Key federal entities

Commerce, Congress,

DOT, FAA, State 

Former Commissioners and experts with whom we spoke generally agreed 

that the federal government’s efforts to transform the national airspace 

system was the most significant action that addresses a Commission 

recommendation—in particular, the establishment of JPDO as an 

interagency office. These former Commissioners and experts also cited the 

President’s Vision for Space Exploration,10 which addresses the 

Commission’s recommendation that the United States create a space 

imperative to explore and exploit space to ensure national and planetary

security, economic benefit, and scientific discovery. In addition, federal 

agencies have started addressing the workforce issue through a new jobs 

training initiative. According to our research11 and the opinions of former 

Commissioners and aerospace industry officials, the federal government 

has not taken any significant action to address the recommendations to 

change the current export control policy. In addition, there has been no 

action taken by the federal government to establish a national aerospace 

policy.12 While many of these federal actions address the Commission’s 

 10NASA, The Vision for Space Exploration (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2004). 

11GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Control System in the Post-9/11 Environment, 

GAO-05-234 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005). 

12While separate space and aeronautic policies have been developed, or are in the process 

of being developed, there is no single national aerospace policy. 

Page 11 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
recommendations, some agency officials indicated that some federal 

actions predate the Commission report and therefore do not represent a 

direct response to the Commission’s recommendations. Figure 3 

summarizes the extent to which federal agencies have taken actions—

such as publishing new policies or establishing new offices—that address 

some of the Commission’s recommendations. While this information 

summarizes federal actions, it does not evaluate how well these actions 

have been implemented. See appendix III for additional federal actions 

that address selected aerospace Commission recommendations. 

Figure 3: Extent to Which Selected Recommendations Have Been Addressed

Transform the U.S. air transportation system as a

national priority 

Recommendation

Establish a federal inter-departmental group to plan a

new, highly automated air traffic management system 

Streamline regulatory processes

Streamline airport and runway development processes

Create a space imperative

Sustain commitment to science missions in space

Establish a national aerospace policy and promote

aerospace 

Enable the movement of products and investment

across international borders on a fully competitive basis

Commit to international partnerships

Reform U.S. export control policies

Reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of

the U.S. aerospace workforce 

Establish programs that support training of aerospace

workers

Make investments in math, science, and technology

education of Americans

Enable breakthrough aerospace capabilities through

focused federal R&D efforts

Establish national demonstration goals

Increase federal investment in aerospace research

Source: GAO analysis.

No action or

a contrary 

action has

been taken

Internal or 

external 

discussion 

has started

Plans or 

policies

are being

implemented

Plans or policies

have been 

implemented and 

performance has

been evaluated 

Plans or 

policies

have been 

developed 

and published

(space)

(space)

(aeronautics)

(aeronautics)

a

a

Refers to the JPDO demonstration goals identified in its next generation air transportation system 

integrated plan. 

Page 12 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Congress and federal agencies have established new offices, programs, 

and policies that address a number of the Commission’s recommendations 

in the areas of transforming the U.S. air transportation system, creating a 

U.S. space imperative, and promoting the U.S. aerospace workforce. 

However, the actions the agencies have taken are still in the early stages of

implementation. 

In 2003, Congress passed the Vision 100—Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act (Vision 100),13 which created JPDO within FAA to plan 

work related to the creation of the next generation air transportation 

system (NGATS). The Commission identified the current air traffic 

management system as severely limited in its ability to accommodate 

America’s growing need for mobility, and that the design, development, 

and implementation of a next generation air traffic management system 

will be an exceedingly complex challenge. The Commission called for a 

federal inter-departmental group—working collaboratively with industry, 

labor, and other stakeholders—to be formed to plan this new system, and 

former Commissioners and experts agree that the creation of JPDO 

addresses this recommendation. JPDO consists of seven partner agencies: 

the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Homeland Security; 

Defense; DOT; FAA; NASA; and OSTP. (See fig. 4.) Additionally, JPDO has 

responsibility to consult with the public; to coordinate federal goals, 

priorities, and research activities with those of aviation and aeronautical

firms; and to ensure the participation of nonfederal stakeholders from the 

private sector, including commercial and general aviation, labor, aviation

R&D entities, and manufacturers. To date, JPDO has been funded by FAA 

and NASA.14

New Federal Programs and 

Policies Have Addressed 

Some Commission 

Recommendations

Creation of JPDO Addresses 

Recommendation to Transform 

the U.S. Air Transportation 

System, but Funding Concerns 

Remain 

 13Pub.L. No. 108-176 (Dec. 12, 2003). 

14FAA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for R&D includes about $18 million for JPDO, which 

is supplemented by matching funds from NASA. NASA has committed to continuing this 

match in the future, according to a JPDO official. JPDO uses these funds to conduct 

planning and studies. Vision 100 authorized $50 million annually for 7 years for JPDO.

Page 13 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Figure 4: JPDO’s Seven Partner Agencies

Source: GAO.

Vision 100 directed JPDO to develop an integrated plan for NGATS and to 

include in the plan, among other things, a description of the demand and

required performance characteristics of the future system, as well as a 

high-level, multi-agency roadmap and concept of operations for the future

system.15 NGATS is needed to avoid congestion and costly delays, provide 

adequate security and environmental safeguards, and accommodate a 

projected tripling of demand for air traffic services by 2025. This is a 

significant challenge given that these new capabilities must be deployed 

seamlessly while the current system continues to operate. (See app. IV for 

more information on JPDO.) 

We found that JPDO has made progress in organizing itself and 

incorporating federal and nonfederal stakeholders; it has also set forth a 

vision for NGATS and strategies for attaining that vision.16 Furthermore, 

JPDO has engaged in practices to facilitate the federal interagency 

 15As directed by Vision 100, the FAA Administrator provided this integrated plan to 

Congress in December 2004. JPDO, Integrated National Plan for the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (Dec. 2004). In March 2006, JPDO issued a progress report on the 

integrated plan, which provides information on JPDO’s organization and activities, such as 

staffing integrated product teams that are discussed in appendix IV. 

16GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of the Joint 

Planning and Development Office’s Planning, Progress, and Challenges, GAO-06-574T 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2006); GAO, Air Traffic Control: Status of the Current 

Modernization Program and Planning for the Next Generation System, GAO-06-738T 

(Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2006); GAO, Air Traffic Control Modernization: Status of the 

Current Program and Planning for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, 

GAO-06-653T (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006); GAO, Next Generation Air 

Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of Progress and Challenges Associated

with the Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-06-915T (Washington, 

D.C.: July 25, 2006). 

Page 14 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
collaboration that is central to its mission. The partner agencies have 

agreed to a vision statement and eight strategies that broadly address the 

goals and objectives for NGATS. JPDO has also begun leveraging the 

resources of its partner agencies. To leverage human resources, JPDO has 

staffed its organization with partner-agency employees, although many of 

them work for JPDO on a part-time basis. To further leverage resources, 

JPDO conducted an interagency program review of its partner agencies’ 

R&D programs to identify the work that could support NGATS, as well as 

identify areas for more effective interagency collaboration. 

However, as it moves forward in planning the new air traffic management 

system, JPDO faces a challenge in continuing to leverage partner agencies’ 

resources because JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating 

body that lacks authority over the key human and financial resources 

needed to continue developing plans and system requirements for NGATS. 

Despite early successes in leveraging its partner agencies’ resources and 

expertise for NGATS initiatives, JPDO may have difficulty continuing to do

so because its partner agencies have a variety of missions and priorities in 

addition to NGATS. As a result, some experts questioned the ability of 

partner agencies to fully support the research needs of NGATS at planned 

levels. For example, the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for 

NASA did not seek significant funding increases for aeronautics research

to support NGATS.17 JPDO’s ability to leverage technical assistance and

funding resources from its partner agencies will be further tested in 2008, 

when JPDO is planning technology demonstration projects related to 

NGATS. In addition, JPDO may have difficulty leveraging its partner 

agencies’ resources and expertise because it does not yet have formal, 

long-term agreements with the agencies on their roles and responsibilities 

in creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, they are working to 

establish memorandums of understanding signed by the heads of the 

partner agencies that will broadly define the partner agencies’ roles and 

responsibilities at a high level. JPDO is also developing more specific 

memorandums of understanding with individual partner agencies that lay 

out expectations for support on NGATS components, such as information 

 17NASA’s fiscal year 2006 budget provides $174 million for the Airspace Systems program, 

which, according to NASA, is aligned with NGATS-related airspace research needs. The

President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 shows future funding for this program 

decreasing by more than 50 percent through fiscal year 2011. NASA officials noted that

research in the Aviation Safety Program and Subsonic Fixed Wing project also support 

NGATS-related research in addition to contributing to broader national needs in military 

and civil aviation. 

Page 15 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
sharing through network-centric operations. Additionally, JPDO faces the 

challenge of convincing nonfederal stakeholders that the government is 

fully committed to NGATS because, in the past, the government has 

discontinued work on new technologies for the national airspace system, 

including one technology in which a nonfederal stakeholder had already 

invested. 

The President’s issuance of a national space exploration policy in January 

2004, which calls for the human exploration of the Moon and Mars, and 

NASA’s formation of a new mission directorate for space exploration 

programs, address the Commission’s recommendation to create a U.S. 

space imperative. According to the Commission, the United States is in 

danger of losing its global leadership in space exploration, in large part 

because it lacks strong public advocacy for the nation’s space program, 

whereas foreign countries are aggressively pursuing space exploration as a 

significant strategic and economic asset. Experts believe that the 

President’s space exploration policy and NASA’s new directorate address 

the Commission’s concern. To achieve the policy’s objective, NASA 

formed the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to consolidate 

separate exploration-related capabilities within one organizational unit18

and thereby enhance their cooperation. The new directorate conducted a 

study19 to devise a plan for supporting the technologies and infrastructure 

needed to meet the new space exploration policy. Released in November 

2005, the study recommended that NASA focus on the near-term activities 

needed to complete the International Space Station and then focus on the

longer-term activities needed to implement its moon missions. The 

centerpiece of the longer-term activities is a program to accelerate the 

development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch 

Vehicle, to replace the shuttle. The exploration directorate restructured its 

programs and, as of fiscal year 2007, the three programs under the 

exploration directorate will be the Constellation Systems program,20 the 

Issuance of a New Space 

Exploration Policy and 

Creation of a New NASA Office 

Addressed the 

Recommendation to Create a 

U.S. Space Imperative, but May 

Negatively Affect Other NASA 

Programs 

 18Former programs of the Biological and Physical Research Enterprise merged with 

Exploration Systems on August 1, 2004.

19NASA, NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2005). 

20The Constellation Systems program will develop, demonstrate, and deploy the collection 

of systems that will enable sustained human exploration of the Moon and Mars. These 

include the Crew Exploration Vehicle for the transport and support of human crews

traveling to low Earth orbit and beyond, as well as launch vehicles for transport of the 

Crew Exploration Vehicle and cargo to low Earth orbit, and any ground or in-space support 

infrastructure for communications and operations. 

Page 16 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Exploration Systems Research and Technology program,21 and the Human 

Systems Research and Technology program.22 NASA officials stated that 

research and technology projects have been aligned to support the new 

space exploration policy.

Figure 5: Proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle with Lunar Lander Is an Example of 

Aerospace R&D 

Sources: NASA; John Frassanitio and Associates.

Aerospace experts reported that they believe NASA’s focus on 

implementing the space exploration policy’s goal of returning to the Moon 

and sending human missions to Mars negatively affects other space 

exploration projects that have significant scientific benefits. For example, 

in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, NASA announced cuts and delays in 

a number of projects in areas such as space crew health research, electric 

propulsion systems, and weather-monitoring systems. While experts and 

industry officials generally thought that NASA’s space exploration policy 

addresses the Commission recommendation, they were concerned about 

the negative impact of this new policy on other programs. For example, 

 21The Exploration Systems Research and Technology program’s primary focus is solar 

system exploration. This program will include areas such as exploratory R&D of new highleverage technologies and the development of nuclear technologies for power and 

propulsion. 

22The Human Systems Research and Technology program focuses on ensuring the health, 

safety, and security of humans through the course of solar-system exploration. 

Page 17 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
one expert noted that NASA’s cancellation of research projects that are 

not directly supporting the space exploration programs has already 

negatively affected research efforts at universities throughout the nation.

With the loss of funding in certain areas, this expert noted, many graduate

students have lost their grants and could potentially leave the aerospace 

field. Their departure could have a long-term impact on the nation’s future 

ability to develop new technologies. In addition, a recent report by the 

National Academy of Sciences that reviewed NASA’s plans for science 

programs over the next 5 years, concluded that NASA does not have the 

necessary resources to carry out the tasks of completing the International

Space Station, returning humans to the Moon, sustaining capabilities in 

aeronautical research, and maintaining space and Earth science 

programs.23

Labor addressed the Commission’s workforce recommendation to reverse 

the decline and support the training of the aerospace workforce by 

including the aerospace industry in the President’s High Growth Job 

Training Initiative.24 The initiative focuses on 14 high-growth industries.25

Given estimates that 26 percent of the aerospace industry workforce will 

be eligible for retirement by 2008, the Commission was concerned about a 

loss of intellectual capital. While the Commission was unable to agree on 

any immediate solution, it maintained that U.S. policy must reaffirm the 

goal of stabilizing and increasing the number of jobs in the industry. The 

training initiative is a national grant program, started in 2003, that attempts 

to tailor local workforce investment activities to reflect the workforce 

needs of local employers. According to Labor officials, the aerospace 

industry was selected in large part because of its significant impact on the 

economy overall, as well as its impact on the growth of other industries. A 

primary focus of the initiative is to address the aerospace industry’s aging

workforce—with the subsequent loss of institutional knowledge, 

experience, and technical talent—by attracting young people into the field 

and building their skills. The grants are provided to projects designed to 

The President’s High Growth 

Job Training Initiative 

Addresses Recommendation on 

Promoting the Aerospace 

Workforce, but Questions 

Remain about Its Impact 

 23National Academy of Sciences, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs 

(Washington, D.C.: 2006). 

24The high growth initiatives provide federal funding to local workforce training programs

in 14 high-growth business sectors that have been identified as potentially adding a 

substantial numbers of new jobs, or have emerging technologies that require new skill sets 

for workers. 

25The targeted industries are: advanced manufacturing, aerospace, automotive, 

biotechnology, construction, energy, financial services, geospatial technology, health care, 

homeland security, hospitality, information technology, retail, and transportation. 

Page 18 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
address the industry’s aerospace workforce needs while also helping 

workers find employment with good wages and career opportunities. For 

example, a number of projects are geared toward expanding the number 

of youth interested in aerospace and provide training for aerospace 

employment. As of June 2006, Labor had provided eight grants, totaling 

over $10 million, for aerospace projects. (See table 2.) 

Table 2: Grants Awarded by Labor for Aerospace Workforce Projects

Recipient Purpose Date awarded Amount

Community Learning Center, Inc., 

Texas 

To train aerospace workers for new high-technology 

manufacturing processes 

June 2001 $4,028,000a

Brevard Community College, 

Florida 

To provide hands-on learning opportunities for students to 

develop technical aerospace skills and improve awareness of 

the skills required for aerospace careers 

December 2004 99,000 

Edmonds Community College,

Washington 

To develop an advanced aerospace technician curriculum, 

career ladders, and distance learning approaches associated

with the Boeing 787 supply chain 

December 2004 1,475,000

Florida Space Research Institute, 

Florida 

To provide two aerospace mentors for 25 teachers in seven 

Florida counties to improve hands-on knowledge and 

awareness of the skills required for aerospace careers in

Florida 

December 2004 356,000 

Houston-Galveston Area Council 

for the Gulf Coast Workforce 

Board, Texas 

To reduce foreign visa worker dependency in several high 

technology, high skill aerospace job occupations on the Texas 

Gulf Coast 

December 2004 1,000,000

Enterprise-Ozark Community 

College, Alabamab

To develop skilled aviation technicians in Alabama’s aviation

industry corridor 

October 2005 1,637,000

Aerospace Development 

Corporation 

To establish an aerospace workforce infrastructure that 

identifies and develops strategic solutions to state-level

challenges in the five key aerospace states of Alabama, 

California, Colorado, Florida, and Texas 

July 2005 1,899,000

Source: GAO analysis of Labor information. 

a

The Community Learning Center, Inc. received two grants, which we combined. 

b

This grant was awarded under the Community-Based Job Training grant program, which is a 

competitive grant program that increases the capacity of community colleges to train workers in key 

industries such as the aerospace industry. 

While the initiative addresses the Commission’s recommendation to 

promote the growth of the aerospace workforce, the experts with whom 

we spoke questioned whether this program will have a significant impact.

One expert stated that, because the aerospace industry rapidly changes, 

these types of job training programs are replacing skills that may run the 

risk of becoming quickly outdated. Another expert said that, even with 

these types of government training programs, the business cycle is the 

major influence on the status of the aerospace workforce. As with any 

Page 19 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
other major industry, if there is not a strong demand for aerospace 

products, companies will be hard pressed to provide enough jobs to 

maintain a strong workforce. In commenting on a draft of this report, 

Labor officials noted that this initiative is designed to model innovative 

solutions and to leverage larger federal investment programs and 

partnerships with industry, education providers, and other stakeholders. 

Therefore, Labor officials believe that this initiative will be able to respond 

to the aerospace industry’s changing competency and skill requirements. 

However, the initiative has not been evaluated, so its impact is unknown. 

Congress and federal agencies have addressed the Commission’s 

recommendation to invest in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) education by establishing a number of programs 

designed to increase students’ interest in STEM careers. The Commission 

believes that STEM education at all levels, from kindergarten through 

graduate school, needs government action and investment to ensure that 

the aerospace industry has access to a scientifically and technologically

trained workforce. In 2005, we reported26 that 13 federal civilian agencies27

spent about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 for 207 education programs 

designed to increase the number of students and graduates, or to improve 

the educational programs in STEM fields.28 Since 2004, a number of new 

STEM education programs have been created. For example, the national

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant program 

was created in 2006 to encourage students to enroll in STEM fields. This 

program provides up to $4,000 for each of 2 academic years for students in 

their third or fourth academic year of an undergraduate program at a 4-

year degree-granting institution, who have maintained a cumulative grade 

point average of 3.0 or above and meet the eligibility requirements of the 

federal government’s need-based Pell Grant program.29 The Department of 

Federal Agencies Have 

Established New Education 

Programs, but Concerns 

Remain About Programs’ 

Effectiveness 

 26GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005). 

27The 13 federal agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, 

Homeland Security, and the Interior; Commerce; DOT; the Environmental Protection 

Agency; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Indian Health Service; 

NASA; the National Institutes of Health; and the National Science Foundation. 

28STEM fields cover degrees in many disciplines (including aerospace, aeronautical, and 

astronautical engineering) and occupations (including aerospace, electrical, and 

electronics engineers). 

29The Federal Pell Grant Program promotes access to postsecondary education by 

providing need-based grants to low-income students.

Page 20 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Education expects to provide $790 million in SMART grants to over 

500,000 students in academic year 2006–2007. In addition, under the 

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress established an Academic 

Competitiveness Council, chaired by the Secretary of Education, to 

identify, evaluate, coordinate, and improve federal STEM programs.30 This 

council is composed of officials from federal agencies with responsibilities 

for managing existing federal programs that promote STEM education. As 

mandated, the council plans to identify all federal programs with a STEM 

focus, identify the target populations, determine the effectiveness of these 

programs, identify areas of overlap or duplication, and recommend ways

to efficiently integrate and coordinate the programs. Congress directed the 

council to report its findings and recommendations by early 2007. Finally, 

in 2006, the President announced the American Competitiveness Initiative, 

which, over the next 10 years, would commit $50 billion to increase 

funding for research and $86 billion for R&D tax incentives to encourage 

innovation in science and technology, and to support math and science 

education. While it does not specifically refer to aerospace, the initiative

calls for investing in key federal agency programs with objectives that 

include encouraging up to 30,000 math and science professionals to 

become adjunct high school teachers, creating a research base to improve 

instructional methods and materials for teaching math and science, and 

evaluating the impact of government-wide investments in math and 

science education. 31

Although the federal government has spent billions of dollars on education 

programs in STEM fields, concerns remain about the effectiveness of the 

federal investment. For example, the reduction in NASA’s education 

budget will result in the elimination of long-standing programs designed to 

reach education communities, both formal (e.g., students, teachers, 

education administrators, and institutions) and informal (e.g., museums, 

planetariums, and community organizations). Experts told us that, 

although the federal government is directing significant amounts of funds 

to educational programs, the goals and potential outcomes for the 

programs are unclear and decentralized, thereby raising questions about 

whether the funding is providing the most effective results. For example, 

 30Pub. L. No. 109-171 (2006). 

31The American Competitiveness Initiative identified the National Science Foundation, the

Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and Commerce’s National Institute of Standards

and Technology as the federal agencies that will have investments in their core research 

activities doubled over the next 10 years. 

Page 21 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
we have reported32 that fewer STEM education programs are targeted to 

elementary and secondary school teachers and students than to other 

targeted groups—such as graduate program students—even though a 

number of experts stated that STEM programs for these teachers and 

students can have the greatest benefits. The experts we interviewed 

believe that the focus should start at the primary school level to have a 

better chance of influencing students to seek careers in the aerospace 

industry. 

Changes to Existing 

Programs Have Addressed 

Some Commission 

Recommendations

Agencies’ efforts to revise strategies and procedures and to restructure 

existing organizations have addressed some Commission 

recommendations in the areas of aeronautics R&D, streamlining FAA 

procedures, and increasing U.S. presence in international aviation; 

however, experts and industry officials have emphasized that these 

changes can negatively affect other programs or be limited by external

factors. 

NASA addressed the Commission’s recommendations to focus on basic 

research by restructuring the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate to

give greater priority to fundamental research.33 However, the Commission 

also recommended specific technology demonstration goals, and the 

agency is moving away from demonstration projects that showcase such 

goals. The Commission reported that U.S. industry might fall behind 

foreign competitors in pioneering new aerospace technology if U.S. R&D 

investments continued to downplay basic research and were not focused 

on specific, breakthrough technology goals. To address this challenge, the 

Commission recommended that the United States pursue long-term basic 

research and specific technology demonstration goals. NASA’s 

restructured Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate includes three 

research programs—Fundamental Aeronautics, Aviation Safety, and 

Airspace Systems—that replace previous programs in Vehicle Systems, 

Aviation Safety and Security, and Airspace Systems, respectively.34 (See 

NASA’s Aeronautics Program 

Focuses on Basic Research as 

Recommended by the 

Commission, but Has Not 

Adopted Recommended 

Technology Demonstration 

Goals 

 32GAO-06-114. 

33NASA uses the term “fundamental” to refer to research that includes continued long-term,

scientific study in core areas such as physics, chemistry, materials, experimental 

techniques, and computational techniques to enable new capabilities and technologies for 

individual and multiple disciplines.

34In addition, NASA’s aeronautics directorate plans to preserve key aeronautics test

facilities, such as wind tunnels.

Page 22 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
table 3.) Within the three research programs, the most significant change 

occurred within what is now the Fundamental Aeronautics program, 

which focuses on fundamental aeronautics research rather than on 

development projects. Airspace Systems’ name remains unchanged, but it

will now focus on NGATS and JPDO’s research needs. According to NASA, 

these programs give priority to fundamental research that is applicable to 

a broad range of air vehicles, whereas in the recent past NASA emphasized 

bringing specific projects to higher technological maturity, often focusing 

on these narrowly defined demonstration projects and not on developing

technology that would be transferable to other types of systems or 

projects.35 NASA also has taken several actions to better solicit input from 

academia and industry, with the goal of facilitating the transfer of R&D to 

industry as a whole.36 For example, NASA told us that as of August 2006, at

least 110 universities had submitted proposals in response to research 

announcements that it issued in January 2006. In addition, the Commission 

recommended technology demonstration goals, such as reducing aviation

transit time by 50 percent and engine emissions and noise by 90 percent, 

but NASA does not plan to adopt these goals or alternative narrowly 

defined technology demonstration goals, because its leadership believes 

that pursuing them can lead to scientifically unjustified research projects.

For example, while the design for a vehicle could showcase one particular

goal, such as reducing emissions, this design could perform poorly in 

another area, such as reducing engine noise. NASA leadership believes 

that to overcome these types of conflicting design requirements, NASA 

must use a more integrated approach, grounded in fundamental research 

that cuts across its core disciplines such as aerodynamics, acoustics, and 

combustion. 

 35Technology maturity is attained when a technology can be shown to work in an 

operational environment. 

36The Commission report stated the Commission’s belief that the U.S. aerospace industry

must take a leadership role in transitioning government and university research into

products and services. In reviewing a draft of this report, NASA officials stated that their 

restructured aeronautics program is directly aligned with the Commission’s intent. 

Page 23 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Table 3: Reshaped Strategy of NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Previous program New program New program’s focus 

Major changes between previous

and new programs

Vehicle Systems Fundamental 

Aeronautics 

Conduct long-term research in the core 

competencies of aeronautics—such as 

propulsion, aerothermodynamics, and 

materials—that are applicable to a broad range of 

subsonic (both fixed- and rotary-wing), 

supersonic, and hypersonic air vehicles. 

Program no longer focuses on the 

development of narrowly defined 

technology demonstration projects 

and directs attention to more 

fundamental research areas. 

Aviation Safety and 

Security 

Aviation Safety Provide the capabilities and technologies needed 

to increase aviation safety given the revolutionary 

changes expected in air vehicles of the future. 

Work is “vehicle-centric” and focused on the 

safety needs of NGATS. 

Aviation security is dropped from the 

research portfolio. If it continued this 

work, NASA believes it would 

duplicate efforts now under way by 

the Department of Homeland Security.

Airspace Systems Airspace Systems Develop future concepts, capabilities, and 

technologies that enable major increases in air 

traffic effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency, as 

articulated for NGATS by JPDO. 

Reshaped program integrates 

formerly independent programs and is 

directly aligned with supporting

NGATS and JPDO. 

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data. 

NASA’s restructuring of the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

matches the Commission’s recommendation to emphasize basic research, 

but reduced funding of demonstration projects might leave technologies 

too underdeveloped for easy adoption by industry. While NASA’s reshaped 

strategy focuses more on basic research, as recommended by the 

Commission, NASA has less funding for demonstration projects and 

partnership projects with industry and academia. Experts commented that 

these demonstration projects are an important mechanism for technology 

transfer and in focusing on fundamental research, NASA will not be able to 

develop new technologies to the same level of maturity as in the past. 

NASA noted that it will continue to conduct flight test demonstrations 

with other federal agencies, such as Defense. Our prior work has found 

that technologies that have demonstrated a high level of maturity are more 

likely to meet cost, schedule, and performance requirements during 

product development. Similarly, our prior work and several experts with 

whom we spoke indicated that, as a result, industry would be less likely to

further develop these new technologies for commercial and government 

use and, therefore, for example, implementation of NGATS could be 

delayed. While experts agreed that the budget decline will negatively affect 

aeronautics R&D, they disagreed about the importance of adopting the 

Commission’s specific demonstration goals. One expert stated that the 

Commission’s recommended demonstration goals are best interpreted as 

ideals for the future, whereas another expert endorsed pursuing them. Still 

another expert stated that focusing on basic research instead of 

Page 24 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
demonstration projects makes sense in the face of the directorate’s 

declining budget, since demonstration projects are expensive (see app. II 

for further information on R&D funding). Finally, a recent study by the 

National Academy of Sciences notes that declining budgets for aeronautic

research pose a challenge to civil aeronautics research, but recommends 

that research should focus on strategic objectives, themes, and highpriority research and technical challenges, regardless of funding levels.37

A variety of FAA actions have addressed the Commission’s 

recommendations to revise rule-making procedures and streamline airport 

and runway development processes. These recommendations reflect the 

Commission’s concerns that lengthy rule-making procedures have delayed

the issuance of new rules and that delays in airport environmental reviews 

for new runways have hindered efforts to enhance airport capacity. FAA 

actions include conducting monthly briefings for senior policymakers on 

significant rules, creating compensation incentives for senior executives 

that are tied to the timely completion of rules, and developing a 

performance standard that requires 80 percent of all initiated rules to be 

cleared by the FAA Administrator within 90 days of their originally 

scheduled completion date. Furthermore, DOT’s Chief of Staff and Deputy 

Secretary conduct quarterly meetings with the FAA Administrator to 

review the status of each proposed rule. In addition, to help expedite the 

process for airport development projects and reduce the average of 10

years it takes to plan and build a new runway, FAA is taking steps to 

streamline airport environmental reviews.38 For example, FAA issued an 

order in April 2006 to expedite reviews of airport projects that includes the 

ability to prioritize the review of certain airport projects; promote public 

review and comment; manage time lines during the review; and expedite

coordination between those federal, state, and local agencies involved in

airport environmental reviews in order to reduce undue delays during the 

review process. In addition, to reduce delays in environmental review 

work caused by insufficient staff, FAA is reallocating FAA staff resources 

and increasing the use of consultants. 

FAA’s Modifications of 

Regulations and Procedures 

Address Recommendations; 

however, External Factors 

Might Limit Further 

Streamlining

While some FAA actions have addressed the Commission’s 

recommendations to revise rule-making procedures and streamline 

 37National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Decadal Survey of Civil 

Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future (Washington, D.C.: 2006). 

38GAO, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building Runways and Actions to 

Address Them, GAO-03-164 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2003). 

Page 25 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
environmental airport reviews, we have reported that factors such as legal

and policy requirements and local politics might limit FAA’s ability to 

further streamline these procedures. In a 2003 analysis of 32 runway 

projects, we noted significant challenges to reducing runway project 

delays, including the difficulty of reaching consensus among stakeholders 

on the need for runways; complying with numerous overlapping federal,

state, and local environmental laws; mitigating the impact of aircraft noise 

on the surrounding community; and challenges faced during the runway 

design and construction phase.39 Former commissioners and experts 

supported our prior research. For example, one aerospace expert said that 

legal requirements that apply to the rule-making process, such as the 

requirement for periods of public comment, create unavoidable delays. 

Another expert said that FAA is limited in its ability to reduce the time it 

takes to issue rules because rules are designed to ensure the safe 

operation of aircraft and public safety considerations have to take priority

over reducing the time it takes to issue the rule. Some experts also said 

that FAA is limited in its ability to further streamline new airport runway 

reviews. For example, one expert noted that unavoidable delays often 

occur when local public and political opposition to runway development 

leads to court proceedings. 

FAA and JPDO have made efforts to address the Commission’s 

recommendation to increase the U.S. commitment to the development of 

global aviation standards and the establishment of international 

partnerships for global air traffic management systems. The Commission 

found that some foreign countries have established domestic standards 

that provide a competitive advantage for those countries’ national 

companies, and although other governments have actively sought global

leadership in international standard-setting bodies, such as the 

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),40 the United States has 

not devoted enough resources and is, therefore, losing its position as the 

de facto standard setter. FAA has supported several efforts to increase the 

U.S. commitment to, and involvement in, the development of global 

aviation standards by increasing its presence at ICAO. ICAO allocates 

positions within its organization to national citizens from all its member 

organizations and currently has allocated 31 positions to the United States. 

Agencies are Making Efforts to 

Address the Commission’s 

Recommendation to Increase 

U.S. Presence in International 

Aviation 

 39GAO-03-164. 

40ICAO is a United Nations agency that sets international standards on civil aviation for 188 

member states. The organization addresses fundamental issues ranging from air navigation

and capacity to emerging environmental concerns such as engine noise and emissions. 

Page 26 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
To ensure that qualified U.S. candidates apply for these positions, FAA has 

supported a number of activities, including outreach efforts, incentive pay 

programs, and a fellowship program. For example, FAA has conducted 

outreach efforts at the staff level to increase awareness of international 

opportunities at ICAO. Senior FAA officials have given speeches and 

presentations at major agency functions, such as the Hispanic Coalition 

and the Professional Women’s Air Traffic Control Organization. In 2003, 

FAA established the FAA/ICAO Fellowship Program, which sends FAA 

employees to work at ICAO for up to 12 months. Since the FAA/ICAO 

Fellowship Program started, six FAA employees have served as fellows 

and one of these fellows was subsequently hired by ICAO as a full-time 

employee for a 2-year position. JPDO has also worked to develop 

international partnerships—including partnerships with China, East Asia, 

and Europe—to promote the global harmonization of air traffic 

management systems.41 The goal is to harmonize equipment and operations 

globally and advocate for the adoption of U.S.-preferred transformation 

concepts, technologies, procedures, and standards. For example, JPDO 

officials have noted the need to work toward harmonization with the 

Single European Air Traffic Management Research Program (SESAR), a 

major initiative to modernize the airspace system of the European Union. 

In July 2006, FAA announced that it had signed a memorandum of 

understanding with the European Union that identifies specific areas of 

cooperation.42

While FAA has made efforts to increase the U.S. presence at ICAO and 

develop partnerships, the majority of U.S. positions at ICAO are still 

unfilled, and in some areas, cooperation does not appear to be fully 

developed. FAA faces difficulty in filling the allocated positions for 

reasons beyond its control. For example, while FAA can recruit applicants, 

it does not make the final hiring decision. Despite FAA’s efforts to fill the 

positions allocated to the United States at ICAO, as of December 2005, 

only 13 of the 31 allocated positions were filled. While FAA and JPDO are 

planning cooperative activities, our research has identified several areas 

where coordination does not appear to be fully developed. For example, 

we have reported that the SESAR and NGATS initiatives, despite their 

 41JPDO has a global harmonization integrated product team, led by managers from the Air 

Traffic Organization’s Operations Planning Services International and FAA’s Office of 

International Aviation. 

42The areas of cooperation include regulations, standards, and procedures; coordination

with international organizations; R&D; and civil and military air traffic management issues. 

Page 27 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
similarities, do not have coordination activities such as peer reviews of 

relevant research, cooperation on safety analysis (such as through the 

pooling of accident data), or validation of technologies.43 It is possible that 

greater cooperation and exchange between NGATS and SESAR might 

develop once planning has progressed to the development and validation 

stage. 

Some limited federal initiatives, primarily designed to streamline export 

licensing procedures, address aspects of the Commission’s 

recommendation to reform regulations and policies to enable the 

movement of goods across borders on a fully competitive basis. According 

to the Commission, the current approach to U.S. export control is 

counterproductive to national security interests and the vitality of the U.S. 

aerospace industry. The Commission recommended streamlining U.S. 

export licensing systems and reforming export control policy. Commerce 

regulates exports of dual-use items—that is, items with military and 

civilian uses—and the Department of State regulates arms exports.44 There 

are many aerospace products, such as commercial aircraft frames and 

components, which are designed for both civilian and military uses and 

are therefore licensed as dual-use items, while other aerospace products,

such as precision-guided air-to-surface missiles, are designed for military 

use and would be licensed by State. State has implemented, through 

regulation and guidance, initiatives primarily designed to streamline and 

expedite the processing of export license applications. For example, in 

January 2004, State officially implemented a Web-based license application 

submission and review system that allows companies to electronically 

submit export authorization requests and supporting documentation for 

review. In February 2005, we reported that, although State initially 

received few applications through this system, officials noted greater use 

of the system after 1 year as well as reduced median processing times for 

electronically submitted export license applications.45

Limited Streamlining of U.S. 

Export Control Licensing 

Procedures Address the 

Commission’s

Recommendation; however, the 

Export Control Policy Has Not 

Fundamentally Changed 

Although State has implemented initiatives to streamline the arms export 

control licensing process, overall, the export control policy has not 

undergone fundamental changes since the Commission published its 

 43GAO-06-738T. 

44Commerce licenses dual-use items under Executive Order 13222 (66 Fed. Reg. 44025), and

State licenses arms exports under the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629). 

45GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Control System in the Post-9/11 Environment, 

GAO-05-234 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005). 

Page 28 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
report. In 2005, we reported46 that, although the system itself remains 

basically unchanged, new trends have emerged in the processing of arms 

export cases.

47 Median processing times48 for all arms export cases 

declined between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002, but began 

increasing in fiscal year 2003; this upward trend continued into the first 7 

months of fiscal year 2004. Furthermore, Commerce has not made 

fundamental changes to the dual-use export control system.49 Attempts 

have been made to change the legislation governing the U.S. export 

control system since the Commission published its report, but none have 

resulted in new export control legislation.50

Federal agencies will face a number of challenges in continuing to address 

the Commission’s recommendations. These challenges include confronting 

difficult budgetary trade-offs and coordinating actions between multiple 

agencies and industry. Specifically, our work, federal officials, and 

industry experts indicated that budget constraints will require agencies to 

prioritize some programs that address certain recommendations at the 

expense of other programs. Furthermore, according to experts, a lack of

coordination between federal agencies, private industry, and universities 

could impede the efficient advancement of the aerospace industry. 

Federal Agencies 

Face Challenges in 

Addressing the 

Commission’s 

Recommendations 

 46GAO-05-234. 

47Cases include applications for the permanent export of arms, the temporary export and 

import of arms, and agreements between U.S. industry and foreign entities to provide

technical assistance or manufacturing capability, as well as requests for amendments to

existing licenses and jurisdiction determinations. 

48The median processing time is the point at which 50 percent of the cases took more time

and 50 percent took less time. We are reporting the median processing time because 

average (or mean) processing times can be significantly affected by a small number of

cases that had much longer review times than the majority of cases. 

49 GAO, Export Controls: Improvements to Commerce’s Dual-Use System Needed to 

Ensure Protection of U.S. Interests in the Post-9/11 Environment, GAO-06-638 

(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2006). 

50See H.R. 4572, 109th Congress and H.R. 4200, 109th Congress. 

Page 29 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Budget constraints, in all likelihood, will challenge agencies’ efforts to 

address the Commission’s recommendations, and require that some 

programs that address certain recommendations be given priority over 

other programs that address other recommendations.51 Such budgetary 

trade-offs are all the more likely if implementing a recommendation 

requires launching or expanding large, expensive programs, such as the 

mission to Mars. Given the long-term fiscal challenges facing the United

States and other current spending priorities that are unrelated to 

aerospace, it is unlikely that significant new sources of funding will be 

available for these programs, and overall departmental budgets may not 

expand. Consequently, agency officials are likely to face tough decisions 

prioritizing programs within their jurisdictions, and some programs that 

address recommendations will likely be scaled back, delayed, or 

cancelled. For example, the NASA Administrator testified in February 2006 

that NASA cannot afford to fully fund all its programs. As a result, NASA’s 

proposed fiscal year 2007 budget shows lower funding levels for a variety 

of areas such as aeronautics research and space shuttle operations. 

Agencies Face Challenges 

in Setting Funding 

Priorities for Efforts That 

Address 

Recommendations

Within NASA, some programmatic realignment has already occurred in the 

course of implementing programs that address the Commission’s 

recommendations, and, as a result, NASA has made some difficult 

budgetary prioritization decisions. For example, as discussed earlier, when

NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to pursue the 

President’s space policy, NASA aligned resources to complete the 

International Space Station and accelerate the development of new space 

vehicles to replace the space shuttle. In congressional testimony, the 

NASA Administrator stated that this reallocation of resources requires 

NASA to delay several NASA space science projects, and budget plans for

upcoming years reflect an increasing priority for space exploration (see 

fig. 6).52 Former commissioners and experts told us that, although NASA’s 

space exploration activities are largely in line with the Commission’s 

recommendation to create a space imperative, the resultant pull-back of 

NASA funds from other activities—like aeronautics research, which is 

projected to decrease almost 30 percent from $906 million in 2005 to 

$647 million (in 2005 dollars) in 2011, or support for basic scientific 

 51For additional information on federal budget constraints see GAO, 21st Century

Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2005). 

52Statement of Michael Griffin, Administrator, NASA, before the Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, February 16, 2006. 

Page 30 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
research in aerospace at universities—was having negative effects. 

Likewise, the recent study of civil aeronautics research by the National 

Academy of Sciences notes that the continued decline of aeronautics 

research funding will challenge NASA’s ability to conduct basic research 

needed for the future.53

Figure 6: Projected Trends in Major Aerospace-Related Missions within NASA, 

Fiscal Years 2005–2011 

Source: GAO analysis of NASA’s fiscal year 2007 Presidential Budget Request.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Aeronautics research

Science

Exploration systems

Space operations

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal year

Note: This figure excludes NASA’s budget for cross-agency support programs, such as education 

programs, and the Inspector General’s Office. Space operations includes funding for the space 

shuttle and International Space Station. Exploration systems includes the budgets for developing new

space vehicles such as the Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle. Science includes

funding for earth-sun, solar system, and universe programs. Aeronautics research is the total budget

for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate.

 53National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Decadal Survey of Civil 

Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future (Washington, D.C.: 2006). 

Page 31 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
FAA and JPDO also face difficult budget prioritization questions that are 

likely to challenge their ability to address the Commission’s 

recommendation to establish a new automated air traffic management 

system. For example, JPDO faces challenges in providing Congress with 

realistic cost estimates for the entire NGATS effort. While JPDO is 

responsible for the planning of NGATS, the implementation of NGATS will 

fall in large part to FAA. We reported54 that FAA faces challenges in 

institutionalizing recent improvements in its management and acquisition 

processes, as well as in obtaining the expertise and resources needed to 

implement NGATS. We noted that transforming the national airspace 

system while the current system continues to operate will be an 

enormously complex undertaking, made more challenging by a difficult 

budgetary environment. Going forward, efforts by both FAA and JPDO to 

control costs and leverage resources will become ever more critical. 

Success depends on the ability of FAA and JPDO to define their roles and 

form a collaborative environment for planning and implementing the next 

generation system. 

Agencies Face Challenges 

in Coordinating Efforts to 

Avoid Duplication and 

Inefficiency 

According to experts and our work, better coordination among federal

agencies, private industry, and universities could help advance the 

aerospace industry by reducing duplicative efforts and leveraging 

resources more efficiently. Such coordination is particularly important for 

STEM funding and JPDO, both of which involve multiple agencies. As 

previously discussed and as we reported in 2005, 13 federal civilian 

agencies reported funding 207 education programs in fiscal year 2004 to 

expand and improve STEM training.55 Additionally, experts stated that,

since these STEM programs are operated by the government and are 

designed to meet the needs of the federal government, industry, and 

research facilities, it is important that these key groups coordinate to 

develop an overall strategy. However, as we reported, there has been 

limited coordination between these programs. According to our prior 

report and experts with whom we spoke, the current lack of coordination

is hindering improvements to STEM education. 

 54GAO-06-915T. 

55GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005). Among the 

agencies involved in these programs are NASA and FAA, which support degrees in 

aerospace and aeronautical engineering. 

Page 32 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
JPDO also faces the challenge of coordinating with its partner agencies in

creating NGATS. According to our research, agencies must have a clear 

and compelling rationale for working together to overcome significant 

differences in their missions, cultures, and established ways of doing 

business. JPDO’s integrated plan, among other things, provides a 

framework for institutionalizing collaboration among multiple federal 

agencies. JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body; 

therefore, it will be challenged to coordinate with its partner agencies, in

part, because those agencies have differing missions and priorities. In 

addition, our work has shown that collaborating agencies should work 

together to define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities, 

including how the collaborative effort will be led.56 In JPDO’s case, there is 

no formalized, long-term agreement on the partner agencies’ roles and 

responsibilities in creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, a 

memorandum of understanding that would define partner agencies’ 

relationships was being developed, but has not been completed. It is 

particularly important for JPDO and FAA’s Air Traffic Organization to 

define their respective roles and responsibilities, since both organizations 

are involved in planning the national airspace system’s modernization and

in coordinating the challenging transition from the current air traffic 

control system to NGATS. 

Sustaining the nation’s long-term commitment to science and 

technology—including aerospace science and technology—presents great 

opportunities to improve the quality of life, the performance of the 

economy, and the relationship of government to its citizens. Advances in

aerospace technology in the United States have historically been fueled by 

combined public and private sector R&D, which have ensured the United

States a global leadership position in the aerospace industry. However, a 

growing fiscal imbalance will require the nation to decide what level of

federal spending it wants—including funding of aerospace R&D. 

Additionally, as other governments, such as the European Union, increase 

the use of government resources to pursue global leadership in the 

aerospace industry, the United States’ preeminent position is being 

challenged. 

Concluding 

Observations 

 56GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of the Joint 

Planning and Development Office’s Planning, Progress, and Challenges, GAO-06-574T 

(Washington D.C.: Mar. 29, 2006). 

Page 33 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
While Congress did not establish any requirements to implement the 

Commission’s recommendations, Congress and several federal agencies 

have taken significant actions that begin to address many of them. If 

Congress and federal agencies want to continue to address the 

Commission’s recommendations, it will require leadership from all levels 

of government and the private sector. The establishment of JPDO and the 

President’s space exploration policy are two major actions taken by the 

federal government, both of which will require the federal government to 

maintain long-term funding commitments. Our prior work has shown that 

one way to accomplish this is for federal agencies to continue to form 

collaborative environments for planning and implementing large crosscutting programs such as NGATS. For example, JPDO has already moved 

to leverage other federal agency resources by conducting a review of its 

partner agencies’ R&D programs to identify ongoing work that could 

support NGATS. Our prior work has also shown that the government’s use 

of public-private partnerships can help to focus limited resources in 

programs that could provide the greatest benefit—both for the 

government and the private sector—and spread the risk across multiple 

stakeholders. The Commission emphasized the goal of developing stronger 

public-private partnerships, and some of the most significant actions that 

address the Commission’s recommendations brought cross-government 

efforts together with industry to make advances with positive results. 

We provided a draft of this report to Defense, DOT, Labor, NASA, and 

OSTP for their review and comment. Labor and NASA provided written 

comments (see apps. V and VI). DOT and OSTP provided technical 

clarifications, which we incorporated into this report as appropriate. 

Defense had no comments on the draft report. 

Agency Comments 

In response to the report’s description of comments by experts concerning

the President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative, Labor emphasized that 

this initiative is designed to demonstrate innovative model solutions to 

these challenges, which may be leveraged and replicated by the larger 

publicly funded workforce investment system. The agency therefore 

believes that this approach will develop the ability to respond to the 

industry’s changing competency and skill requirements. We revised the 

report to reflect Labor’s viewpoint, but point out that since the initiative 

has not been evaluated, its impact is unknown. 

NASA generally agreed with the report’s contents, but provided several 

clarifying comments. For example, NASA identified additional actions it 

has taken that are aligned with Commission recommendations, such as 

Page 34 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
providing research grants to universities and NASA explained that it will 

continue to conduct flight test demonstrations with other federal agencies, 

such as Defense. We revised the report to include NASA’s other actions. In

addition, NASA noted that its aeronautics research budget is not projected 

to decline by 50 percent from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2011, as stated

in our report draft. We agree that 50 percent was an incorrect calculation 

and further agree with the budget numbers stated in NASA’s letter. 

However, to evaluate budget trends over a number of years in real terms, 

we present budget numbers in the report in inflation-adjusted dollars. 

Therefore, when converted into 2005 dollars, the proposed aeronautics 

research budget will decrease by nearly 30 percent from $906 million in 

2005 to $647 million (in 2005 dollars) in 2011. We corrected and clarified 

the report language. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 15 days after the 

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

congressional committees, the Secretaries of Defense, Labor, and 

Transportation; the Administrators of FAA and NASA; and the Director of 

OSTP. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 35 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

In considering the recommendations made by the Commission on the 

Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (the Commission), this 

report addresses the following research questions: (1) To what extent have 

federal agencies addressed selected Commission recommendations? 

(2) What challenges remain in addressing these recommendations? 

The 2002 report by the Commission contains nine broad 

recommendations, each of which call for multiple actions by the federal 

government.1

 We selected six of these recommendations for review. To 

assist us in our selection, we interviewed five of the twelve former 

Commissioners—including the Commission’s former Chair—and the 

Commission’s former executive director, to obtain their views on the 

relative importance and potential impact of the recommendations. Since 

each of the former Commissioners is an expert in specific aerospace 

issues the Commission examined, we selected these former 

Commissioners to ensure coverage of all Commission recommendations. 

The six recommendations call for: (1) transforming the national air 

transportation system, (2) creating a U.S. space exploration imperative, 

(3) creating a government-wide management structure to support a 

national aerospace policy, (4) establishing a level playing field for the 

United States in global markets, (5) promoting the growth of the U.S. 

aerospace workforce, and (6) increasing government investment in 

aerospace research and development (R&D). We selected these 

recommendations according to the degree to which they were viewed as 

important by former Commission members and by us, and called for 

measurable agency actions. 

To address our two research questions, we obtained and analyzed 

information from a variety of sources, including agency budget 

documents, reports, policies, legislation, regulations, strategic plans, 

briefings, and our own reports. We interviewed officials from the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA); the Departments of Defense (Defense), 

Labor (Labor), and Transportation (DOT); the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP); and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). We also visited NASA’s Dryden Flight Research 

Center and Ames Research Center. In addition, we interviewed officials 

from the Aerospace Industries Association, Boeing, and Northrup 

Grumman to obtain their views on agency actions and challenges. Finally, 

 1

Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, Final Report 

(Arlington, Va.: Nov. 2002). 

Page 36 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

with the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences, we identified 

15 experts in the fields of air transportation, space, aerospace policy and 

government structure, aerospace workforce and education, and aerospace

R&D. We interviewed these experts to obtain their views on the extent to

which the federal actions have addressed the selected Commission 

recommendations, and on the challenges that lie ahead. (Table 4 identifies 

the list of participating experts.) 

Table 4: Experts Providing Input during Our Review

Expert Area of expertise 

Dwight Abbott, General Manager (retired), Systems Engineering Division, The 

Aerospace Corporation 

• Space 

Bill Ballhaus, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Aerospace Corporation • Space 

Jack Fearnsides, Senior Strategic Consultant to the President, Lockheed-Martin 

Air Traffic Management Company 

• Air transportation 

• Aerospace policy and government structure

Mike Freeman, Vice President and Program Manager, Northrop Grumman • Air transportation 

Rich Golaszewski, Executive Vice President, GRA Incorporated • Air transportation 

• Aerospace R&D 

Bernard Grossman, Vice President for Education and Outreach, The National 

Institute of Aerospace 

• Aerospace workforce and education 

Hollis Harris, President and Chief Executive Officer (retired), World Airways • Air transportation 

Preston Henne, Senior Vice President for Programs, Engineering, and Test, 

Gulfstream 

• Aerospace R&D 

John LaGraff, Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, 

Syracuse University 

• Aerospace workforce and education 

John McMasters, Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company • Aerospace workforce and education 

George Muellner, Vice President and General Manager of Air Force Systems for 

Integrated Defense Systems, The Boeing Company 

• Space 

Bob Ravera, Consultant, RJR Aviation, LLC • Air transportation 

• Aerospace policy and government structure

Dorothy Robyn, Senior Consultant, The Brattle Group • Aerospace policy and government structure

Annalisa Weigel, Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology 

• Aerospace policy and government structure

• Aerospace R&D 

Dave Wisler, Manager of University Programs and Aero Technology Labs, GE

Aircraft Engines

• Aerospace workforce and education 

Source: GAO.

Page 37 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We did not analyze the validity of the Commission’s recommendations, 

and our work does not take a position on, or represent an endorsement of, 

the recommendations, or the actions that address them. We conducted our 

work from August 2005 through September 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 38 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix

Developme

 II: Aerospace Research and 

nt Funding Trends

Page 39 GAO-06-920 

Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends 

Aerospace R&D includes a wide range of activities, from basic scientific 

research to the development of new technologies in increasingly diverse 

fields of study. Federal dollars continue to be a significant contributor to 

U.S. aerospace R&D, but in recent years, the federal role has declined 

relative to industry funding. The three major federal agencies that support 

aerospace R&D— Defense, NASA, and FAA—have different priorities and 

missions that are reflected in their respective R&D portfolios. Defense’s 

R&D budget is greater than any other agency—with a large majority of its 

R&D funds supporting development projects—and its R&D budgets for air 

and space R&D has increased in recent years. NASA’s current 

prioritization of space exploration has driven R&D funding priorities, and 

under current plans NASA will provide more funding for development 

activities than for basic and applied research. Likewise, NASA’s projected 

funding for aeronautics research and science is in slight decline. FAA, with 

the smallest R&D budget of the three agencies, focuses funding on the 

development of the next generation air transportation system (NGATS), 

but its R&D funding has also declined. 

Aerospace R&D includes a wide range of activities such as basic research,

applied research, and development. Basic research works to expand 

fundamental knowledge in areas such as physics, chemistry, and 

mathematics without specific applications in mind; however, it may 

include activities with broad applications. Applied research aims to gain 

knowledge applicable to solving specific and identified needs, building on 

the general work of the basic sciences. Applied aerospace research 

includes activities to develop better propulsion and power technology, 

advanced spacecraft technology, and crew and personnel protection 

technology. Development projects use the knowledge and understanding 

developed by researchers to build new, or improve existing, systems. New 

military weapons systems, a replacement for the space shuttle, and new 

commercial aircraft are all examples of major development projects. 

Aerospace R&D 

Includes a Wide 

Range of Activities 

Increasingly, R&D in areas not traditionally associated with aerospace, 

such as computer software, has applicability to the sector. At the same 

time, long-established areas for aerospace research may bring benefits to

other economic sectors. For example, advances in software might benefit 

new flight control systems and have applications to banking, or new 

ceramic materials developed for airplanes might be used in automobiles. 

Researchers do not always know beforehand where the results of their 

work will find useful applications. This uncertainty is particularly 

characteristic of basic research that, by definition, is not motivated by

 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

possible applications. Consequently, it is difficult to estimate the range of 

R&D activities that have an impact on the aerospace industry. 

The federal government’s support of R&D has been critical to maintaining 

the nation’s global leadership in the aerospace industry. For example, 

government-supported research enabled the development of jet engine

technologies that helped U.S. commercial and military aircraft

manufacturers achieve global prominence. According to industry 

statistics, aerospace companies are funding an increasing portion of 

industrial R&D than they did in the past.1

 In fiscal year 2003, the most 

recent year for which data are available, federal funds supported 

48 percent of industry R&D in the aerospace industry, whereas in 1999 the 

federal share was 63 percent. Nevertheless, the federal role remains 

significant. 

Federal Support of 

R&D Remains Critical 

to the Aerospace 

Industry 

Industrial R&D tends to focus on technology development that is specific 

to individual company products. As a result, company funding is 

significantly lower for basic and applied research than for development.

According to aerospace industry statistics, federal dollars fund the 

majority of the basic and applied research performed by the aerospace 

industry, whereas most development is funded by companies themselves. 

In dollar terms, development expenditures, by both companies and the 

federal government, are much higher than research expenditures. 

Nonetheless, federal funds provide the dominant share of applied research 

support, in particular. Aerospace industry experts told us that, if industry 

is to benefit from federally funded basic and applied research, new 

technologies must be developed to a relatively high level to be easily 

applied to product development. Likewise, our prior work has found that 

technologies with a high level of maturity are more likely to be applied

successfully to product development projects. An individual company is 

unlikely to invest its own money in basic and applied research that offers

uncertain payoffs and might benefit competitors. 

 1

For the purpose of this report, we define industry-funded R&D to exclude R&D funded by 

the government (and federally funded R&D centers) and academia. 

Page 40 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

R&D funding levels differ by agency and mission. The primary federal 

agencies engaged in aerospace R&D are Defense, NASA, and, to a lesser 

extent, FAA. Defense accounts for the majority of aerospace R&D funding. 

Like Defense’s budget in general, Defense’s overall R&D budget has 

increased in recent years and is the largest federal supporter of R&D.2

 Its 

current modernization effort is driving increases in R&D expenditures for 

developing major weapons systems, including aviation, missile, and space 

systems. In 2005, with a budget of $8.1 billion, the ballistic missile defense 

program was the largest R&D program in Defense—nearly more than 

twice the budget of the Joint Strike Fighter, the second largest program. 

The Aeronautics and Space Report of the President estimates Defense’s 

budget for space activities in fiscal year 2006 at $22.7 billion—over 

$7 billion more than NASA’s. Within Defense’s R&D budget are funds for 

science and technology activities. These fund R&D that is typically not 

associated with specific weapons systems and potentially can benefit a 

wide range of military and civilian applications.3

 Since 2001, Defense’s 

science and technology budget has increased for both air and space 

activities (see fig. 7). 

Objectives of Federal 

Funding for 

Aerospace R&D Differ 

by Agency and 

Mission 

Department of Defense 

 2

For the purposes of this report, Defense’s Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation

budget is referred to as Defense’s R&D budget. 

3

Defense’s R&D budget is divided into seven categories in the Defense budget: basic 

research, applied research, advanced technology development, demonstration and

validation, engineering and manufacturing development, management support, and 

operational systems development. The first three categories are referred to as science and 

technology.

Page 41 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

Figure 7: Defense Budget for Science and Technology for Air and Space Platforms, 

Fiscal Years 2001-2005 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense data.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

Fiscal year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Space platforms

Air platforms

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Note: Fiscal year 2005 is the latest year for which these data are available. 

Like industry-funded R&D, defense R&D tends to focus on advanced 

stages of development rather on than basic or applied research. As a 

result, Defense’s outlays for basic and applied research account for less 

than 10 percent, or $6.3 billion, of its total outlays for R&D in fiscal year 

2005. Conversely, $63 billion went to development activities. For example, 

$8.2 billion of the Missile Defense Agency’s $8.8 billion R&D budget for 

fiscal year 2005 went to development activities, not to basic or applied 

research. Nevertheless, Defense remains a significant supporter of basic 

and applied research, with Defense support climbing between fiscal years 

2001 and 2006. (See fig. 8.) However, current plans call for a decline in

fiscal year 2007. 

Page 42 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

Figure 8: Defense Budget Authority for Basic and Applied Research, and for 

Development, Fiscal Years 1999–2007 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense budget documents.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

DOD development

DOD basic and applied research

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal year

Note: Defense funding data are not specific to aerospace activities. Fiscal year 2007 data come from 

the President’s proposed budget; 2006 data are estimated outlays. 

Page 43 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

NASA’s R&D includes a broad range of complex and technical activities—

from space exploration to scientific observations of the solar system to the 

development of new aviation technologies, including those needed for 

NGATS. According to the President’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget and 

NASA’s current plans, space exploration activities, including R&D, will 

continue to be the largest part of NASA’s budget in the future. This trend 

will be driven by the development of a replacement vehicle for the space 

shuttle, manned lunar exploration, and robotic and manned Mars 

exploration missions. In contrast, funding for aeronautics research and

some space and earth science research within NASA will decline until 

fiscal year 2011 (see fig. 9). 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Figure 9: Actual and Projected Funding Trends in Major Aerospace-Related

Missions within NASA, Fiscal Years 2005–2011 

Source: GAO analysis of the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for NASA.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Aeronautics research

Science

Exploration systems

Space operations

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fiscal year

Notes: Space operations includes the space shuttle, International Space Station, and flight support.

Exploration systems includes the budgets for developing new space vehicles, such as the Crew 

Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle. Science includes earth-sun, solar system, and 

universe programs. Aeronautics research is the total budget for the Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate. 

Fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 are actual funding amounts. 

Page 44 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

Like NASA’s budget overall, the agency’s R&D funding is relatively stable,

but current space exploration plans call for a shift toward more 

development and less research. Consequently, NASA’s funding for basic 

and applied research has been declining while its funding for development 

has increased (see fig. 10). 

Figure 10: NASA’s Budget Authority for Basic and Applied Research, and for 

Development, Fiscal Years 1999–2007 

Source: GAO analysis of budget documents.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

NASA development

NASA basic and applied research

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal year

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

The major focus of FAA’s R&D is the realization of NGATS. The new 

system requires work in multiple areas, and several R&D programs are 

currently under way. However, FAA’s R&D budget has generally declined

since the publication of the Commission’s report in 2002, because some 

programs have been completed and new NGATS projects have not taken 

their place (see fig. 11).4

 For example, R&D on Automatic Dependent 

 4

FAA’s R&D budget increased in fiscal year 2002 partly because of new post-September 11, 

2001, aviation security funding. This security research is now funded through Homeland

Security. 

Page 45 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)5 was completed in 2006, and no additional 

funding was sought for this program for fiscal year 2007. In addition, FAA’s 

R&D budget includes projects that are not related to NGATS, such as 

aviation safety projects pertaining to weather and aircraft aging. FAA 

classifies a large proportion of its R&D as part of facilities and equipment

activities.6

 This R&D includes a program to reduce runway incursions, the 

Capstone program7

 in Alaska, and several airspace programs, to name a 

few. Compared with Defense’s and NASA’s R&D activities, FAA’s are 

small. 

 5

ADS-B is a surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft’s identity, position, velocity,

and intent to other aircraft and to air traffic control systems on the ground, thereby

enabling pilots and controllers to have a common picture of airspace and traffic. 

6

FAA’s budget includes funds for ‘Facilities and Equipment’ activities. These activities aim 

to improve and modernize the equipment central to the national airspace system. Some of

its facilities and equipment activities involve R&D.

7

Capstone is an FAA program intended to improve aviation system safety in Alaska through

the introduction of new navigation technologies. 

Page 46 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and 

Development Funding Trends

Figure 11: FAA Outlays for R&D, Including R&D for Facilities and Equipment, Fiscal 

Years 1999–2007 

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Facilities and equipment (research and development)

Research, engineering, and development

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fiscal year

Note: Facilities and equipment data include outlays for the airport improvement program and space 

commercialization R&D. 

Page 47 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address Recommendations 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

This appendix provides additional details on selected Commission 

recommendations and federal agency actions that address them. Included 

below are descriptions of the Commission’s main recommendations and 

subrecommendations that we selected for review, as noted in appendix I.

Also provided are descriptions of key federal agency actions, with time 

frames, that address both the main recommendations and the 

subrecommendations of the Commission report. 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends the transformation of 

the U.S. air transportation system as a national priority. The 

transformation requires the: 

• rapid deployment of a new, highly automated air traffic management 

system, beyond FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan, robust enough to 

efficiently, safely, and securely accommodate an evolving variety and 

growing number of aerospace vehicles, and civil and military operations; 

• accelerated introduction of new aerospace systems by shifting from 

product to process certification, and providing implementation support; 

and 

• streamlined new airport and runway development. 

Subrecommendation: The federal government should develop a federal 

interdepartmental group to work collaboratively with industry, labor, and

other stakeholders, to plan a new, highly automated air traffic 

management system. 

Federal Action: 

• In December 2003 legislation, Congress directed DOT to create the Joint 

Planning and Development Office (JPDO) as an office within the FAA. The 

purpose of JPDO is to plan for the transition to NGATS and to coordinate

aviation and aeronautics research programs across federal agencies. By 

January 2004, JPDO was established in FAA. Agencies participating in 

JPDO include the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Homeland 

Security (Homeland Security), DOT, FAA, NASA, Defense, and OSTP. The 

legislation also called for JPDO to consult with the public and ensure the 

participation of experts from the private sector.

• In December 2004, JPDO delivered to Congress the Integrated National 

Plan, which established a vision for the national air transportation system 

and a framework within JPDO for accomplishing that vision. The plan also 

Page 48 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

established multi-agency integrated product teams responsible for each of 

eight strategies—airport infrastructure, security, an agile air traffic system, 

shared situational awareness, safety management, environment, weather, 

and global harmonization. In addition, a JPDO Senior Policy Committee 

made up of executive-level individuals from all partner agencies was 

established to provide high-level guidance, resolve major policy issues, 

and identify resource needs. 

• Resources provided to JPDO by FAA and NASA: 

FAA

• FAA provided $18 million in fiscal year 2006 to support JPDO and will 

provide a similar amount of funds in fiscal year 2007. 

• FAA leads four of JPDO’s integrated product teams and provides 

approximately 90 employees to support JPDO and the product teams. 

• In the President’s 2007 budget submission, DOT requested $80 million 

for Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), which is a 

surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft’s identity, position, 

velocity, and intent to other aircraft and to air traffic control systems 

on the ground, thereby enabling pilots and controllers to have a 

common picture of airspace and traffic. DOT also requested $24 million 

for the System Wide Information Network, which would support the 

transition to network-centric operations by providing the infrastructure 

and associated policies and standards to enable information sharing 

among all authorized users, such as the airlines, other government 

agencies, and the military. 

NASA

• NASA provided $18 million in fiscal year 2006 to support JPDO and will 

provide a similar amount of funds in fiscal year 2007. 

• NASA’s fiscal year 2006 NGATS contributions total $174 million (for 

Airspace Systems research). NASA requests for future NGATS air 

traffic management research funding are: 

• Fiscal year 2007: $120 million 

• Fiscal year 2008: $124 million 

• Fiscal year 2009: $105 million 

• Fiscal year 2010: $91 million 

Page 49 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• NASA’s Aviation Safety Program and Subsonic Fixed Wing project also 

contribute to NGATS research. This program and this project also 

provide benefits to other federal agencies and private industry beyond

specific NGATS research needs. 

Subrecommendation: The federal government should develop initial 

implementation efforts that should focus on changing those federal 

policies and procedures, such as navigation and surveillance systems, that 

will provide early and significant operational benefits with little or no 

added “out-of-pocket” investments. 

Federal Action: 

• In 2002, FAA committed to develop and implement a plan for 

performance-based navigation, which uses two concepts—“Area 

Navigation,” commonly known as RNAV, and required navigation 

performance (RNP) operations. RNAV allows operators of properly 

equipped aircraft to use onboard navigation capabilities to fly desired 

flight paths without requiring direct flight over ground-based navigation 

aids. RNP adds to RNAV by taking advantage of the aircraft’s avionics 

navigation performance-monitoring and alerting capability. By potentially

allowing users to fly shorter routes, RNAV and RNP hold promise to 

reduce flight times and fuel consumption; this would, in turn, save system

users time and money. In addition, RNP could potentially increase the 

capacity of the air traffic control system to handle air traffic by reducing 

the required distance (i.e., separation) between aircraft equipped with 

advanced navigation capabilities. 

• FAA published a plan in 2003 (updated in July 2006) that lays out 

milestones for RNAV and RNP implementation over three planning 

horizons: near-term (2006–2010), mid-term (2011–2015), and far-term 

(2016–2025). For example, a near-term milestone is to develop 25 RNP 

approaches per year over the next 5 years. 

• In June 2005, FAA published criteria for use in designing public RNP 

instrument approach procedures and, as of August 2006, FAA runs RNP 

procedures in Washington, D.C. (Reagan National Airport); San Francisco,

California; Portland, Oregon; Palm Springs, California; and Juneau, and six 

smaller city airports, in Alaska. FAA has also published standard RNP 

procedures for Hailey (Sun Valley), Idaho; Newark, New Jersey; Chicago 

(Midway), Illinois; Long Beach, California; Tucson, Arizona; and Gary, 

Indiana, and expects to be using the new published RNP procedures at 

these six additional airports later this year, as more aircraft operators 

become approved for RNP approaches. 

Page 50 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• FAA has installed and tested ADS-B technology on a limited basis in 

aircraft since 2000 in a demonstration program in Alaska called Capstone, 

which is a program intended to improve aviation system safety in Alaska

through the introduction of new navigation technologies. In addition, FAA 

has been running ADS-B procedures in the Gulf of Mexico, and at airports

in Louisville, Kentucky, and Memphis, Tennessee.

• In September 2005, FAA executives reviewed information on investment 

and alternatives for the ADS-B program and approved the technology for a 

more thorough analysis for possible future deployment on a national basis.

In the first half of 2006, FAA will analyze specific costs and benefits for 

implementing the technology and submit a final proposal for FAA 

executive-level review in June 2006. With a positive investment decision, 

the first ADS-B implementation segment envisions the potential 

deployment of approximately 400 ground-based transmitters and the 

implementation of terminal, en route, and broadcast ADS-B services from 

fiscal years 2007–2012. 

Figure 12: Global Positioning System Display Screen Used in Capstone Program 

Sub-recommendation: FAA should support and motivate efforts for the 

installation of system-critical airborne equipment by providing either full

Source: Garmin, Ltd.

Page 51 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

or partial federal funding, or by auctioning investment credits, for such 

equipment. 

Federal Action: 

• In 1999, the Capstone program received initial funding. This first phase 

focused on providing advanced navigation capability and equipment for 

aircraft operating air taxi services in southwest Alaska. By 2004, FAA had 

installed 11 ground-based navigation transmitters and equipped 208 

aircraft with Capstone avionics capabilities, such as ADS-B. The Capstone 

program includes full funding for operator equipage. 

• In 2003, Capstone phase II expanded the program to air taxi aircraft in 

southeast Alaska and included similar navigation capabilities and full 

funding for operator equipage. As of June 2006, the FAA has a total of 366 

aircraft in the Capstone program. 

• A September 2004 plan for phase III of Capstone calls for expanding 

Capstone throughout Alaska. The plan proposed $25 million per year 

through fiscal year 2007 for reimbursements to pilots who paid for 

Capstone equipment and installation. A final decision on Capstone phase 

III is expected by the end of summer 2006. 

Sub-recommendation: The federal government should streamline the 

regulatory process to enable timely development of regulations needed to

address new technologies. 

Federal Action: 

• FAA uses several approaches to streamline the regulatory process for new 

technologies: 

• FAA sometimes uses a “special condition” to approve new technology 

under an existing rule. For example, FAA issued a new standard on the 

existing type of certificate for a general aviation aircraft to allow a 

parachute to be deployed as a last resort in an emergency. The 

parachute recovery system is intended to prevent serious passenger 

injuries by parachuting the aircraft to the ground. 

• FAA sometimes uses existing regulations without a special condition 

and publishes new methods of compliance for the new technology. The 

methods are neither mandatory nor regulatory but describe acceptable 

means for showing compliance with regulations. For example, in 

December 2005, FAA published an advisory circular on the acceptable 

Page 52 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

means for showing compliance for the use of “synthetic vision” 

developed by the military. 

• FAA has also developed new procedures that apply to all rule making, 

including rules for new technologies. Highlights include the following: 

• In 2003, FAA supplemented its weekly management review of ongoing 

rule making with a standing meeting of senior policy makers to review 

significant rules in order to expedite their review. It also gave a higher 

priority to nonsignificant rules that had gone through the public 

comment stage. 

• In 2004, to link rule-making performance with pay, FAA created shared 

executive compensation incentives for senior executives that are tied 

to timely completion of rules. 

• In 2005, FAA adopted a performance standard that requires 80 percent 

of all initiated rules to be issued within 90 days of their originally 

scheduled issuance date.

Subrecommendation: FAA should focus on certifying a manufacturing 

organization’s internal design, simulation, testing, and quality assurance 

processes to ensure that organizations’ products comply with all 

applicable regulations, and are delivered in a condition for safe operation. 

Federal Action: 

• In October 2005, FAA issued a final rule for a new Organization 

Designation Authorization. This program expands the number of 

organizational designees and should ultimately reduce the number of 

individual designees. FAA’s designee programs authorize about 13,400 

private individuals and about 180 organizations nationwide, known as 

“designees,” to act as representatives of the agency to conduct many safety 

certification activities, such as administering flight tests to pilots, 

inspecting repair work by maintenance facilities, conducting medical 

examinations of pilots, and approving designs for aircraft parts. The 

program allows FAA to expand and standardize the approval functions of

organizational designees and also expand eligibility for organizational 

designees. FAA issued a final order for the rule in 2006. 

• In addition, Congress has mandated that FAA develop and implement a 

certified design organization program. Under this program, certain 

designees that design and produce aircraft parts and equipment would no 

longer be designees; rather, they would conduct their approval functions 

Page 53 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

under a newly created FAA certificate. FAA expects to provide a report to

Congress, by the mandated December 2007 deadline, for the development 

and oversight of a system to certify design organizations. 

Subrecommendation: FAA and other agencies should adopt regulations 

or procedures that would expedite new runway and airport development.

Federal Action: 

• FAA is reallocating staff resources and increasing the use of consultants to 

assist it with the coordination and administration of environmental impact

statements. 

• To increase coordination and reduce delays, FAA has created a process 

for establishing multidisciplinary environmental review teams for new 

reviews at large hub airports. 

• In April 2006, FAA completed a revised order for streamlining airport 

development projects that includes the ability to give priority review to 

certain projects; promotes public review and comment; manages timelines

during the review; and expedites coordination between those federal,

state, and local agencies involved in environmental reviews in order to 

reduce undue delays during the review process. 

• To increase coordination and assign accountability for new runway 

construction tasks, FAA is using detailed plans called Runway Template 

Action Plans to provide a standard set of tasks that must be considered 

when developing new runways (FAA developed the tool in August 2001). 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the United States 

create a space imperative. Defense, NASA, and industry must partner in 

innovative aerospace technologies, especially in areas of propulsion and 

power. These innovations will enhance national security, provide major 

spin-offs to the economy, accelerate the exploration of the near and 

distant universe with both human and robotic missions, and open up new 

opportunities for public space travel and commercial space endeavors in 

the twenty-first century. 

Subrecommendation: Explore and exploit space to ensure national and 

planetary security, economic benefit, and scientific discovery. 

Page 54 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

Federal Action: 

• In January 2004, Executive Order 13326 established the President’s 

Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration 

Policy. This commission was chartered to provide recommendations to the 

President on implementing the vision outlined in the President’s policy 

statement entitled “A Renewed Spirit of Discovery,” and the President’s 

budget submission for fiscal year 2005. The commission published its 

report in June 2004. 

• In 2004, NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to 

implement the President’s vision. Throughout 2005, the directorate 

restructured its organization by reducing headquarters staff, designating 

program and project offices at NASA centers, and realigning activities to

other mission directorates. 

• Defense published its space science and technology strategy in 2004. This

strategy, which provides guidance for Defense space science and 

technology activities, is derived jointly from the Defense Science and 

Technology Strategy and the National Security Space Strategy. The 

strategy addresses space science and technology development, outlines 

strategy implementation, describes the process by which space science 

and technology progress is assessed, and identifies the means by which 

these goals can be achieved. 

• In August 2005, Defense and NASA signed an agreement on how they 

could coordinate their efforts to implement NASA’s space transportation 

strategy. The agreement focused on the use and development of national 

launch systems. 

• In November 2005, to assist in implementing the President’s space 

exploration policy, NASA published its Exploration Systems Architecture 

Study. The purpose of the study was to 

• assess the top-level crew exploration vehicle requirements, 

• define the top-level requirements and configurations for crew and 

cargo launch systems to support the lunar and Mars exploration 

programs, 

• develop a reference exploration architecture concept to support 

sustained human and robotic lunar exploration operations, and 

• identify key technologies required to enable and significantly enhance 

these reference exploration systems, and reprioritize near-term and farterm technology investments. 

Page 55 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• On the basis of analysis and recommendations, NASA realigned research 

and technology projects. As a result, some programs were curtailed, 

modified, deferred, or added. 

• NASA and DOD established the Partnership Council to provide a forum for 

senior Defense and civil space leaders to meet on a regular basis to 

discuss cross-cutting issues relevant to the national space community. The 

purpose of the Partnership Council is to facilitate communication between 

the organizations and to identify areas for collaboration and cooperation.

Figure 13: Information Regarding the Moon and Mars 

Subrecommendation: The federal government should support the 

development of commercial space operations, such as space tourism. 

Federal Action: 

Mars Facts:

Average distance from the Sun:

141,633,260 miles

 Surface area:

89,500,000 square miles

Length of day:

24.62 hours

 Length of year:

686.93 Earth days

(1.9 Earth years)

 Minimum/maximum

surface temperature:

-125° to 23° F 

 Moon Facts: 

 Average Distance from Earth:

238,855 miles

 Surface Area: 

14,645,750 square miles

 Length of Day: 

27.3 Earth days

 Length of Year: 

27.3 Earth days

(Orbit Period = Rotation Period)

 Minimum/Maximum

Surface Temperature: 

-387° to 253° F 

Source: NASA.

• FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation regulates the U.S. 

commercial space transportation industry by licensing commercial space 

launches and nonfederal spaceports. Commercial space operations have 

historically launched commercial or government payloads (generally 

satellites) into orbit from Air Force launch sites. The industry is changing 

with the development of commercial vehicles that enable human space 

flight from nonfederal spaceports. FAA is developing regulations for 

launch vehicles and spaceports. The proposed regulations, based on 

common safety standards developed jointly by FAA and the Air Force, 

Page 56 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

have the goal of promoting consistent, streamlined safety reviews of 

launch and reentry operations at all launch sites.

• The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 prohibits FAA 

from regulating crew and passenger safety before 2012 in order to 

encourage growth in the emerging space tourism industry. 

Figure 14: Proposed Advanced Orbital Transfer Propulsion Technology

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the federal 

government establish a national aerospace policy and promote aerospace

by creating a government-wide management structure. This would include 

a White House policy coordinating council, an aerospace management 

office in the Office of Management and Budget, and a joint committee in 

Congress. The Commission further recommends the use of an annual 

aerospace sector budget to establish presidential aerospace initiatives, 

ensure coordinated funding for such initiatives, and replace vertical 

Source: NASA.

Page 57 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

decision making with horizontally determined decisions in both 

authorizations and appropriations. 

Subrecommendation: Develop a process to bring the appropriate 

departments and agencies together to reach a consensus on a national 

aerospace policy. 

Federal Action: 

• In January 2004, the President announced the Vision for Space 

Exploration, which serves as the nation’s space exploration policy. This 

policy directs NASA to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic 

interests through a space exploration program. 

• In December 2004, the administration approved the U.S. Space

Transportation Policy. This policy’s goal was to ensure the capability to 

access and use space. It sets out implementation guidelines and actions for 

federal departments and agencies, including NASA, Defense, and DOT. 

• In September 2005, the National Science and Technology Council 

established the Aeronautics, Science, and Technology Subcommittee 

(ASTS). (See fig. 15.) The objective of ASTS is to develop a national 

aeronautics R&D policy. This policy is expected to establish a set of 

specific U.S. aeronautics research objectives; define the appropriate role 

of the federal government in aeronautics R&D; define the roles and 

responsibilities of the various departments and agencies in aeronautics 

R&D; address the research, development, test, and evaluation

infrastructure; and address the coordination of aeronautics research 

across the federal government. 

• In April 2006, ASTS convened three stakeholder meetings to discuss 

aeronautics R&D priorities, the appropriate role of the federal 

government, near- and far-term research objectives and a plan to 

achieve them, and the roles and responsibilities of the multiple federal

agencies involved in aeronautics research. Representatives from 

government, industry, the aviation user community, and academia 

participated. 

• ASTS is co-chaired by OSTP and NASA, and includes the Department of 

Energy, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, DOT, FAA, JPDO, the 

National Science Foundation, the Council of Economic Advisors, the 

Domestic Policy Council, the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S.

International Trade Commission, the Office of the Vice President, the 

National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget. 

Page 58 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

ASTS is working on renewing its charter, which will expire on 

December 31, 2006. The renewed charter would expire on March 31,

2009. 

• In December 2005, Congress directed OSTP to commission an independent 

review of the nation’s long-term strategic needs for aeronautics test 

facilities. Congress also required OSTP to conduct a study to determine (1) 

if any NASA R&D programs are unnecessarily duplicating aspects of 

programs of other federal agencies; and (2) if any such programs are 

neglecting any topics of national interest that are related to NASA’s 

mission. 

Figure 15: ASTS Membership

NASA

co-chair

Office of Science

and Technology

Policy

co-chair

Council of

Economic

Advisors

Department

of Commerce

Department

of Defense

Department

of Energy 

Department of

Homeland

Security

Department of

Transportation

Domestic

Policy

Council

Federal

Aviation

Administration

Joint

Planning and

Development

Office

National

Science

Foundation

Office of

Management

and Budget

Sources: Corel Draw; GAO.

Vice

President’s

Office

National

Security

Council

International

Trade

Commission

US Trade

Representative

Subrecommendation: Establish an office of aerospace development in

each federal department and agency, and have a full-time senior executive 

lead the office and report directly to the office of the secretary, or the 

agency head. 

Federal Action: 

Page 59 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• No action taken. 

Subrecommendation: Congress should establish a Congressional Joint 

Committee on Aerospace that would have the obligation to legislatively

coordinate the multifaceted jurisdiction issues. 

Federal Action: 

• No action taken. 

Subrecommendation: Establish an Aerospace Policy Coordinating 

Council to develop and implement an integrated means of formulating a 

national aerospace policy. 

Federal Action: 

• As of January 2006, no single national aerospace policy existed. There are

two policy efforts in place to address space and aeronautics issues 

separately. 

• The National Security Council has drafted space policies that address the 

major space sectors such as position, navigation, and timing; commercial 

remote sensing; and space transportation. 

• OSTP and NASA are co-chairing the Aeronautics Subcommittee of the 

National Science and Technology Council to coordinate U.S. aeronautics 

research and development activities.

Subrecommendation: Have the Office of Management and Budget 

assume a new and proactive role as coordinator of federal agencies’ 

aerospace-sector plans, programs, and budgets.

Federal Action: 

• No action taken. 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that U.S. and 

multilateral regulations and policies be reformed to enable the movement 

of products and capital across international borders on a fully competitive 

basis, establishing a level playing field for U.S. industry in the global 

marketplace. This includes substantially overhauling U.S. export control 

regulations. The Commission also recommends that the U.S. government 

neutralize foreign-government market intervention in areas such as 

Page 60 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

subsidies, tax policy, export financing, and standards—either through 

strengthening multilateral disciplines or providing similar support for U.S. 

industry as necessary. 

Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should reform the nation’s 

arms transfer policy and regulatory process. 

Federal Action: 

• In February 2002, Congress had two bills before it —H.R. 2581 and S.

149—that proposed a new legal basis for controls over exports of dual-use 

goods and services. Neither bill was passed. 

• H.R. 4572 was introduced on December 16, 2005. This bill, which sought to 

extend the Export Administration Act, among other items, would have 

revised this act, especially in the areas of penalties, enforcement, and U.S. 

policy towards multilateral export control regimes. No action has been 

taken on this bill as of September 2006. 

Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should overhaul current 

export-control restrictions on the sale or transfer of technology to foreign

customers by implementing a fundamental shift—from the existing 

transaction-based licensing system to process licensing. 

Federal Action: 

• In 2001, the Department of State (State) and Defense established an 

“expedited” process for reviewing license applications in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

• In 2000, State announced the Defense Trade Security Initiative, which was 

characterized as the first major post-Cold War adjustment to the arms 

export control system and an effort to facilitate defense trade with allies. 

As part of this effort, State established special processes for the expedited 

review of license applications determined to be in support of the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Defense Capabilities Initiative. In addition, 

State developed the D-Trade system, which came on line in January 2004. 

This is a Web-based license application submission and review system that 

allows companies to electronically submit export authorization requests 

and supporting documentation for review. 

Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should ensure commitment 

to global partnerships in air transportation systems and space activities by

Page 61 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

supporting the recruitment of FAA employees for the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO). 

Federal Action: 

• FAA established a Web site to increase employees’ awareness of ICAO 

positions. 

• FAA tracks ICAO vacancies and solicits qualified candidates to fill the U.S.

positions. 

• In 2003, FAA established the FAA/ICAO fellowship program, which sends 

FAA employees to work at ICAO for up to 12 months. 

• Senior FAA officials give speeches and presentations at FAA organizations

such as the Hispanic Coalition and the Professional Women’s Air Traffic 

Control Organization. 

Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should ensure commitment 

to global partnerships in air transportation systems and space activities by

working for continued liberalization of the air transport market. 

Federal Action: 

• As of July 2006, the United States had 76 “open skies” agreements with 

foreign governments. “Open skies” agreements are bilateral agreements 

between two nations that reduce or eliminate operating restrictions on the 

airlines of either nation.

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the nation 

immediately reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of, a 

scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce. In 

addition, the nation must address the failure of the math, science, and 

technology education of Americans. The breakdown of America’s 

intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and its 

capability to continue as a world leader. Congress and the administration

must therefore do the following: 

• Create an interagency task force that develops a national strategy on the 

aerospace workforce to attract public attention to the importance of, and 

opportunities within, the aerospace industry. 

Page 62 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• Establish lifelong learning and individualized instruction as key elements 

of educational reform. 

• Make long-term investments in education and training with a major 

emphasis in math and science so that the aerospace industry has access to 

a scientifically and technologically trained workforce. 

Subrecommendation: Establish an interagency task force on workforce 

issues in the aerospace industry. 

Federal Action: 

• In 2004, Labor established an interagency taskforce that included the 

Department of Education, Commerce, Defense, DOT, NASA, OSTP, the 

National Science Foundation, and the Office of Management and Budget. 

• Labor hosted the Aerospace Workforce Forum in June 2004. This forum 

included stakeholders representing industry, education, and government 

agencies with the objective of involving the public in developing solutions 

that address the decline in the U.S. technical workforce. The forum 

developed multiple recommendations to address the overall workforce 

issues. These recommendations focused on the aging workforce and the 

loss of technical talent. 

• In 2005, the House passed H.R. 758, a bill that will require federal agencies 

to establish an interagency aerospace revitalization task force to develop a 

national strategy for aerospace workforce recruitment, training, and 

cultivation. The bill proposes that the task force meet at least twice a year 

and produce an annual report no later than 1 year after the date of the 

act’s enactment, and annually thereafter for 4 years. As of September 

2006, no action has been taken on this bill in the Senate. 

Subrecommendation: Develop a national strategy to attract public 

attention to the importance of, and opportunities within, the aerospace 

industry. 

Federal Action: 

• In collaboration with the private sector, educational institutions, and local

employment agencies, Labor issued a 2005 report on workforce challenges

facing the aerospace industry and possible solutions to these challenges. 

Page 63 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• The President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative targets 14 industries, 

including aerospace, that have been identified as important to the U.S. 

workforce. 

• H.R. 758, described previously in this appendix, would also require federal 

agencies to develop a national strategy for aerospace workforce 

development. 

Subrecommendation: Develop workforce skills needed by the industry 

and promote registered apprenticeship programs for technical and skilled 

occupations. 

Federal Action: 

• Since 1991, FAA has sponsored the Aviation and Space Education 

Outreach Program, which teaches students between kindergarten and the 

12th grade about aerospace technology and career opportunities. 

• Since 2001, under the President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative, 

Labor has issued eight aerospace industry demonstration grants, totaling 

over $10 million. These grants funded demonstration projects to help train 

and improve the U.S. aerospace workforce. 

• In December 2003, Congress enacted Vision 100—Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act (Vision 100),1

 which included language to promote the 

aerospace workforce and to fund a scholarship program for careers in 

aerospace-related fields. 

• In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress directed NASA to 

develop a human capital strategy to ensure that NASA has a workforce of 

the appropriate size and with the appropriate skills to carry out its 

programs. NASA has assigned a team of representatives from each of its 

centers and directorate locations to coordinate and identify the skills 

available at these locations. The results of this process are scheduled for 

completion by the end of fiscal year 2006. 

• In February 2006, Labor announced a series of grant awards under the 

Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development Initiative. Over 

three years, this initiative will provide $195 million to thirteen regions to 

 1

Pub.L. No. 108-176 (Dec. 12, 2003). 

Page 64 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

address the skill challenges of one or more industries, including 

aerospace, which has been identified as critical for economic growth. 

• In April 2006, the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and 

Competitiveness of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation held a hearing to examine approaches for fostering 

innovation in math and science. 

Subrecommendation: Make tax credits available to employers who 

invest in the skills and training programs needed by the industry. 

Federal Action: 

• No specific tax credit is available to the aerospace industry.

• In 2006, the President proposed making an R&D tax credit permanent to 

encourage private-sector investment in technology. For fiscal year 2007,

the administration budgeted $4.6 billion for the R&D incentives. 

Subrecommendation: Make long-term investments in education and 

training with a major emphasis in math and science, so that the aerospace 

industry has access to a scientifically and technologically trained 

workforce. 

Federal Action: 

• In 2002, NASA unified all of its educational programs (previously managed 

by individual mission offices and field centers) under one organization and 

vision. 

• NASA’s five programs target elementary and secondary education, higher 

education, NASA exhibits and community-based events, and the Minority 

University Research and Education Program. Funding for NASA’s 

education programs has decreased from $217 million in fiscal year 2005 to

about $153 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget. This budget decrease, for 

example, will result in NASA deferring the implementation of the Science 

and Technology Scholarship Program. 

• In 2005, Congress directed NASA to review its educational programs. This 

review will be conducted by the National Research Council of the National 

Academy of Sciences and will evaluate NASA’s precollege science, 

technology, and mathematics education programs. 

Page 65 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• Congress established Defense’s scholarship program (“SMART”) for 

students in science and math under the National Defense Authorization 

Act for fiscal year 2005. These scholarships and fellowships are awarded

to applicants who are pursuing a degree in, or closely related to, science,

mathematics, or engineering. 

• In 2006, the President announced the American Competitiveness Initiative 

to encourage innovation in science and technology, and to support math 

and science education. In the fiscal year 2007 budget, the administration 

has committed $5.9 billion for R&D, education, and entrepreneurship. 

Over the next 10 years, the administration plans to commit $50 billion to 

increase funding for research and $86 billion for R&D tax incentives. 

• In 2006, the President proposed a plan to train an additional 70,000 high 

school math and science teachers with the objective of increasing 

advanced-placement courses in math and science. In addition, up to 30,000 

math and science professionals will be recruited to teach in classrooms 

nationwide.

Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the federal 

government significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace 

research, which enhances U.S. national security; enables breakthrough 

capabilities; and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace 

transportation system. The U.S. aerospace industry should take a leading 

role in applying research to product development. 

Subrecommendation: Increase and provide stable funding in order to 

achieve national technology goals, especially in long-term research in 

areas such as propulsion and power, emissions and noise, and human 

factors; as well as associated research, development, testing, and 

equipment infrastructure. 

Federal Actions: 

• FAA’s R&D funding declined from $349 million in fiscal year 2001 to $279 

million in fiscal year 2005 (in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars). FAA plans 

indicated that these funds support the R&D needs of NGATS. 

• Defense’s R&D funding has increased overall since the publication of the 

Commission report. The majority of the department’s R&D funding goes to 

development activities, but Defense’s science and technology budgets for 

air and space research have increased between fiscal years 2001 to 2005

from $613 million and $220 million to $907 million and $462 million, 

respectively (in fiscal year 2005 dollars). 

Page 66 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• NASA’s overall R&D budget has decreased slightly, shifting from $10.6 

billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.2 billion in fiscal year 2005 (in constant 

fiscal year 2005 dollars). Looking forward, NASA’s budget is expected to

vary between missions. Space activities are expected to increase overall,

though some programs will decline, whereas aeronautics research is 

expected to decline. For example, NASA’s fiscal year 2007 budget request 

for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate increased by $1.3 billion 

over 2006 levels to nearly $3.1 billion (a 76 percent increase), but the 

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate request is about $724 million 

for 2007—down 18 percent from the fiscal year 2006 budget in noninflation-adjusted dollars. 

• NASA’s reshaped aeronautics research strategy will focus on four 

programs, including one that targets air traffic management research for 

NGATS. 

• In June 2006, the National Academy of Sciences issued a study on NASA’s 

long-term strategy for aeronautics research and technology development.

It identifies four high-priority strategic objectives for civil aeronautics 

research and, among its recommendations, suggests that NASA establish a 

stable aeronautics research plan, balance in-house research with 

involvement from academia and industry, and ensure technologies are 

developed to a level of maturity that is appropriate for that technology. 

Page 67 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

Figure 16: Engineers at NASA Langley Research Center 

Subrecommendation: Adopt national technology demonstration goals for 

2010 on air transportation and space.

Federal Action: 

Source: NASA.

• JPDO identified technology goals in its NGATS plan. These goals are not 

consistent with the goals outlined in the Commission’s report. For 

example, the NGATS plan calls for a 30 percent reduction in transit time 

for domestic aviation travel, whereas the Commission calls for a 50 

percent reduction in travel time between any two points on earth, as well

as between any two points in space. In general, the Commission’s goals are 

more specific and aggressive than the NGATS goals. 

• In 2006, NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate announced

plans for R&D. These plans do not include demonstration goals. In 

addition, NASA cancelled funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Hyper-X 

Page 68 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

hypersonic vehicle program, which demonstrated air-breathing flight of 

mach 9.6 in 2004. 

Figure 17: Computational Fluid Dynamic Image of the Hyper-X Vehicle 

Subrecommendation: Find new and faster ways to transfer research and 

technology developed in federal laboratories, and in academia, to 

applications in the private sector, by establishing partnerships between 

government, industry, and academia. 

Federal Action: 

Source: NASA.

• NASA’s research strategy includes a new approach for establishing 

partnerships with universities and the private sector. Some key milestones 

in this approach include the following: 

• In January 2006, NASA issued three requests for information that will 

be used to solicit information on key areas of interest for private 

industry and determine opportunities for collaboration with NASA’s 

planning and research efforts. 

• In May 2006, NASA released research announcements to solicit 

proposals for foundational research in areas where NASA needs to 

enhance its core capabilities. The announcements were influenced by

the response to the requests for information, solicited in January 2006, 

and were open to all stakeholders. 

Page 69 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address 

Selected Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations 

• NASA’s realigned aeronautics research mission plans to focus on 

foundational research and will develop new technologies to a lower—and 

therefore less readily adopted—maturity level than in the past. 

• In 2004, NASA’s Centennial Challenges Program initiated competitions, 

with prizes under $250,000, for advances in a variety of technical areas 

such as astronaut gloves, high strength-to-weight materials, and 

telerobotic construction. The 2005 NASA Authorization Act provided 

NASA with the legislative authority to conduct competitions with prizes up 

to $1,000,000. 

Figure 18: NASA Glen Research Center’s Research on Aircraft Noise

Source: NASA.

Page 70 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
A

Offic

ppendix IV: Joint Planning and Development 

e

Page 71 GAO-06-920 

Appendix IV: Joint Planning and 

Development Office 

FAA, with research assistance from NASA, has had the primary 

responsibility for planning and implementing national airspace system 

modernization since these efforts began more than 20 years ago. Recently, 

FAA placed the modernization program under a new Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO), headed by a Chief Operating Officer. The JPDO 

Director reports to the FAA Administrator and to ATO’s Chief Operating 

Officer.1

 JPDO’s scope is broader than traditional air traffic control 

modernization in that it is “airport curb-to-airport curb,” encompassing 

such issues as security screening and environmental concerns. 

Additionally, JPDO’s approach will require unprecedented consensus and 

cooperation among many stakeholders—federal and nonfederal—about 

necessary system capabilities, equipment, procedures, and regulations. 

Role of the Joint 

Planning and 

Development Office 

in the National 

Airspace System 

Modernization 

 1

ATO is FAA’s business unit that is responsible for operating, maintaining, and modernizing 

the nation’s current air traffic control system. 

 Aerospace Commission
Appendix IV: Joint Planning and Development 

Office

JPDO was mandated by the Vision 100 and is comprised of seven partner 

agencies: Commerce, Homeland Security, DOT, Defense, FAA, NASA, and 

OSTP. Each of these agencies has expertise and technology that will play a 

part in creating NGATS and responsibilities for coordinating their 

activities. Figure 19 lists JPDO’s organization and how its partner agencies

fit into that organization. JPDO has staffed its organization with partneragency employees, many of whom work for JPDO on a part-time basis. 

The JPDO board, which provides coordination between partner agencies

and JPDO, is composed of key executives of the partner agencies who can 

facilitate bringing agency resources to bear on NGATS development. 

Additionally, Vision 100 created the Next Generation Air Transportation 

Senior Policy Committee, composed of partner agency senior executives, 

to provide ongoing policy review and identify resource needs from the 

partner agencies. 

JPDO Organization 

Structure and Partner 

Agencies 

Page 72 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix IV: Joint Planning and Development 

Office

Figure 19: JPDO Organization Chart

Senior Policy Committee

FAA Administrator

Executive 

Committee,

Research, 

Engineering, and 

Development 

Advisiory 

Committee

NGATS Institute Policy

● Studies

● IPT Expert 

Participation ● Agile ATM 

System 

(NASA)

● Airport 

Infrastructure 

(FAA)

● Aviation 

Security (DHS)

● Environmental 

Protection 

(FAA)

● Global 

Harmonization 

(FAA)

● Shared Situational 

Awareness (DoD)

● Weather (DOC)

● Safety 

Management 

(FAA)

● Enterprise 

Engineering and 

Integration

● Portfolio 

Management

● Enterprise 

Architecture

● Evaluation and 

Analysis

Chief Engineer NGATS Institute

Executive Director

Partnership 

Management

Business

Management

Interagency IPT 

Leads

Technical Division 

Leads

JPDO Board

NGATS Institute 

Management Council

JPDO Director

Deputy Director

Source: JPDO.

Air Traffic 

Organization

Department of Transportation (chair)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Department of Defense (DOD)

Department of Commerce (DOC)

The White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy

NASA

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Master Integrated Product Team (IPT)

Page 73 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix IV: Joint Planning and Development 

Office

In December 2004, JPDO and its partner agencies developed and 

submitted to Congress its integrated plan that broadly addresses the goals 

and objectives for NGATS. This plan provided a vision statement that 

elaborates on the broadly stated common outcome set forth by the Vision 

100 legislation—an air transportation system that meets potential air 

traffic demand by 2025. In addition, the plan provides eight strategies that

formed the basis for JPDO’s eight integrated product teams, and various 

partner agencies have taken the lead on specific strategies. (See table 5.)

In March 2006, JPDO published its first report to Congress on the progress

made in carrying out the integrated plan. 

Table 5: JPDO’s Strategies and Responsible Agencies

Strategy Lead agency

Develop airport infrastructure to meet future demand FAA 

Establish an effective security system without limiting mobility or 

civil liberties 

Homeland Security 

Conduct research to enable an agile air traffic system that quickly 

responds to shifts in demand 

NASA 

Establish shared situational awareness—where all users share the 

same information 

Defense 

Establish a comprehensive and proactive approach to safety FAA 

Develop environmental protection that allows sustained aviation 

growth 

FAA 

Develop a systemwide capability to reduce weather impacts Commerce 

Harmonize equipage and operations globally FAA 

Source: GAO presentation of JPDO data. 

Vision 100 requires JPDO to coordinate NGATS-related programs across 

the partner agencies. To address this requirement, JPDO conducted an

initial interagency review of its partner agencies’ R&D programs during 

July 2005 to identify work that could support NGATS. Through this 

process, JPDO identified early opportunities that could be pursued during 

fiscal year 2007 to coordinate and minimize the duplication of research 

programs across the partner agencies and produce tangible results for 

NGATS. In addition, JPDO is currently working with the Office of 

Management and Budget to develop a systematic means of reviewing the 

partner agencies’ budget requests, so that the NGATS-related funding in 

each request can easily be identified. Such a process would help the Office

of Management and Budget consider NGATS as a unified federal 

investment, rather then as disparate line items distributed across several 

agencies’ budget requests. 

JPDO’s Integrated 

Plan 

JPDO Efforts to 

Leverage Partner 

Agency Resources 

Page 74 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix IV: Joint Planning and Development 

Office

The challenge of leveraging resources will likely intensify beginning in 

2008, when JPDO expects a significant increase in the workload of its 

integrated product teams. JPDO anticipates needing more resources for 

the teams to, among other things, plan demonstrations of potential 

technologies to illustrate some of the early benefits that could be achieved

from the transformation to NGATS. 

JPDO has structured itself in a way that involves federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders throughout its organization. Vision 100 directed JPDO to 

involve nonfederal stakeholders as it fulfills its mission. Nonfederal 

stakeholders may participate through the NGATS Institute. Through this 

institute, JPDO obtained the participation of over 180 stakeholders from 

over 70 organizations for the integrated product teams. The NGATS 

Institute Management Council, composed of top officials and 

representatives from the aviation community, oversees the policy and

recommendations of the institute and provides a means for advancing

consensus positions on critical NGATS issues. 

JPDO Is Involving 

Nonfederal 

Stakeholders 

As with its federal partner agencies, JPDO has no direct authority over the 

human, technical, or financial resources of its nonfederal stakeholders. To

date, nonfederal stakeholders spend approximately 10–25 percent of their

time, per week, on the integrated project teams; members of the NGATS 

Institute Management Council attend approximately one meeting per 

month. The challenge for JPDO is to maintain the interest and enthusiasm 

of nonfederal stakeholders, who will have to juggle their own multiple 

priorities and resource demands in order to maintain this level of 

participation when some tangible benefits may not be realized for several

years. 

Page 75 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 76 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 77 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix VI: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 78 GAO-06-920 Aerospace Commission
Appendix VII: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 79 GAO-06-920 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

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

In addition to the above individual, Teresa Spisak, Assistant Director; Brad 

Dubbs; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; David Hooper; Heather Krause; Elizabeth 

Marchak; Edmond Menoche; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Faye Morrison; Josh 

Ormond; Tim Schindler; Richard Scott; John W. Stambaugh; Larry Thomas; 

and Dale Yuge made key contributions to this report. 

 Aerospace Commission

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(540107) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER