United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2006 NEXT GENERATION 

AIR TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEM 

Progress and Challenges 

Associated with the 

Transformation of the 

National Airspace 

System 

 

GAO-07-25 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2006

NEXT GENERATION AIR 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Progress and Challenges Associated with 

the Transformation of the National 

Airspace System 

Highlights of GAO-07-25, a report to 

congressional requesters 

In 2003, Congress created the Joint 

Planning and Development Office

(JPDO) to plan for and coordinate, 

with federal and nonfederal

stakeholders, a transformation 

from the current air traffic control 

system to the “next generation air 

transportation system” (NGATS) by

2025. Housed within the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), 

JPDO has seven partner agencies: 

the Departments of Transportation, 

Commerce, Defense, and 

Homeland Security; FAA; the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA); and the 

White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy. FAA will have

primary responsibility for 

implementing NGATS. This report 

addresses (1) the status of JPDO’s 

efforts to plan for NGATS, (2) the 

key challenges facing JPDO, and 

(3) the key challenges facing FAA 

as it implements the

transformation. To address these 

issues, GAO reviewed relevant

documents, interviewed agency 

officials and stakeholders, and 

conducted an expert panel. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that JPDO

institutionalize its practices for 

interagency collaboration and 

assess stakeholder involvement, 

and that FAA assess its needs for 

technical expertise. JPDO and FAA 

commented that they plan to

consider GAO’s recommendations. 

NASA highlighted the impact of its 

refocused aeronautics research.

GAO incorporated the other

agencies’ technical comments as 

appropriate. 

JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordinating with its 

partner agencies and nonfederal stakeholders that is consistent with its 

authorizing legislation and with several practices that GAO’s previous work 

has shown can facilitate federal interagency collaboration. JPDO’s partner 

agencies have agreed on a vision for NGATS and on eight strategies that 

broadly address the goals and objectives of NGATS. JPDO has been 

developing an enterprise architecture (or blueprint) for NGATS and plans to 

use the enterprise architecture and stakeholder input from investment 

analysis workshops to develop a realistic cost estimate for NGATS. 

JPDO faces challenges in institutionalizing its collaborative effort, 

addressing planning and expertise gaps, establishing credibility with 

stakeholders, and harmonizing its work with other countries’ efforts to 

modernize their own air traffic management systems. To date, JPDO has not 

established some practices significant to institutionalizing its collaborative 

process, such as formalizing roles and responsibilities. Such practices are 

important 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. 

FAA, as the key implementer of the transition to NGATS, faces challenges

both in institutionalizing the management reforms that it has made in recent 

years that have contributed to its ability to meet its goals for air traffic 

control system acquisitions and in obtaining the financial and technical 

resources needed to implement NGATS. FAA also faces challenges in finding

ways to reduce costs or realize savings to help fund the costs of transitioning 

to NGATS while continuing to operate and maintain the current system. 

Finally, FAA faces challenges in obtaining the technical and contract 

management expertise needed to define, implement, and integrate the 

numerous complex programs and systems inherent in the transition to 

NGATS. 

Seven Partner Agencies Form the Joint Planning and Development Office 

Source: GAO.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-25.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Gerald L. 

Dillingham, Ph.D., at (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6

JPDO Has Made Progress in Planning for NGATS 7 

JPDO Faces Institutionalization, Planning, Commitment, and 

Interoperability Challenges as It Moves Forward with NGATS 18 

FAA Faces Several Challenges to Its Ability to Successfully 

Implement NGATS 26 

Conclusions 31

Recommendations for Executive Action 32 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 36 

Appendix II Results of Expert Panel Voting 39 

Session Two: Identifying JPDO’s Achievements and Challenges 41 

Session Three: Strategies for Addressing JPDO’s Challenges 44 

Session Four: Global Harmonization and Cooperation 47 

Appendix III SESAR: The European Air Traffic Modernization 

Initiative 51 

Appendix IV Comments from the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 54 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56 

Tables 

Table 1: JPDO’s Strategies and Related IPT Lead Agency 11 

Table 2: Names and Affiliations of Expert Panelists 39 

Table 3: Expert Panel Votes on Top Achievements of JPDO 41 

Table 4: Expert Panel Votes on Top Challenges Facing JPDO 42 

Table 5: Short-term Strategies for JPDO 44 

Table 6: Midterm Strategies for JPDO 46 

Page i GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Table 7: Long-term Strategies for JPDO 47 

Table 8: Importance of JPDO Involvement in Harmonization 

Efforts 48

Table 9: Level of Coordination between Europe and the United 

States 48 

Table 10: Preparation for Success 49 

Figures 

Figure 1: Organization of JPDO 10 

Figure 2: REDAC’s Funding Estimates for FAA under Status Quo 

and NGATS Scenarios, 2006-2025 16 

Abbreviations 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

ATC air traffic control 

ATO Air Traffic Organization

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

IPT integrated product team 

JPDO Joint Planning and Development Office 

LSI lead systems integrator 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NATCA National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

NGATS Next Generation Air Transportation System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSTP White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

REDAC Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 

 Committee 

SESAR Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research 

 Programme 

SWIM System Wide Information Management 

Page ii GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
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-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 13, 2006 

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert 

Chairman 

The Honorable Bart Gordon 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Science 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Ken Calvert 

Chairman 

The Honorable Mark Udall 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

Committee on Science 

House of Representatives 

While the health of the nation’s air transportation system is critical to the 

economy, the current approach to managing air transportation is 

becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally obsolete. In 2003, 

Congress authorized the creation of the Joint Planning and Development 

Office (JPDO) to plan for and coordinate a transition from the nation’s 

current air traffic control system to the “next generation air transportation 

system” (NGATS)—a system intended to safely accommodate a possible 

tripling of air traffic by 2025. NGATS is envisioned as a major redesign of 

the air transportation system that will entail precision satellite navigation; 

digital, networked communications; an integrated weather system; 

layered, adaptive security; and more. Vision 100,1

 the legislation that 

authorized JPDO, requires the office to operate in conjunction with 

multiple government agencies, including the Departments of 

Transportation, Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security; the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA); the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA); and the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. Although JPDO is responsible for planning the 

transformation to NGATS and coordinating the related efforts of its 

partner agencies, FAA will be largely responsible for implementing the 

 1

Pub. L. No. 108-176, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, December 12, 

2003. 

Page 1 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
policies and systems necessary for NGATS, while safely operating the 

current air traffic control system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

In light of the difficulty and importance of the tasks before JPDO and FAA, 

you asked us to review the efforts to organize and plan for NGATS. 

Accordingly, we addressed the following questions: (1) What is the status 

of JPDO’s efforts to plan for NGATS? (2) What key challenges does JPDO 

face in moving forward with its planning efforts? (3) What key challenges

does FAA face as it moves toward implementing NGATS? 

To address the status of JPDO’s efforts to plan for NGATS and the 

challenges that the office faces, we reviewed documents provided by 

JPDO and its partner agencies, including JPDO’s December 2004 

Integrated Plan, its 2005 Progress Report, and July 2006 draft Concept of 

Operations. We interviewed agency officials and stakeholders and 

convened a panel of experts to gather information and perspectives about 

the efforts of JPDO. We assessed the status and challenges of JPDO’s 

framework for facilitating coordination among its partner agencies by 

comparing JPDO’s efforts to date against selected key practices that we 

have reported can enhance and sustain federal collaborative efforts.2

 We 

selected five of eight practices as criteria for this review because they are

significant to building the framework needed for any collaboration and are 

particularly important to JPDO at this early juncture in its collaborative 

efforts. The key practices used for this assessment include defining and

articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint 

strategies, identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources, 

agreeing on roles and responsibilities, and reinforcing agency 

accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports.3

We assessed JPDO’s efforts to obtain the participation of nonfederal 

stakeholders by obtaining the perspectives of nonfederal stakeholders 

involved with JPDO and drawing on our body of work on stakeholder 

involvement. We assessed JPDO’s technical planning efforts for NGATS by 

comparing JPDO’s practices with those that we have found to be effective 

 2

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

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

3

The remaining three practices include establishing compatible policies, procedures, and 

other means to operate across agency boundaries; developing mechanisms to monitor,

evaluate, and report on results; and reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative

efforts through performance management systems.

Page 2 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
in developing enterprise architectures.

4

 One of our senior-level 

technologists also reviewed JPDO’s draft Concept of Operations. We also

obtained information on an estimate of FAA’s future costs under NGATS 

but did not review in detail the methodology or assumptions used to 

develop this estimate. To understand JPDO’s and FAA’s efforts to date on 

global harmonization, we met with European officials and reviewed 

documents related to Europe’s concurrent air transportation 

modernization effort, known as the Single European Sky Air Traffic 

Management Research Programme (SESAR). To determine the challenges

that FAA faces in implementing NGATS, we met with agency officials, 

reviewed documentation related to FAA’s modernization efforts, and drew 

upon our prior work examining FAA’s program to modernize the National 

Airspace System. We conducted our work between July 2005 and 

September 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. See appendix I for a more detailed explanation of our 

scope and methodology. A detailed discussion of the results of our expert 

panel is contained in appendix II. 

JPDO has developed a framework for planning and coordination with its 

partner agencies and nonfederal stakeholders that is consistent with the 

requirements of Vision 100 and with several practices that our previous 

work has shown can facilitate federal interagency collaboration and 

enterprise architecture development. JPDO and its partner agencies have

developed an Integrated Plan and reported on the progress of that plan as 

called for in Vision 100. In working to develop the Integrated Plan, the 

partner agencies agreed on a vision for NGATS and on eight strategies that 

broadly address the goals and objectives of NGATS—actions consistent 

with effective collaborative practices that we have identified. JPDO has 

also established an organizational structure that involves federal and 

nonfederal stakeholders throughout the organization. To leverage human 

resources, JPDO has staffed the various levels of its organization with 

partner agency employees, many of whom work part time for JPDO. To 

leverage technological resources, JPDO has sought to coordinate NGATSrelated programs across the partner agencies. JPDO identified early 

Results in Brief 

 4

An enterprise architecture is a tool, or blueprint, for understanding and planning complex 

systems. JPDO anticipates that the NGATS enterprise architecture will provide the means 

for coordinating among the partner agencies and private sector manufacturers, aligning 

relevant research and development activities, and integrating equipment. See GAO, Federal 

Aviation Administration: Stronger Architecture Program Needed to Guide Systems 

Modernization Efforts, GAO-05-266 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2005).

Page 3 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
opportunities that could be pursued during fiscal year 2007 to minimize 

the duplication of research programs across agencies and to produce 

tangible results for NGATS. JPDO has been developing an enterprise 

architecture (or blueprint)—one of the most critical planning documents 

in the NGATS effort—and has taken several steps consistent with effective 

practices that we have identified for enterprise architecture development. 

JPDO expects the enterprise architecture to provide more clarity 

regarding its expectations for NGATS, thereby facilitating coordination 

among the partner agencies and private sector manufacturers, alignment 

of relevant research and development activities, and integration of 

equipment. The enterprise architecture is also critical to the development 

of realistic cost estimates for NGATS. Without such realistic cost 

estimates, Congress is handicapped in its planning for the funding needs of 

NGATS. To this end, JPDO has also begun working with its stakeholders to 

develop initial cost information through a series of investment analysis 

workshops. Finally, JPDO recognizes the importance of global 

harmonization of air transportation technologies and systems and has 

begun work to ensure that the NGATS effort is harmonized with the 

European SESAR effort and with the efforts of other regions.

JPDO faces challenges in institutionalizing its collaborative effort, 

addressing planning and expertise gaps, establishing credibility with 

stakeholders, and harmonizing its work with other countries’ efforts to 

modernize their own air traffic management systems. JPDO is 

fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over 

the key human and technological resources needed to continue developing 

plans and system requirements for NGATS. To date, JPDO has not 

established some practices significant to institutionalizing the 

collaborative process. For example, JPDO does not have formal, long-term 

agreements among the partner agencies on their roles and responsibilities 

in creating NGATS. JPDO has been working to establish a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with its partner agencies since at least August 2005,

but the MOU had not been signed as of September 2006. JPDO also 

currently lacks explicit policies and procedures for decision making and 

dispute resolution and has not yet completed mechanisms for leveraging

partner agency resources. To its credit, JPDO has been working with the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a means to consider

NGATS-related funding, dispersed across JPDO’s partner agency budget 

requests, as a unified federal program. Nonetheless, given JPDO’s limited 

authority, the office could face challenges in sustaining the lengthy and

elaborate federal collaborative effort set forth by Vision 100 without full 

development of procedures and mechanisms for dispute resolution and 

leveraging of resources. JPDO also faces challenges with some planning

Page 4 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
and expertise gaps. For example, NASA is moving toward a focus on 

fundamental research and away from demonstration projects. Many 

experts told us that this creates a gap in technology development. This 

raises the question of what entity will do the developmental work that will 

be important to NGATS. According to JPDO officials, they are conducting

a gap analysis on the impact of NASA’s actions on NGATS planning. Also

important to NGATS is the involvement of all key stakeholders in the 

planning process, yet some stakeholders, such as active air traffic 

controllers, are not currently involved with JPDO. Our work on past air 

traffic control modernization projects has shown that a lack of 

stakeholder involvement early and throughout a project has been a key 

factor that leads to cost increases and delays. As noted by our expert 

panel, JPDO also faces challenges in establishing credibility among 

stakeholders. For example, some members of our expert panel told us 

that, although JPDO has produced much activity, they did not feel the

effort had demonstrated sufficient progress; some stakeholders told us 

that both the 2004 Integrated Plan and the 2005 Progress Report lacked 

sufficient detail, such as definition of research needs. Finally, JPDO faces 

challenges in achieving global harmonization for NGATS. While FAA and 

the European Commission recently signed an MOU to ensure cooperation

between the aviation modernization programs in the United States and 

Europe, much work remains in carrying out that agreement and in 

addressing harmonization throughout other regions of the world. 

FAA, as the key implementer of the transition to NGATS, faces challenges

both in institutionalizing the management reforms that it has made in 

recent years, which have contributed to its ability to meet its goals for ATC 

acquisitions, and in obtaining the financial and technical resources needed

to implement NGATS. Since 1995, we have designated FAA’s air traffic 

control modernization program as high risk because of systemic 

management and acquisition problems. FAA has recently taken a number

of actions aimed at improving its management practices, including a focus 

on implementing more businesslike management and acquisition 

processes. FAA has also taken steps to institutionalize these 

improvements by ensuring that the reforms are fully integrated into the 

agency’s structure and processes at all levels and have become part of its 

organizational culture. However, transforming organizational cultures 

requires substantial management attention, as it can take several years for 

such initiatives to be fully implemented and cultures transformed in a 

sustainable manner. FAA also faces challenges in finding ways to reduce

costs or realize savings to help fund the costs of transitioning to NGATS 

while continuing to operate and maintain the current system. FAA is 

working to reduce costs by streamlining its operations and could realize 

Page 5 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
savings in operating costs from the implementation of some NGATS 

technologies. Finally, FAA faces challenges in obtaining the expertise 

needed to implement a system as complex as NGATS. Recognizing the 

complexity of the NGATS implementation effort and the possibility that 

FAA may not have the in-house expertise to manage it without assistance, 

we have identified potential approaches for supplementing FAA’s 

capabilities. Approaches include contracting with a lead systems 

integrator or obtaining technical advice from a federally funded research 

and development corporation. FAA has not yet formally explored its 

strengths and weaknesses with regard to the technical expertise and 

contract management expertise that will be required of it to define, 

implement, and integrate the numerous complex programs and systems 

inherent in the transition to NGATS. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Transportation direct JPDO to 

take actions to institutionalize the partner agencies’ collaboration in 

supporting NGATS, including action on an MOU among the partner 

agencies, actions to finalize procedures to leverage partner agency 

resources, and actions to develop procedures for dispute resolution. We 

are also recommending that the Secretary direct JPDO to determine 

whether key stakeholders and expertise are not currently represented in 

JPDO planning efforts. Finally, we are recommending that the Secretary 

direct FAA to undertake a formal exploration of the technical expertise 

and contract management expertise that will be required by FAA to 

implement NGATS. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce, 

Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation; FAA; JPDO; NASA; and 

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for their review

and comment. NASA’s written comments are included as appendix IV. 

NASA agreed with the majority of the report’s content, but highlighted 

specific points about (1) the impact of its recent emphasis on fundamental 

aeronautics, (2) NASA’s role in developing NGATS, and (3) NASA’s fiscal 

year 2007 request for aeronautics research funding. Transportation, FAA, 

JPDO, Homeland Security, and the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy provided technical clarifications and additional information, which 

we incorporated into this report as appropriate. FAA and JPDO neither 

agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but said they would 

consider them. Commerce and Defense had no comments on the draft 

report. 

JPDO began operating in early 2004 and is housed within FAA. JPDO’s 

Director reports to the FAA Administrator and to the FAA Chief Operating Background 

Page 6 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Officer (head of FAA’s Air Traffic Organization [ATO]). The scope of 

JPDO’s effort is broader than that of 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 collaboration 

and consensus among many stakeholders—federal and nonfederal—about 

necessary system capabilities, equipment, procedures, and regulations. 

JPDO has identified roles for each of its partner agencies in the 

transformation to NGATS. For example, the Department of Defense has 

deployed “network centric” systems,5

 originally developed for the 

battlefield, that are being considered as a conceptual framework to 

provide all users of the National Airspace System—FAA and the 

Departments of Defense and Homeland Security—with a common view of 

that system. 

Since its inception, JPDO has focused on establishing an organizational 

framework to carry out the interagency planning mandate contained in 

Vision 100, while ensuring participation of nonfederal stakeholders and 

the general public. JPDO has also reviewed the research projects of its 

partner agencies to identify work that aligns with NGATS’ needs and has 

issued budget guidance to these agencies to highlight the areas where each 

agency could contribute to implementing NGATS. JPDO currently has 

several key NGATS planning documents in various stages of development. 

Many of JPDO’s actions are consistent with practices that our work has 

shown facilitate interagency collaboration—a key factor in the future 

success of NGATS. JPDO is also developing an enterprise architecture—a

key document for NGATS planning—using a phased approach that is 

similar to a process we have advocated for FAA’s major systems 

acquisition programs and anticipates having a first draft in by the end of 

2006. Although a preliminary estimate exists of FAA’s costs to implement 

NGATS, further work is needed to develop a comprehensive 

understanding of NGATS costs. 

JPDO Has Made 

Progress in Planning 

for NGATS 

 5

Network centric systems aim to exploit technical advances in information technology and 

telecommunications to improve situational awareness and the speed of decision making. 

Page 7 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Vision 100 calls for JPDO to develop an integrated plan for NGATS and 

provide annual updates on the progress of that plan. JPDO, with its 

partner agencies, developed an NGATS Integrated Plan and submitted it to 

Congress on December 12, 2004. The plan includes a vision statement for a 

system capable of handling a threefold increase in demand for air 

transportation by 2025. The vision entails providing services tailored to 

individual customer needs, allowing all communities to participate in the 

global economy, and seamlessly integrating civil and military operations. 

The partner agencies also agreed on eight strategies that broadly address 

the goals and objectives for NGATS. In March 2006, JPDO published its 

first report to Congress on the progress made in carrying out the NGATS 

Integrated Plan. 

In addition to complying with Vision 100’s mandate, developing an 

integrated plan is consistent with effective collaborative practices we have

identified.6

 According to our research on federal interagency

collaborations, 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 partner agencies

have a diverse set of missions, ranging from national defense to the 

promotion of commerce. Yet each has some involvement in the air 

transportation system and can make a contribution to NGATS. In working 

together to develop JPDO’s Integrated Plan, the partner agencies agreed 

on a vision statement to transform the air transportation system and on 

broad statements of future system goals, performance characteristics, and 

operational concepts. 

Vision 100 includes requirements for JPDO to coordinate and consult with 

its partner agencies, private sector experts, and the public. JPDO’s 

approach has been to establish an organizational structure that involves 

federal and nonfederal stakeholders throughout the organization. This 

structure includes a federal interagency senior policy committee, an 

institute for nonfederal stakeholders, and eight integrated product teams 

(IPT) that bring together federal and nonfederal experts to plan for and 

coordinate the development of technologies that will address JPDO’s eight 

broad strategies. 

As Required by Vision 100, 

JPDO Developed an 

Integrated Plan and 

Reported on the Progress 

of That Plan 

JPDO Developed an 

Organization for Involving 

Federal and Nonfederal 

Stakeholders 

 6

GAO-06-15. 

Page 8 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
JPDO’s senior policy committee is headed by the Secretary of

Transportation (as required in Vision 100) and includes senior-level 

officials from JPDO’s partner agencies. It has met three times since its 

inception. The NGATS Institute (the Institute) was created by an 

agreement between the National Center for Advanced Technologies7

 and 

FAA to incorporate the expertise and views of stakeholders from private 

industry, state and local governments, and academia. The NGATS Institute 

Management Council, composed of top officials and representatives from

the aviation community, oversees the policy, recommendations, and 

products of the Institute and provides a means for advancing consensus 

positions on critical NGATS issues. To meet Vision 100’s requirement that 

JPDO coordinate and consult with the public, the Institute held its first 

public meeting in March 2006. The IPTs are headed by representatives of 

JPDO’s partner agencies and include more than 200 nonfederal 

stakeholders from over 100 organizations, whose participation was 

arranged through the Institute. Figure 1 illustrates JPDO’s position within

FAA and the JPDO structures that bring together federal and nonfederal 

stakeholders, including the Institute and the IPTs. 

 7

The National Center for Advanced Technologies is a nonprofit unit within the Aerospace 

Industries Association. 

Page 9 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Figure 1: Organization of JPDO 

Senior Policy Committee

FAA 

Administrator

Executive 

Committee,

Research, 

Engineering and 

Development 

Advisory 

Committee

NGATS

Institute Policy

● Studies

● IPT expert 

participation

● Agile Air Traffic

System 

 (NASA)

● Airport 

 Infrastructure 

 (FAA)

● Aviation

Security

 (DHS)

● Environmental

 Protection 

 (FAA)

● Global 

 Harmonization

 (FAA)

● Shared

Situational

 Awareness

 (DOD)

● Weather

 (DOC)

● Safety

 Management

 (FAA)

● Enterprise 

Architecture 

and 

Engineering

● Portfolio

 Management

● Evaluation and

 Analysis

Chief Engineer NGATS Institute

Executive Director

Partnership 

Management

Business

Management

Interagency 

IPT leads Technical

Division leads

Master IPT

JPDO Board NGATS Institute 

Management Council

JPDO Director

Deputy Director

Source: JPDO.

Air Traffic 

Organization

Department of Transportation (chair)

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Defense

Department of Commerce

The White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy

NASA

Federal Aviation Administration

Note: Department of Commerce = DOC; Department of Defense = DOD; Department of Homeland 

Security = DHS. 

Page 10 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
JPDO’s organizational structure incorporates some of the practices that

we have found to be effective for federal interagency collaborations. For 

example, our work has shown that mutually reinforcing or joint strategies 

can help align partner agencies’ activities, core processes, and resources 

to accomplish a common outcome. Each of the eight IPTs is aligned with 

one of the eight strategies outlined in JPDO’s Integrated Plan, and each is 

headed by a partner agency that has taken the lead on a specific strategy 

(see table 1). Our research has also found that collaborating agencies 

should identify the resources needed to initiate or sustain their 

collaborative effort. To leverage human resources, JPDO has staffed the 

various levels of its organization—including JPDO’s board, the IPTs, and

technical divisions—with partner agency employees, many of whom work 

part time for JPDO. Finally, our work has shown that involving 

stakeholders can, among other things, increase their support for a 

collaborative effort. The Institute provides a method for involving 

nonfederal stakeholders, including the public, in planning NGATS. 

Table 1: JPDO’s Strategies and Related IPT Lead Agencies

Strategy Related IPT Lead Agency 

Develop airport infrastructure to meet future 

demand 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Establish an effective security system 

without limiting mobility or civil liberties 

Department of Homeland Security 

Establish an agile air traffic system that 

quickly responds to shifts in demand 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administrationa

 

Establish shared situational awareness—

where all users share the same information 

Department of Defense 

Establish a comprehensive and proactive 

approach to safety 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Develop environmental protection that allows

sustained aviation growth 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Develop a systemwide capability to reduce 

weather impacts

Department of Commerce 

Harmonize equipage and operations globally Federal Aviation Administration 

Sources: GAO and JPDO. 

a

NASA leads this IPT because it has primary responsibility for conducting the necessary research; 

implementation of the agile air traffic system is the responsibility of FAA. 

JPDO Has Begun to 

Leverage the Resources of 

Its Partner Agencies 

Vision 100 requires JPDO to coordinate NGATS-related programs across 

the partner agencies. To address this requirement, JPDO conducted an

initial review of its partner agencies’ research and development programs 

during July 2005 to identify work that could support NGATS. Through this 

Page 11 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
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. For example, one such opportunity involves aligning aviation 

weather research across FAA, NASA, and the Departments of Commerce 

and Defense, developing a common weather capability, and integrating 

weather information into NGATS decision systems. In addition, FAA’s 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)8

 and System Wide 

Information Management (SWIM)9

 programs were identified as 

opportunities to receive accelerated funding to begin producing tangible

results for NGATS. 

JPDO’s efforts to leverage its partner agencies’ resources for NGATS 

demonstrates another practice important to sustaining collaborations. Our 

work on collaborations has found that collaborating agencies, by assessing 

their relative strengths and limitations, can identify opportunities for 

leveraging each others’ resources and thus obtain benefits that would not 

be available if they were working separately. JPDO’s first interagency

review of its partner agencies’ research and development programs was a

step toward leveraging technological resources for NGATS. 

Consistent with Vision 100, 

JPDO Is Developing an 

Enterprise Architecture 

Vision 100 requires JPDO to create “a multiagency research and 

development roadmap” for the transition to NGATS. To comply with this 

requirement, JPDO has been developing an enterprise architecture—one 

of the most critical planning documents in the NGATS effort. An enterprise 

architecture is akin to blueprints for a building. It is meant to provide a 

common tool for planning and understanding the complex, interrelated 

systems that will make up NGATS. JPDO intends for the enterprise 

architecture to describe FAA’s operation of the current National Airspace 

System, JPDO’s plans for NGATS, and the sequence of steps needed for 

 8

ADS-B is a surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft’s identity, position, velocity,

and intent to other aircraft and to ATC systems on the ground, thereby enabling pilots and 

controllers to have a common picture of airspace and traffic. By providing pilots with a 

display that shows the location of nearby aircraft, the system enables pilots to collaborate

in decision making with controllers, safely allowing reduced aircraft separation and 

thereby increasing capacity within the National Airspace System. 

9

SWIM is expected to help in the transition to network centric operations by providing the 

infrastructure and associated policies and standards to enable information sharing among 

all authorized system users, such as the airlines, civilian government agencies, and the

military. 

Page 12 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
the transformation to NGATS. JPDO expects the enterprise architecture to

provide more clarity regarding its expectations for NGATS, thereby 

facilitating coordination among the partner agencies and private sector 

manufacturers, the alignment of relevant research and development 

activities, and the integration of equipment. Many of JPDO’s future 

activities will depend on the robustness and timeliness of this architecture 

development. 

JPDO has taken several important steps to work toward the development 

of a mature enterprise architecture.10 For example, JPDO has drafted a 

Concept of Operations—a higher-level document that describes how 

NGATS will operate in 2025.11 JPDO has used this document to identify key 

research and policy issues for NGATS, such as those associated with 

automating the air traffic control (ATC) system, including the need for a

backup plan in case automation fails, the responsibilities and liabilities of 

different stakeholders during an automation failure, and the level of 

monitoring needed by pilots when automation is ensuring safe separation

between aircraft. JPDO officials are currently incorporating stakeholders’ 

comments into the Concept of Operations. 

Another step that JPDO has taken to develop the enterprise architecture is

to form an Enterprise Architecture and Engineering Division. JPDO has 

established and filled a chief architect position and established an NGATS 

Architecture Council composed of representatives from each partner 

agency’s chief architect office. This type of organizational structure is 

consistent with effective practices that we have identified in enterprise 

architecture development. Similarly, JPDO has established an Evaluation

and Analysis Division that is assembling a suite of models to help JPDO 

refine its plans for NGATS and iteratively narrow the range of potential 

solutions. For example, the division has used modeling to begin studying 

 10We have developed an Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework. This 

framework outlines steps toward achieving a stable and mature process for managing the

development, maintenance, and implementation of enterprise architectures. See GAO, 

Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise

Architecture Management (Version 1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2003). 

11According to standards of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

(IEEE), a Concept of Operations is a user-oriented document that describes the 

characteristics of a proposed system from the user’s viewpoint. Among other things, the

key elements that should be included in a Concept of Operations are major system 

components, interfaces to external systems, and performance characteristics such as speed 

and capacity. 

Page 13 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
how possible changes in the duties of some key personnel could affect the 

workload and performance of others.

To develop and refine the enterprise architecture for NGATS, JPDO plans 

to follow a phased, “build a little, test a little” approach. This approach is

similar to a process we have advocated for FAA’s major system acquisition 

programs. While JPDO expects the first draft of its enterprise architecture

to be issued by the end of this calendar year, officials anticipate that it will

be further refined based on stakeholder comments. This phased approach

will also allow JPDO to incorporate evolving market forces and 

technologies into its architecture and thus better manage change. 

The Existing Cost Estimate 

for NGATS Is Incomplete 

Understanding the costs involved in the transition to NGATS is critical to 

the NGATS planning effort, yet no comprehensive estimation of these 

costs has been developed. This cost information is particularly important 

to Congress, which will have the authority to make NGATS funding 

decisions. To begin estimating NGATS costs, JPDO is holding a series of 

investment analysis workshops with stakeholders. Representatives from 

commercial and business aviation, equipment manufacturers, and ATC 

systems developers attended the first workshop, held in April 2006. The 

second workshop, held in August 2006, was for those involved with 

general aviation and public safety operations. JPDO plans to invite 

representatives from airports and regional, state, and local planning bodies 

to the third workshop. According to JPDO, participants in these 

workshops are asked to discuss and comment on the appropriateness of 

JPDO’s current assumptions about factors that drive private sector costs. 

Although JPDO expects that these workshops will provide information to 

be used in developing a range of potential costs for NGATS, an enterprise 

architecture is needed to further define and better understand how a 

number of factors will drive NGATS costs. One of these drivers is the 

decision about which technologies to include in NGATS. Some of these 

technologies are more complex and thus more expensive to implement 

than others. A second driver is the sequence for replacing current 

technologies with NGATS technologies. A third driver is the length of time 

required for the transformation to NGATS, since, according to JPDO, a 

longer period would impose higher costs. JPDO’s first draft of its 

enterprise architecture could reduce some of these variables, thereby 

allowing improved estimates of NGATS’ costs. 

While JPDO is beginning to explore the issue of cost estimates for NGATS, 

an advisory committee to FAA—the Research, Engineering and 

Page 14 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Development Advisory Committee (REDAC)—has developed a limited, 

preliminary cost estimate, which officials have emphasized is not yet 

endorsed by any agency.12 REDAC estimated that FAA’s budget under an 

NGATS scenario would average about $15 billion per year through 2025, or

about $1 billion more annually (in today’s dollars) than FAA’s fiscal year 

2006 appropriation. REDAC estimated that the cost for a status quo 

scenario (i.e., no NGATS) would also be about $15 billion per year through 

2025.

13 These estimates came out roughly equal, on average, because future

FAA spending would be higher under NGATS than the status quo scenario

in the early years but lower than under the status quo toward 2025 (see fig. 

2). This relationship is due primarily to the expectation that, under the 

NGATS scenario, capital expenditures would be higher than under the 

status quo scenario in the near term, but operations costs would be lower 

because of productivity improvements in the longer term. Moreover, the 

NGATS cost estimate assumes that capital costs decrease sharply toward 

2025. Officials who developed this estimate explained that the estimate 

treats NGATS as an isolated event. In reality, these officials acknowledge 

that planning for the subsequent “next generation” system will likely be

under way as 2025 approaches, and the actual modernization costs could,

therefore, be higher in this time frame than the estimate indicates. 

 12In developing its estimate, REDAC used FAA’s projected facilities and equipment costs 

under an NGATS scenario, as well as REDAC’s own estimates for the costs of operations;

research, engineering, and development; and airport improvements—the remaining three

components of FAA’s appropriation. 

13In this report, we describe REDAC’s “base case” scenarios, which assumed that FAA’s

operations costs would increase between 2006 and 2010 but then remain constant through 

2025 (except for inflation), as productivity increases offset the higher cost of increased 

demand. REDAC also developed estimates for lower-cost “best case” and higher-cost 

“worst case” scenarios using differing assumptions of productivity gains. 

Page 15 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Figure 2: REDAC’s Funding Estimates for FAA under Status Quo and NGATS

Scenarios, 2006-2025 

0

5

10

15

20

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

Dollars in billions

Sources: GAO and REDAC.

Year

Status quo

NGATS

Note: Estimated costs shown in constant 2005 dollars. 

In addition, this estimate should be viewed within the context of a number 

of factors. First, REDAC does not believe that maintaining the status quo is

a viable option because it would provide insufficient capacity to meet 

projected future demand. REDAC stated that it presented the status quo 

option “for analytical purposes only since the current approach to air 

traffic control and management in use in the United States cannot be 

scaled up to handle the projected growth in traffic.” In fact, JPDO has 

estimated the annual economic cost of not meeting future demand; by 

2020, JPDO estimates this cost at $40 billion per year. Second, the REDAC 

estimate does not include the costs of the intermediate technology 

development work, performed to date by NASA. As discussed later in this

report, it is currently unclear which entities will perform this work. 

Last, and most important, this estimate was developed before JPDO 

completed important planning documents and does not include estimates 

of the other partner agencies’ costs of implementing NGATS. An early 

Page 16 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
version of JPDO’s Concept of Operations for NGATS was released for 

stakeholder comment only this past July, and the initial draft of the 

enterprise architecture has yet to be released. Both of these documents 

will have to be synchronized with JPDO’s Operational Improvement 

Roadmaps, which will describe the timing of the implementation of 

various NGATS systems. The draft Concept of Operations states that 

several topics, including safety management and regulation, will be 

addressed in later iterations of the document. Similarly, JPDO plans to 

first release a version of the enterprise architecture that addresses only 

the “block to block”—that is, the air traffic management—aspects of 

NGATS. A “curb to curb” enterprise architecture, which would include 

security, is not expected until around the middle of 2007. Thus, REDAC’s 

estimate does not include the other partner agencies’ costs to implement 

NGATS, such as those that the Department of Homeland Security might 

incur to develop and implement new security technologies. In addition to 

including partner agency costs in the estimate, other costs, such as those 

for training of personnel in new technologies, must be further explored. 

JPDO Recognizes the 

Importance of Global 

Harmonization and Has 

Begun Harmonization 

Activities

Concurrent with JPDO’s efforts, the European Commission is conducting a 

project, known as SESAR, to harmonize and modernize the European air 

traffic management system. The project is overseen by the European 

Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol). Eurocontrol 

has contracted out the work of SESAR to a 30-member consortium of 

airlines, air navigation service providers, airports, manufacturers, and 

others. See appendix III for a more detailed description of SESAR. 

American and European aviation officials have recognized the importance 

of harmonization—that is, of adopting equivalent performance standards 

and technologies that will make their equipment interoperable. Vision 100 

calls for NGATS to enable seamless global operations, and JPDO officials 

have acknowledged that different and incompatible standards and 

technologies, if implemented, could have a major adverse impact on 

airlines that serve international markets. In working toward 

harmonization, personnel exchanges between Europe and the United 

States have begun, and FAA is a member of a group that advises the 

industry consortium that manages SESAR under a preexisting MOU 

between Eurocontrol and FAA. In addition, FAA and the European 

Commission signed another MOU in July 2006 to establish a framework for 

ensuring cooperation in working toward a more common global air traffic 

management system. 

Page 17 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
JPDO faces a challenge in institutionalizing the interagency collaborative 

process with its partner agencies. Some planning and expertise gaps exist, 

including technology development, human factors research, and the 

participation of key stakeholders. JPDO faces challenges in convincing

stakeholders of the credibility of its effort and of the government’s 

commitment to the NGATS effort. JPDO also faces challenges related to 

harmonizing NGATS with modernization efforts taking place in other 

countries. 

Although JPDO’s legislation, Integrated Plan, and established governance 

structure provide the framework for collaborating among multiple federal

agencies, JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating body that 

lacks authority over the key human and technological resources needed to

continue developing plans and system requirements for NGATS. 

Consequently, institutionalizing the collaborative process with its partner 

agencies will be critical to JPDO’s ability to leverage the necessary funding 

for developing NGATS. Institutionalizing the collaborative process means 

that, as administrations and staffing within JPDO change over the years, 

those coming into JPDO will have a clear understanding of what is 

expected of them and of the time and resource commitments entailed. 

JPDO Faces 

Institutionalization, 

Planning, 

Commitment, and 

Interoperability 

Challenges as It 

Moves Forward with 

NGATS 

Institutionalizing the 

Collaborative Process 

Poses a Challenge for 

JPDO 

To date, JPDO has not established practices significant to institutionalizing 

the collaborative process. For example, our work on effective 

collaboration practices has shown that collaborating agencies should 

work together to define and agree on their respective roles and 

responsibilities. At a fundamental level, JPDO does not have formal, longterm agreements among the partner agencies on their roles and 

responsibilities in creating NGATS. Additionally, some stakeholders with

whom we spoke noted that several IPTs are still struggling to define their 

roles and responsibilities in developing NGATS. Presently, there is no 

mechanism that assures that the partner agencies’ commitment will 

continue over the 20-year time frame of NGATS or that ensures 

accountability to JPDO. According to JPDO officials, they are working to 

establish an MOU, signed by the Secretary or other high-ranking official

from each partner agency, which will broadly define the partner agencies’ 

roles and responsibilities. However, JPDO first informed us of the 

development of the MOU in August 2005 and, as of September 2006, the 

MOU had not been finalized. 

Page 18 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Defining roles and responsibilities is particularly important between JPDO 

and FAA’s ATO, since both organizations have responsibilities related to 

planning national airspace system modernization. ATO has primary 

responsibility for the ATC system’s current and near-term modernization, 

while JPDO has responsibility for planning and coordinating a 

transformation to NGATS over the next 20 years. Some stakeholders have

expressed concern that the relationship between JPDO’s and ATO’s efforts 

is not clear. Some of our expert panelists felt that a “gap” plan should be 

developed to identify areas that might fall between ATO’s efforts to 

maintain the current system and JPDO’s plans for the future. According to

JPDO and ATO officials, the roles and responsibilities of each office are 

currently being worked out.14 ATO now plans to expand its Operational 

Evolution Plan—to be renamed the Operational Evolution Partnership—so 

that it applies FAA-wide and represents FAA’s piece of JPDO’s overall 

NGATS plan.15 In essence, ATO intends for the Operational Evolution 

Partnership to become FAA’s implementation plan for NGATS. Without 

continued focus on clarifying and institutionalizing the relationship 

between ATO and JPDO, it is more difficult to ensure continued progress 

toward NGATS, particularly with the FAA Administrator’s and ATO Chief 

Operating Officer’s terms ending within the next 2 years. 

In addition to not having clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of 

the various federal and nonfederal participants, JPDO also currently lacks

explicit policies and procedures for decision making and dispute 

resolution. Our collaboration work shows that in defining and agreeing on

roles and responsibilities, the collaborating agencies should also establish 

how the collaborative effort will be led; this establishment of leadership 

facilitates decision making for the collaboration. According to JPDO 

officials, the senior policy committee makes decisions through consensus 

of the members. If there are any issues that the committee cannot resolve 

among themselves, JPDO officials said that they would expect that the 

Secretary of Transportation would elevate those issues to the appropriate 

White House-level policy council, such as the Domestic Policy Council. 

However, without documented policies or procedures on the decision 

 14The FAA order establishing JPDO directs JPDO to, among other things, report to ATO’s

Chief Operating Officer for day-to-day management oversight and integration into the

National Airspace System. 

15Currently, FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan monitors how NAS capacity will change over

a rolling 10-year planning horizon depending on numerous variables, such as the demand 

for air travel, the completion of new runways, and the availability of new ATC systems. It 

has also focused on the building capacity at 35 large hub airports.

Page 19 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
making and dispute resolution processes for the senior policy committee 

and the JPDO board, there is no clear understanding of the process and no

institutionalized approach to carry forward as members of the senior 

policy committee and board change over time. 

Another mechanism for institutionalizing the collaborative process is to 

use the agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans as tools to 

establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving results. Based 

on our assessment of the partner agencies’ strategic plans, we found that 

only the Department of Transportation, NASA, and FAA have incorporated

NGATS goals into their strategic plans. Thus, more opportunities may exist 

for integrating NGATS goals into the partner agencies’ plans and budgets. 

One example of such integration is NASA’s current reauthorization act, 

which requires the agency to align its aviation research projects to directly

support NGATS goals. NASA has now focused one of its research 

programs specifically on the needs of NGATS and JPDO. 

Finally, JPDO has not completed mechanisms for leveraging partner 

agency resources—an important practice for sustaining collaborations and 

an issue that JPDO officials view as one of their greatest challenges. JPDO 

has been working with OMB to develop a process for identifying “NGATSrelated projects” across the various agencies. This process would allow 

OMB to consider NGATS-related projects as a unified program going 

forward and to make funding decisions accordingly. According to JPDO 

officials, leveraging efforts have worked well so far, but JPDO’s need for 

resources and expertise will increase with the development of NGATS. 

One expert with whom we spoke noted that the real heavy lifting for JPDO 

was still ahead because developing a step-by-step, detailed implementation

plan will be much more resource intensive than the development of the 

vision for NGATS has been to date. Also, JPDO could face difficulties in 

securing needed agency resources if the priorities of the partner agencies 

change over time, as all of the JPDO partner agencies have a variety of 

missions and priorities in addition to NGATS. For example, according to 

the President’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget and NASA’s current 

plans, space exploration activities, including research and development, 

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 within 

NASA is projected to decline through at least fiscal year 2011. 

Page 20 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
In the early stages of JPDO’s efforts, gaps in planning and expertise have 

emerged. JPDO may face challenges in addressing these gaps because of 

its lack of authority over partner agencies’ resources and expertise. 

Our analysis of NASA’s aeronautics research budget shows a 30 percent 

decline, in constant 2005 dollars, from 2005 to 2011. To its credit, given 

the reduced resources available for aeronautics, NASA plans to address 

the research and development needs of NGATS. However, NASA is also 

moving toward a focus on fundamental aeronautical research16 and away 

from demonstration projects.17 Many experts told us that NASA’s new 

focus on fundamental research creates a gap in the technology 

development continuum.18 As we have reported, NASA’s current plans 

might leave technologies too underdeveloped for easy transfer to industry 

and raises the question of what entity will do this developmental work.19

Some believe that FAA has neither the research and development 

infrastructure nor the funding to do this work. According to a draft report 

by REDAC, FAA would need at least $100 million annually in increased 

funding to perform this research and development work, and establishing 

the necessary infrastructure within FAA could delay the implementation of 

NGATS by 5 years. According to JPDO officials, they are conducting a gap 

analysis on the impact of NASA’s actions on NGATS planning. We believe 

that such an analysis, as well as finding a solution if needed, are critically

important steps. 

Addressing human factors issues is another key challenge for JPDO. For 

example, NGATS Concept of Operations envisions an increased reliance

JPDO Faces Challenges in 

Addressing Planning and 

Expertise Gaps 

Technology Development and 

Technology Transfer 

Human Factors Research 

 16NASA defines fundamental research as that research that includes continued, long-term

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

and computational techniques that leads to a furthering of understanding of the underlying 

principles that form the foundation of the core aeronautics disciplines, as well as that 

research that integrates the knowledge gained in these core areas to significantly enhance

capabilities, tools, and technologies at the disciplinary (e.g., aerodynamics, combustion, 

dynamics and control, acoustics) and multidisciplinary (e.g., engine design, airframe 

design) level. 

17NASA noted that it will still conduct flight test experiments across most of the projects in 

its portfolio.

18In focusing on fundamental research, NASA does not plan to develop new technologies to

the same level of maturity as in the past. 

19GAO, U.S. Aerospace Industry: Progress in Implementing Aerospace Commission 

Recommendations, and Remaining Challenges, GAO-06-920 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13,

2006). 

Page 21 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
on automation, which raises questions about the role of the air traffic 

controller in such an automated system. Similarly, the Concept of 

Operations envisions that pilots will take on a greater share of the 

responsibility for maintaining safe separation and other tasks currently 

performed by controllers. This raises human factors questions about 

whether pilots can safely perform these additional duties. Although JPDO 

has begun to model how shifts in air traffic controllers’ workloads would 

affect their performance, it has not yet begun to model the effect of how 

this shift in workload to pilots would affect pilot performance. According 

to a JPDO official, modeling the effect of changes in pilot workload has 

not yet begun because JPDO has not yet identified a suitable model for 

incorporation into its suite of modeling tools. According to JPDO, the 

change in the roles of pilots and controllers is the most important human 

factors issue involved in creating NGATS but will be difficult to research 

because data on pilot behavior are not readily available for use in creating 

models. In addition to the study of changing roles, JPDO has not yet 

studied the training implications of various systems or solutions proposed 

for NGATS. For example, JPDO officials said they will be able to study the 

extent to which new air traffic controllers will have to be trained to 

operate both the old and the new equipment as the Concept of Operations 

and enterprise architecture mature. 

Some stakeholders, such as current air traffic controllers, will play key 

roles in NGATS but are not currently involved in the NGATS planning 

effort. JPDO officials believe that they have sufficient expertise involved in

the NGATS effort at this time because some participants have prior 

experience as air traffic controllers. However, one stakeholder with whom 

we spoke said that controllers need to be part of the NGATS effort now 

because their expertise extends beyond equipment configuration to issues 

involving the NGATS vision and Concept of Operations. Similarly, a 

member of our expert panel expressed concern that planning for NGATS 

would be unsuccessful without controller participation. The input of 

current air traffic controllers who have recent experience controlling 

aircraft is important in considering human factors and safety issues 

because of the controllers’ familiarity with existing operating conditions. 

Our work on past air traffic control modernization projects has shown that 

a lack of stakeholder or expert involvement early and throughout a project 

can lead to cost increases and delays. 

Absence of Key Stakeholder 

Involvement 

The air traffic controllers’ labor union, the National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association (NATCA), has not participated in NGATS since June 2005 

when FAA terminated a labor liaison program that assigned air traffic 

controllers to major system acquisition program offices and to JPDO. FAA 

Page 22 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
had determined that the benefits of the program were not great enough to

justify its cost. Nonetheless, several stakeholders who serve on the 

Institute Management Council and the IPTs said they were concerned 

about the lack of air traffic controller involvement with JPDO. The NGATS 

Institute Management Council includes a seat for the union, but a NATCA 

official told us that the union’s head had been unable to attend the 

council’s meetings. According to JPDO officials, the council has left a seat

open in hopes that the controllers will participate in NGATS as the new 

labor-management agreement between NATCA and FAA is implemented. 

Additionally, an official with the Institute noted that the council plans to 

reach out to the air traffic controllers in an attempt to obtain their future 

participation. 

Establishing Credibility 

with Stakeholders That the 

Government Is Fully 

Committed to NGATS 

Presents a Challenge 

Establishing credibility was viewed by the majority of our expert panelists

as the primary challenge facing JPDO. This view partially stems from past 

experiences where the government has stopped some modernization 

efforts after industry invested in supporting technologies. For example, 

FAA developed a datalink communications system that transmitted 

scripted e-mail-like messages between controllers and pilots. One airline 

invested in this technology by equipping some of its aircraft, but because 

of funding cuts, among other things, FAA canceled the program. We have 

also reported that some aviation stakeholders have expressed concern 

that FAA may not follow through with its airspace redesign efforts and are 

hesitant to invest in equipment unless they are sure that FAA will remain 

committed to its efforts.20 One expert suggested that the government might 

mitigate this issue by making an initial investment in a specific technology 

before requesting that airlines or other industry stakeholders purchase 

equipment. 

Stakeholders’ belief that the government is fully committed to NGATS will

be important as efforts to implement NGATS technologies move forward. 

Achieving many of the benefits of NGATS will require actions by FAA as 

well as by users of the system—airlines and general aviation. For example, 

JPDO has identified ADS-B as a new air traffic surveillance system that 

will be critical to NGATS. ADS-B would replace many existing radars that 

track aircraft location and speed with less costly ground-based 

 20GAO, National Airspace System: Transformation will Require Cultural Change, 

Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available Management Tools, GAO-06-154 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2005). 

Page 23 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
transceivers. FAA views ADS-B as a cornerstone technology for NGATS 

that will increase NAS capacity, efficiency, and safety. However, to 

achieve the full benefits of ADS-B, FAA must develop policies and 

regulations and install the ground infrastructure to support ADS-B, while 

users of the system must install ADS-B-compatible equipment on their 

aircraft. 

FAA has developed plans for implementing ADS-B over the next 15 to 20 

years. FAA plans to award a contract for acquiring the ground 

infrastructure for ADS-B in July 2007 and is developing an ADS-B 

rulemaking, scheduled for issuance in 2009. FAA’s initial deployment plans 

focus on areas of the nation that do not have radar surveillance, such as 

the Gulf of Mexico. During this initial deployment, FAA plans to further 

develop ADS-B interfaces with its existing ATC systems. According to 

FAA, the agency is also working with national and international 

organizations to ensure that the concerns of the aviation community are 

recognized and addressed. FAA plans to deploy ADS-B nationwide by 

2013. 

However, full utilization of ADS-B depends not only on government 

efforts, but also involves decisions by nonfederal stakeholders about what 

equipment to purchase and the timing of such purchases. With ADS-B for 

example, an official of RTCA’s ADS-B working group noted that the cost 

and expected benefits of equipping aircraft to take full advantage of ADS-B 

is a key issue for users of the system.21 On the cost side, the expert said 

that equipping existing aircraft to communicate with the ground stations 

may not be cost prohibitive for regional and large commercial airlines, but 

equipping these aircraft to be able to utilize ADS-B’s full capabilities could 

require cost prohibitive modifications. Consequently, the expert noted that 

carriers plan to install equipment to utilize ADS-B’s full capabilities only as 

they order new aircraft. He also said that carriers could have fullcapability ADS-B installed on new aircraft that they are ordering now, 

except that specifications do not yet exist. Concerning the benefits of 

equipping aircraft to fully utilize ADS-B, the expert noted that the extent of 

 21Organized in 1935 and once called the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, 

RTCA is today known just by its acronym. RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that

develops consensus-based performance standards for ATC systems. RTCA serves as a 

federal advisory committee, and its recommendations are the basis for a number of FAA’s 

policy, program, and regulatory decisions. RTCA includes an ADS-B working group within 

its air traffic management advisory committee. The ADS-B Working Group includes 

representatives of air transport, avionics manufacturers, business aviation, Department of

Defense, and general aviation. 

Page 24 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
some of these benefits are dependent on FAA decisions that have not yet 

been made, such as whether FAA will grant responsibility to pilots for 

maintaining safe separation distances and what technologies will provide a 

backup system for ADS-B. The expert believed that some air carriers were 

hesitant on ADS-B due to concerns that FAA might not follow through 

with deployment of full ADS-B capabilities. 

Credibility of JPDO’s efforts could also be impacted by perceptions 

regarding the progress of NGATS planning efforts. For example, some 

members of our expert panel told us that, although JPDO has produced 

much activity, they did not feel the effort had demonstrated sufficient 

progress. Some stakeholders we spoke with felt the Integrated Plan and 

Progress Report have not contained detailed implementation plans or 

interim milestones. According to one stakeholder, JPDO’s 2005 Progress 

Report lacked information related to the evolution of an implementation 

plan, definition of research needs, and some discussion of relative costs 

and funding for NGATS, or a definitive plan to produce these vital pieces 

of information. While JPDO officials recognize that some stakeholders 

have been critical of JPDO’s progress to date, these officials believe that 

given JPDO’s mission—to involve partner agencies and nonfederal 

stakeholders—progress will happen at a more measured pace. 

Our own technical expert in enterprise architecture examined JPDO’s 

draft Concept of Operations and determined that it does not yet include 

key elements such as scenarios illustrating NGATS operations; a summary 

of NGATS’ operational impact on users and other stakeholders; and an 

analysis of the benefits, alternatives, and trade-offs that were considered 

for NGATS.22 According to our technical expert, the draft Concept of 

Operations lacks an overall description that ties together the five areas—

air navigation service operations, flight operations, network centric 

infrastructure services, shared situational awareness services, and security

management services—that the draft document covers. Our expert 

believes that the five areas are currently disjointed and that the document 

only provides some details for one area—the air navigation service 

operations. As noted earlier, JPDO officials are currently incorporating 

stakeholder comments into the draft Concept of Operations and will 

release another version.

 22Our senior level technologist reviewed JPDO’s Concept of Operations for the Next

Generation Air Transportation System, version 0.2, dated July 24, 2006, by comparing it 

with the IEEE Standard 1362-1998 for concept of operations documents. 

Page 25 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Vision 100 calls for harmonization activities and some progress has been 

made in facilitating harmonization, although challenges remain in creating 

modernized systems that are globally interoperable. FAA and the 

European Commission signed an MOU in July 2006 to ensure coordination

between the aviation modernization programs in Europe and the United 

States. According to the MOU, FAA and the European Commission intend 

to explore and discuss opportunities for implementing common or 

interoperable technologies and synchronizing time lines in the 

development of regulations, standards, procedures, research and 

development, and other activities to be agreed upon later. The MOU 

provides broadly for these activities to be accomplished through 

information exchanges, coordination of studies, and participation in 

working groups and consultative bodies. JPDO is currently working with 

the European Commission to plan regular technical interchange meetings

to conduct peer reviews of NGATS and SESAR developments. Two of 

these meetings are tentatively planned for fiscal year 2007, according to 

JPDO officials. 

JPDO’s Global Harmonization IPT (led by FAA) is planning cooperative 

activities and has made some progress, although the IPT is still early in its

planning activity. The Global Harmonization IPT, whose mission is to 

harmonize equipment and operations globally and to advocate the 

adoption of U.S.-preferred transformation concepts, technologies, 

procedures, and standards, is led by managers from ATO’s Operations 

Planning Services International and FAA’s Office of International Aviation. 

The IPT finalized its charter in March 2006 and is working to develop an 

international strategy and outreach plan. As part of this effort, JPDO and 

FAA officials have met with officials from various parts of the world—

including Europe, Canada, China, Japan, and Mexico—to assess the 

potential for cooperative NGATS demonstrations. JPDO officials noted 

that there are working visits and ongoing negotiations with China and 

Japan on MOUs, and ADS-B activities in Australia and East Africa. 

Internally, the Global Harmonization IPT also plans to raise awareness of 

harmonization issues within the other IPTs as they consider performance 

requirements for NGATS. 

Institutionalizing ATO’s recent improvements in management and 

acquisition processes will be critical to the successful implementation of 

NGATS. FAA will be challenged to fund operation of the current air traffic 

control system while simultaneously funding the implementation of and 

transition to NGATS technologies and systems. FAA will also be 

challenged to obtain the expertise needed to implement a system as 

complex as NGATS. 

JPDO Recognizes the 

Importance of Global 

Harmonization, but 

Challenges Remain 

FAA Faces Several 

Challenges to Its 

Ability to Successfully 

Implement NGATS 

Page 26 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
As the primary entity responsible for implementing NGATS, FAA will need 

to ensure that the management reforms it has recently instituted continue. 

Since 1995, we have designated FAA’s ATC modernization program as high 

risk because of systemic management and acquisition problems. 

Realization of NGATS’s goals could be severely compromised if these 

problems carry over into FAA’s implementation of NGATS, which is an 

even more complex and ambitious undertaking than past ATC 

modernization efforts. 

Institutionalizing Recent 

Improvements in 

Management and 

Acquisition Processes Will 

Be Critical to the 

Successful Implementation 

of NGATS 

FAA has recently taken a number of actions aimed at improving its 

management practices. FAA hired a Chief Operating Officer in 2003 and 

established the performance-based ATO in early 2004 to operate and 

modernize the air traffic control system. Since the establishment of ATO, 

the Chief Operating Officer has been focusing on implementing more 

businesslike management and acquisition processes to address the cost, 

schedule, and performance shortfalls that have plagued ATC 

modernization over the years. Under the new structure, FAA is a flatter 

organization, with fewer management layers, and managers are in closer 

contact with the services they deliver. FAA has also taken some steps to 

break down the vertical lines of authority, or organizational stovepipes, 

that we found hindered communication and coordination across FAA. To 

increase accountability, FAA has established a cost accounting system and 

made the units that deliver services within each department responsible 

for managing their own costs. In addition, managers are evaluated and

rewarded according to how well they hold their costs within established 

targets.23

Finally, FAA is revising its acquisition processes, as we recommended,24

and is taking steps to improve oversight, operational efficiency, and cost 

control. To ensure executive-level oversight of all key decisions, FAA has 

revised its Acquisition Management System to incorporate key decision 

points in a knowledge-based product development process. Moreover, as 

we have reported,25 an executive council now reviews major acquisitions 

 23Our work has shown that it is important, when implementing organizational 

transformations, to use a performance management system to assure accountability for 

change. See GAO-03-669. 

24GAO, Air Traffic Control: FAA’s Acquisition Management Has Improved, but Policies

and Oversight Need Strengthening to Help Ensure Results, GAO-05-23 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 12, 2004). 

25GAO-05-23. 

Page 27 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
before they are sent to FAA’s Joint Resources Council.26 To better manage 

cost growth, this executive council also reviews breaches of 5 percent or 

more in a project’s cost, schedule, or performance. FAA has also issued 

guidelines for disclosing the levels of uncertainty and imprecision that are 

inherent in cost estimates for major ATC systems and has begun to base 

funding decisions for system acquisitions on a system’s expected 

contribution to controlling operating costs. 

To its credit, FAA has taken steps to institutionalize these improvements—

that is, provide for their duration beyond the current administration at 

FAA and ATO by ensuring that the reforms are fully integrated into the 

agency’s structure and processes at all levels and have become part of its 

organizational culture. FAA’s strategic plan, titled “Flight Plan 2006–2010,”

contains a strategy to implement corporate systems, policies, programs, 

and tools to build a results-oriented, high-performance workforce. FAA’s 

Human Capital Plan includes a goal to create a results-oriented culture and 

strategies for implementing performance management and compensation 

systems that focus on achieving results. 

FAA has also established a performance goal and begun tracking metrics 

for acquisitions. The goal for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 was to have 80 

percent of its system acquisitions on schedule and within 10 percent of 

budget. The goal gradually increases to 90 percent by fiscal year 2008. The 

increase will make FAA’s acquisition performance goal consistent with 

targets set in the Department of Transportation’s strategic plan and will 

comply with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.27 To date, 

FAA reports that it has been meeting its performance goal. 

Our past work identified FAA’s lack of a constructive acquisition 

workforce culture as a key factor contributing to problems in its ATC 

modernization program. We view FAA’s changes as important steps 

toward institutionalizing a results-oriented culture. Using a performance 

management system to define responsibility and ensure accountability for 

change is a key practice that can help agencies transform their cultures so 

 26The Joint Resources Council is an executive body consisting of associate and assistant 

administrators, acquisition executives, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Information 

Officer, and legal counsel. The council makes corporate-level decisions, including those 

that determine whether an acquisition meets a mission need and should proceed. The

council also approves changes to a program’s baseline, budget submissions, and the 

National Airspace System’s architecture baseline. 

27Pub. L. No. 103-355. 

Page 28 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
that they can be more results oriented, customer focused, and

collaborative. However, transforming organizational cultures requires 

substantial management attention. The experiences of successful 

transformations and change management initiatives in large public and 

private organizations suggest that it can take 5 to 7 years or more until 

such initiatives are fully implemented, and cultures are transformed in a 

sustainable manner. 

Finding Resources to 

Implement NGATS and 

Operate the ATC System 

Poses a Challenge 

The cost of operating and maintaining the current ATC system while 

implementing NGATS will be another important challenge in transitioning 

to NGATS—a system that, as noted, is broader in scope than the current 

ATC system and will require funding for security technologies and 

environmental activities, as well as ATC technologies. Finding 

opportunities to reduce costs or realize savings could mitigate this 

challenge. Implementing the new technologies envisioned in the 

operational concept for NGATS could provide opportunities for reducing 

costs. For example, NGATS envisions more use of satellites for 

surveillance and navigation, which could allow FAA to decommission 

some of its ground-based navigational aids, such as compass locators, 

outer markers, and nondirectional radio beacons. FAA also is working to 

reduce costs by consolidating its administrative activities, currently 

decentralized across its nine regions, into three regions, and anticipates an

annual savings of up to $460 million over the next 10 years. 

Until FAA has completed its estimates of both NGATS costs and cost 

savings that it will be able to achieve between now and 2025, it will not be 

able to determine how far these cost savings will go toward financing 

NGATS. Nonetheless, one expert has preliminarily estimated that FAA’s 

current expected savings through infrastructure and operational 

efficiencies will be well below the amount needed to support NGATS 

capital funding.28 While more information is needed to estimate the amount 

of any shortfall with greater confidence, even the preliminary estimate 

signals the extent of the resource challenge.

 28Aviation Management Associates, Inc., The “No New Money” Scenario for the Next

Generation Air Transportation System (Alexandria, VA: Oct. 1, 2005). 

Page 29 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
A lack of expertise contributed to weaknesses in FAA’s past management 

of ATC modernization projects. Although the personnel flexibilities that 

Congress authorized in 1995 allowed FAA to establish criteria for 

outstanding performance and match industry pay scales for needed 

expertise, industry experts continue to question whether FAA will have 

the technical expertise needed to implement NGATS—a task of 

unprecedented complexity, according to JPDO, FAA, and other aviation

experts. A panel of experts that we convened in 2004 to discuss FAA’s ATC 

modernization program noted that a shortfall in technical expertise was 

the key technical factor affecting modernization.29 The panelists said that 

FAA sometimes lacked the technical proficiency to “scrub” project 

proposals early on for potential problems and to oversee the contractors 

who implemented its modernization projects. 

FAA Faces Challenges in 

Obtaining the Expertise 

Needed to Implement a 

System as Complex as 

NGATS 

The need for expertise also extends to the tasks of contract 

administration. According to a 2005 study by the Merit Systems Protection 

Board,30 at least 50 percent of the government’s contracting officer 

representatives—the government’s technical experts who are responsible 

for developing and managing the technical aspects of contracts—reported 

needing training in areas such as contract law, developing requirements, 

requesting bids, developing bid selection criteria and price determinations, 

and monitoring contractor performance. 

Recognizing the complexity of the NGATS implementation effort and the 

possibility that FAA may not have the in-house expertise to manage it 

without assistance, we have identified potential approaches for 

supplementing FAA’s capabilities. One of these approaches is for FAA to 

contract with a lead systems integrator (LSI). Generally, an LSI is a prime 

contractor that would help to ensure that the discrete systems used in 

NGATS will operate together and whose responsibilities may include 

designing system solutions, developing requirements, and selecting major

system and subsystem contractors. The government has used LSIs before 

for programs that require the integration of multiple complex systems. Our 

research indicates that, although LSIs have certain advantages, such as the 

knowledge, understanding, skills, and ability to integrate functions across 

 29GAO, National Airspace System: Experts’ Views on Improving the U.S. Air Traffic 

Control Modernization Program, GAO-05-333SP (Washington, D.C.: April 2005). 

30U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Contracting Officer Representatives: Managing the 

Government’s Technical Experts to Achieve Positive Contract Outcomes (Washington,

D.C.: December 2005). 

Page 30 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
various systems, their use also entails certain risks. For example, because 

an LSI may have significantly more responsibility than a prime contractor

usually does, careful oversight is necessary to ensure that the

government’s interests are protected and that conflicts of interest are 

avoided. Consequently, selecting, assigning responsibilities to, and 

managing an LSI could pose significant challenges for JPDO and FAA. 

Another approach that we have identified involves obtaining technical 

advice from federally funded research and development corporations to 

help the agency oversee and manage prime contractors. These nonprofit 

corporations are chartered to provide long-term technical advice to 

government agencies in accordance with various statutory and regulatory 

rules to ensure independence and prevent conflicts of interest. FAA 

officials indicated that they are considering these two approaches to help 

address any possible gaps the agency may have in its technical expertise. 

However, FAA has not yet formally explored its strengths and weaknesses 

with regard to the technical expertise and contract management expertise 

that will be required of it to define, implement, and integrate the numerous 

complex programs and systems inherent in the transition to NGATS. 

Transforming the National Airspace System to accommodate what could 

be three times the current demand for air transportation services by 2025, 

providing appropriate security and environmental safeguards, and doing 

these things seamlessly while the current system continues to operate will 

be an enormously complex undertaking. As JPDO notes in its Integrated 

Plan, there has never been a transformation effort similar to this one with 

as many stakeholders and as broad a scope. As JPDO nears the end of its 

third year of operation, it has done a significant amount of work to create 

an organizational structure that facilitates the federal interagency 

collaboration and stakeholder participation that must occur for the office

to be successful in its mission. JPDO has made significant strides in 

meeting its planning and coordination role as set forth by Congress. 

Conclusions 

However, there are some practices important to institutionalizing the 

collaborative process that JPDO has not yet established. These practices 

could improve the office’s chances for long-term success. Clearly defining

roles and responsibilities of all the parties at all the organizational levels is

fundamental to such a large and complex collaborative effort. To date, 

JPDO has established its basic organizational structure but has not yet 

refined the roles and responsibilities within those structures. Particularly 

important will be the ability of JPDO and ATO to define their roles and 

responsibilities and form a collaborative environment for planning and 

Page 31 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
implementing the next generation system. Also important to JPDO’s 

success are establishing mechanisms for dispute resolution, leveraging

resources, and ensuring the involvement of all crucial stakeholders in the 

planning for NGATS. While JPDO has incorporated numerous 

stakeholders from industry, academia, and state and local governments 

into the IPTs, current air traffic controllers represent one important group 

of stakeholders who are not participating at this time. 

Other areas important to NGATS need to evolve further. JPDO has begun

the process of developing cost estimates with the series of workshops that 

it is holding, and these workshops should be very helpful to JPDO in 

obtaining crucial stakeholder input on cost issues. However, much work 

remains before any type of reliable and comprehensive estimates for 

NGATS costs can be expected. Without cost information, Congress is 

handicapped in its efforts to plan accordingly for NGATS. It will be 

important, as the enterprise architecture takes shape, that JPDO expedite

its efforts to provide Congress with credible cost estimates that include

costs for all of the JPDO partner agencies, as well as costs related to 

training, technology development, and demonstration projects. 

Another important area is ensuring global harmonization on systems and 

procedures so that international travel and commerce are not harmed by 

incompatible modernization efforts. The establishment of JPDO’s Global 

Harmonization IPT and the recent signing of the MOU between FAA and 

the European Commission should begin to address the many issues 

involved with harmonization, but it is not yet clear what specifically will 

be done to further international cooperation. Finally, as noted, the 

complexity of the effort to transform the nation’s air transportation system 

is staggering. FAA will be challenged to have in place the technical and

contracting expertise needed to manage the transition to NGATS. 

Because of the importance of the successful planning and implementation

of NGATS and the need for effective collaboration between diverse 

organizations, we are recommending that the Secretary of Transportation 

direct JPDO to take the following five actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• To better institutionalize its practices and expectations for interagency

collaboration and stakeholder involvement, JPDO should finalize and 

present to the Senior Policy Committee for its consideration and action 

the MOU among the partner agencies to define their roles and

responsibilities related to NGATS planning and development. 

Page 32 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
• Clarify the roles and responsibilities between JPDO and ATO in the 

planning, development, and transition from JPDO to FAA for 

implementation of NGATS. 

• Develop written procedures that formalize agreements with OMB 

regarding the leveraging of partner agency resources and the identification 

of NGATS-related programs within agency budgets. 

• Develop written procedures for dispute resolution at all levels of the JPDO 

organization.

• To better ensure the involvement of all key stakeholders in the NGATS 

planning process, determine whether key stakeholders and expertise are 

not represented on JPDO’s integrated product teams, divisions, or 

elsewhere within its organization. For example, JPDO should consider the 

addition of active, subject matter expert air traffic controllers to its 

integrated product teams. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Transportation direct FAA to 

take the following action: 

• Given the technical complexity of the implementation of NGATS and 

FAA’s past experiences, undertake a formal exploration of FAA’s strengths 

and weaknesses with regard to the technical expertise and contract 

management expertise that will be required to define, implement, and 

integrate the numerous complex programs and systems inherent in the 

transition to NGATS. For example, FAA should work to determine 

whether it will need to contract with an LSI, federally-funded not-for-profit 

corporation, or other technical or managerial entity to assist in the 

implementation of NGATS. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce, 

Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation; FAA; JPDO; NASA; and 

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for their review

and comment. NASA provided written comments, which are reprinted in 

appendix IV. Transportation, FAA, JPDO, Homeland Security, and the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy provided technical clarifications 

and additional information, which we incorporated into this report as 

appropriate. FAA and JPDO neither agreed nor disagreed with our 

recommendations, but said they would consider them. Commerce and 

Defense had no comments on the draft report. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 33 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
NASA generally agreed with the report’s contents, but highlighted three 

items that the agency felt were important. First, NASA believes that its 

return to fundamental aeronautics research will be critical to the success 

of NGATS and is uniquely suited to NASA’s core expertise. NASA stated 

that until the enterprise architecture, operational improvement road maps, 

and integrated capability work plans are developed, any assertion of a 

technology development gap is highly speculative and cannot be factually 

substantiated. As our report points out, NASA plans, to its credit, to 

address the research and development needs of NGATS. However, as our 

report also points out, numerous experts and stakeholders with whom we 

spoke believed that NASA’s move toward fundamental research does 

create a technology development gap and that it is unclear at this time 

what entity will do the developmental work for NGATS technologies prior 

to transitioning these technologies to an acquisition program. Our work 

has shown that developing technology to higher levels of maturity help 

avoid cost, schedule, and performance problems later, as systems are 

acquired. For example, we have reported that cost overruns, schedule 

delays, and performance shortfalls occurred in the Department of 

Defense’s weapons acquisitions, in part because the technologies were 

transitioned to acquisitions before they were fully developed. Second, 

NASA noted that, while it leads the Agile Air Traffic System IPT, 

implementation of the system will be the responsibility of FAA. We agree 

and do not intend to suggest in our report that an agency’s leadership of an 

IPT implies that an agency is necessarily responsible for implementation 

of related systems. We modified the text accordingly. Finally, NASA notes 

that the fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget Request and run out for NASA 

aeronautics research projects a relatively flat, not declining, funding 

profile. However, as we have noted in a recent report, when converted into

2005 dollars, NASA’s proposed aeronautics research budget will decrease 

by nearly 30 percent from $906 million in 2005 to $647 million (in 2005 

dollars) in 2011.31

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

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

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

congressional committees and the members of the JPDO Senior Policy 

Committee, JPDO Board, and the JPDO Executive Director. We also will 

 31GAO-06-920. 

Page 34 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
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 or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me on 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 V.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 35 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

We examined (1) the status of the Joint Planning and Development 

Office’s (JPDO) efforts to plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NGATS), (2) the key challenges facing JPDO as it moves forward 

with its planning efforts, and (3) the key challenges facing the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) as it implements the transformation while 

continuing its current operations. 

To determine the status of JPDO’s efforts to plan for NGATS and the 

challenges that the office faces, we discussed JPDO’s plans and products 

with the office’s Director, Deputy Director, division heads, and the leaders 

of each JPDO integrated product team (IPT). We reviewed relevant 

literature and JPDO publications, including JPDO’s December 2004

Integrated Plan, 2005 Progress Report, and draft NGATS Concept of 

Operations. We reviewed previous GAO reports on the National Airspace 

System, air traffic control modernization, and federal interagency 

collaboration. We reviewed the National Academy of Sciences’ 2005 report 

on JPDO entitled “Technology Pathways: Assessing the Integrated Plan for 

a Next Generation Air Transportation System.” We assessed the status and 

challenges of JPDO’s framework for facilitating coordination among its 

partner agencies by comparing JPDO’s efforts to date against selected key

practices that we have reported can enhance and sustain federal 

collaborative efforts.1

 We selected five of eight practices as criteria for this

review because they are significant to building the framework needed for 

any collaboration and are particularly important to JPDO at this early 

juncture in its collaborative efforts. The key practices used for this 

assessment include defining and articulating a common outcome, 

establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, identifying and 

addressing needs by leveraging resources, agreeing on roles and 

responsibilities, and reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative 

efforts through agency plans and reports.2

 We assessed JPDO’s efforts to 

obtain the participation of nonfederal stakeholders by obtaining the 

perspectives of nonfederal stakeholders involved with JPDO and drawing 

on our body of work on stakeholder involvement. We assessed JPDO’s 

technical planning efforts for NGATS by comparing JPDO’s practices with 

those that we have found to be effective in developing enterprise 

 1

GAO-06-15. 

2

The remaining three practices include establishing compatible policies, procedures, and 

other means to operate across agency boundaries; developing mechanisms to monitor,

evaluate, and report on results; and reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative

efforts through performance management systems.

Page 36 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

architectures.

3

 We also obtained the perspectives of nonfederal 

stakeholders whose organizations are represented on the Institute 

Management Council of the NGATS Institute, and interviewed nonfederal 

stakeholders who represent the aviation industry on various IPTs. We met 

with FAA’s Chief Architect to discuss how FAA’s enterprise architecture 

for the National Airspace System would be integrated into that for NGATS, 

as well as cost estimates for NGATS. We also discussed NGATS cost 

estimates with a member of FAA’s Research, Development and 

Engineering Advisory Committee (REDAC) and obtained information on 

REDAC’s estimate of future FAA costs under NGATS. We did not review in

detail the methodology or assumptions that REDAC used to develop this 

estimate. Additionally, we observed two NGATS Investment Analysis 

Workshops—one held with commercial and business aviation 

stakeholders and one held with general aviation stakeholders. One of our 

senior level technologists from our Applied Research and Methods team, 

who has been involved in our past work on enterprise architectures and 

has contributed to our federal guide on enterprise architecture, reviewed

JPDO’s draft Concept of Operations by comparing it with the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard 1362-1998 for 

concept of operations documents.4

 We also conducted a one-day panel of 

aviation experts during which we sought their perspectives on the status 

of JPDO’s planning efforts and the challenges that it faces in planning for 

NGATS. For more detailed information on the expert panel, see appendix 

II. 

Because international harmonization is a key element of NGATS and the

European Union has embarked on a concurrent venture known as the 

Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research Programme 

(SESAR), we obtained information on the plans for SESAR and discussed 

harmonization issues with officials in France, Belgium, and the 

Netherlands. 

To determine the challenges that FAA faces in implementing NGATS, we 

met with the agency’s Chief Operating Officer to discuss how FAA would 

 3

An enterprise architecture is a tool, or blueprint, for understanding and planning complex 

systems. JPDO anticipates that the NGATS enterprise architecture will provide the means 

for coordinating among the partner agencies and private sector manufacturers, aligning 

relevant research and development activities, and integrating equipment. See GAO-05-266. 

4

IEEE is a nonprofit, technical professional association that develops standards for a broad

range of global industries, including the information technology and information assurance 

industries and is a leading source for defining best practices. 

Page 37 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

integrate the many expected components of NGATS into FAA’s 

modernization plans. We also discussed FAA’s implementation plans for 

System Wide Information Management and Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance-Broadcast, two key elements of NGATS, with these programs’ 

respective program management officials and drew upon our work 

examining FAA’s program to modernize the National Airspace System. 

We conducted our work between July 2005 and September 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 38 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

We contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a panel 

of experts and stakeholders. Our panel was held on March 2, 2006, at the 

National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. The panel consisted of 

14 experts from the aviation industry and academia, one of whom served 

as the panel’s moderator. (See table 2.) We worked with the National 

Academy of Sciences to identify and select panelists who were 

knowledgeable about the efforts of the Joint Planning and Development 

Office (JPDO) and could respond to our questions about JPDO’s 

achievements and challenges. The panelists were asked to provide their 

views during several sessions held during the day. 

Table 2: Names and Affiliations of Expert Panelists

Name Affiliation

Ronald R. Fogleman (moderator) Principal, Durango Aerospace, Inc.; Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force (retired)

Langhorne Bond President, International Loran Association; Federal Aviation Adminiatration (FAA) 

Administrator (retired) 

Carol Carmody Director of Transportation Initiatives, The National Academy of Public Administration 

Jerald M. Davis President, Foxfire Inc.; FAA (retired) 

Soeren Fischer Vice President Strategy & Communication, Air Traffic Alliance 

Mark Hansen Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of CaliforniaBerkeley 

John B. Hayhurst Senior Vice President, The Boeing Company (retired) 

Richard E. Heinrich Director, Strategic Initiatives, Commercial Systems, Rockwell Collins, Inc. 

Bill Jeffers Senior Director, FAA Programs, ARINC; FAA (retired) 

Richard Marchi Senior Advisor, Airports Council International–North America 

Amy R. Pritchett David S. Lewis Associate Professor of Cognitive Engineering, School of Aerospace 

Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dorothy Robyn The Brattle Group, Inc. 

William F. Wangerien Vice President, Operations, Planning, and Reliability Control, Delta Airlines, Inc. (retired) 

Christopher Wickens Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Sources: GAO and National Academy of Sciences. 

Following a welcome and introductions, the panel moved into the four 

sessions, as follows: 

• Session One: Overview of JPDO. In this session, the Chief Operating 

Officer of FAA and the Acting Deputy Director of JPDO each gave a 

presentation and answered questions from the panelists. The Chief 

Operating Officer discussed the challenges of running a complex air traffic 

organization. The Acting Deputy of JPDO explained how the office is 

Page 39 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

organized to attract public and private sector expertise. These officials 

departed prior to the second session. 

• Session Two: Identifying JPDO’s Achievements and Challenges. The 

panelists were asked to identify what they considered to be JPDO’s major 

achievements of the past 2 years and why. Following that discussion, they 

were asked to identify the major challenges ahead for JPDO and how 

those challenges might hinder JPDO’s ability to move forward with 

planning and developing the next generation air transportation system 

(NGATS). 

• Session Three: Strategies for Addressing JPDO’s Challenges. The 

panelists were asked to identify strategies that JPDO could use to address 

the challenges identified in session two. 

• Session Four: Global Harmonization and Cooperation. Panelists were 

asked to discuss how the different accountability and authority 

mechanisms of the JPDO and Single European Sky Air Traffic 

Management Research Programme (SESAR) could affect the success of 

each effort. They were also asked to what extent harmonization is 

important and why. Finally, they were asked what lessons were learned

from other collaborative efforts between nations or cabinet-level 

departments. 

At the end of the last three sessions, panelists were asked to respond to 

questions that summarized the issues discussed. For example, at the end 

of the second session, panelists were asked to select what they considered 

to be the top achievements from the full list of the achievements that they 

generated during the discussion.1

 For another session, panelists were 

asked about their level of concern on issues related to the level of 

coordination between Europe and the United States. In an attempt to 

provide context for the achievements and challenges as well as the other 

voting results, we examined the transcript to obtain statements in support 

of the most widely held views for each question. The views expressed by 

the panelists were their own and do not necessarily represent the views of 

GAO or the National Academy of Sciences. 

 1

Panelists voted electronically at the end of the last three sessions using voting equipment 

provided by GAO. 

Page 40 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

During the second session, panelists discussed what they considered to be

JPDO’s major achievements over the past 2 years. At the end of the 

discussion, the panelists generated a list of what they considered to the 

JPDO’s most significant achievements, in no particular order. To 

differentiate the relative significance of the achievements, each panelist 

was asked, in a series of three questions, to vote for the achievement he or

she believed was the first, second, and third most significant. To produce a 

rank order of items on the list, achievements identified as the first most 

significant were assigned three points, the second most significant 

achievements were assigned two points, and the third most significant 

were assigned one point. The weighted values for each achievement were 

summed and then ordered from the achievements with the highest number 

of points to the lowest. (See table 3.)

Table 3: Expert Panel Votes on Top Achievements of JPDO 

Session Two: 

Identifying JPDO’s

Achievements and 

Challenges 

Expert panel votes—achievements Rank

Established process (IPTs, NGATS Institute) 1

Senior-level interest 2

Established products (plans, organization) 3

Provided vision 4

Agency coordination, common dialogue 5

Began efforts to integrate budgets 6

Jump start: looking backward for continuity 7

Involvement of private sector 8

Source: GAO.

Note: When weighted rankings resulted in a tie, the tie was broken by determining which category 

had the highest number of votes in the first round, and, if necessary, the second round. 

Panelists identified JPDO’s top achievement as establishing a process for 

conducting work related to the planning of NGATS. This included setting 

up the integrated product teams (IPT) and the NGATS Institute. One panel 

member said that JPDO had established a process. Another panelist stated 

that JPDO had taken “a significant step forward” by developing a process 

that brought people from different groups together in the same room to 

talk about building the aviation system of the future. Another panelist 

credited JPDO with establishing the NGATS Institute. 

Panelists felt that senior-level interest was the second most significant 

achievement. For example, JPDO’s Senior Policy Committee includes 

cabinet-level representation. During the discussion, one panelist said he 

Page 41 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

believed that the level of interest shown by people within different cabinet 

departments and other agencies was good. 

Finally, panelists identified the development of products, including plans 

and organizational structures, as the third most significant achievement. 

For example, one panelist said that having JPDO produce a product (i.e., 

the Integrated Plan) that Congress asked for, and delivering it on time, was 

a major achievement. Another panelist felt that JPDO provided continuity

when it decided to incorporate Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast (ADS-B) and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) 

into its future plans. Too often, the panelist said, plans do not take into 

account past research and lessons learned. 

During the second session, panelists also identified what they thought 

were the top three challenges facing JPDO. To produce a list of challenges, 

we followed the same general procedure used to identify JPDO’s major 

achievements as described above. That is, the panelists were asked a 

series of three questions and the answers were weighted to generate a 

single ranking. (See table 4.) 

Table 4: Expert Panel Votes on Top Challenges Facing JPDO 

Expert panel votes—challenges Rank

Credibility (roadmap, detailed plan) 1

Lack of national priority 2

Collaborate with rest of the world 3

Lack of comprehensive plan 4

Responsibility without authority 5

Clarify relationship of JPDO/ATOa6

Tension between mission and politics 7

Enterprise architecture accomplishments 8

Impact of annual budget process (Tie) 9

Unclear mandate (Tie) 9

Source: GAO.

a

ATO is FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. 

Note: When weighted rankings resulted in a tie, the tie was broken by determining which category 

had the highest number of votes in the first round, and, if necessary, the second round. 

Panelists identified establishing credibility as the top challenge facing 

JPDO, due to FAA’s past track record in air traffic control modernization, 

the lack of detail in the Integrated Plan, and a lack of air traffic controller 

Page 42 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

and/or union involvement. For example, one panelist noted that early 

investors in previous modernization attempts did not always get the 

payback from their investment in new technology because of a lack of 

follow-through on programs that would use that technology. Some 

panelists were worried that the NGATS effort will simply be another failed 

effort at modernization. Second, some panelists felt that the Integrated 

Plan’s lack of meaningful details directly impinged on JPDO’s credibility. 

For example, one cited the National Research Council’s evaluation of the 

Integrated Plan and said the plan was more “an aspirational vision than an

integrated plan.”2

 A second panelist said the only thing new in the JPDO 

vision was that it contained some information about security. Another 

said, “We’re not convinced they’re looking at the personnel issues, the 

aircraft issues, the economic issues, [or] the way to motivate people.” 

Third, panelists also cited a lack of air traffic controllers’ or union 

involvement in JPDO’s process as a problem. Controllers have to be 

brought on board as equal partners or JPDO’s efforts are “not going to 

work,” said one panelist. 

Panelists cited the second biggest challenge facing JPDO as the fact that 

NGATS is not viewed as a national priority; the panelists devoted a 

considerable amount of discussion to this topic. One panelist stated that 

“changing the airspace” needs to be made a presidential priority in order 

to get enough interest to align budgets and resources and to execute the 

program. In the words of another panelist, “...until there is some clear 

national priority given to this whole idea of the next generation airspace or 

plan or concept...it’s going to be a series of band-aids and stops and 

starts.” 

The need to collaborate with the rest of the world was considered the 

third most significant challenge facing JPDO because the office will have 

to work with both the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

and SESAR, the panelists said.3

 Collaboration is necessary to harmonize as 

many aviation procedures as possible, panelists said. One panelist noted 

that because of ICAO’s international role, it was really crucial that JPDO, 

 2

National Research Council of National Academies Technology Pathways: Assessing the

Integrated Plan for a Next Generation Air Transportation System (Washington, D.C.: 

2005). 

3

ICAO was established in 1944 by 52 nations whose aim was to assure the safe, orderly and

economic development of international air transport. ICAO serves as the global forum for

civil aviation. 

Page 43 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

FAA’s ATO, and FAA keep ICAO informed. For example, the panelist said, 

“talk to them, brief them, collaborate with them, so that when there is a 

solution or a decision made about how to go forward, that it’s not sprung 

on the rest of the world, but the rest of the world has some awareness of 

how we got there.” 

In the third session, panelists were asked to discuss strategies that they 

felt JPDO could use to address the challenges that the panelists had 

identified in session two. At the end of the discussion, panelists generated 

a list of what they considered to be the most significant strategies, in no 

particular order. Panelists were asked in a series of questions to identify 

which strategies, in their opinion, should be implemented within the next 

1-2 years, the next 3-5 years, and beyond 5 years. The results for each 

question below were ranked by the number of votes. (See tables 5-7.) 

Table 5: Short-term Strategies for JPDO

Session Three: 

Strategies for 

Addressing JPDO’s

Challenges 

What strategy is critical for JPDO to implement in the short term

(within the next 1-2 years)? 

Number of 

votes

Outsource the development of the plan 5

Appoint, support, and sustain strong leadership 4

Restructure the plan (stakeholder, requirements, metrics) and gap 

analysis 3

Presidential directive 1

Formalize collaborative structure with SESAR 1

Define stakeholders (European model, other analyses) 0

Better explain the economic consequences of doing nothing 0

Senior Policy Committee to clarify JPDO-ATO relationship and address 

legislative responsibilities 0

Total 14

Source: GAO.

Five of the 14 panelists identified outsourcing the development of the 

NGATS plan as critical to JPDO’s efforts in the short term (i.e., the next 1 

to 2 years). According to the panelists, outsourcing to a contractor or 

group of contractors would have several benefits, including a more 

businesslike approach, more rapid completion of the planning, and more 

opportunity for a range of aviation companies to be involved (including 

some companies from other countries). One panelist felt that JPDO’s 

bureaucracy and political constraints impaired its ability to develop the 

business and technical plan needed for the future. Another panelist 

Page 44 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

believed that without outsourcing, JPDO may not succeed, something that 

could delay development of the system by three to five years. “And this is 

not a time that we can afford that,” the panelist said. 

The second critical short-term strategy for JPDO, according to the 

panelists, is appointing, supporting, and sustaining strong leadership. 

Panelists said they were concerned about the turnover in leadership at 

JPDO. One panelist stated, “They haven’t had sustained, strong

leadership,” noting JPDO had had three directors, while another negatively 

remarked about JPDO’s “revolving door structure.” One panelist also 

noted that, unlike Europe, the United States has no highly placed public 

official who acts as an advocate for the plan. In Europe, for example, the 

Vice President of the European Commission spent time advocating in

addition to her regular duties. The panelist said that the leadership of this 

official is one of the single biggest differences that explain where the 

United States is versus where the European Union is today. 

The third short-term strategy that panelists believed was critical to JPDO 

is restructuring the parts of the plan that relate to stakeholders, 

requirements and metrics, and performing a gap analysis. JPDO “ought to 

at least look at the European model as a place to start defining 

stakeholders,” one panelist said. Panelists also urged that the NGATS plan 

be restructured to incorporate metrics. The plan, one panelist said, is a 

large design problem that should be approached by figuring out what the 

metrics are, as well as the core issues and requirements. The plan should 

describe work being done and provide a clear statement of the metrics 

that should be achieved by 2025, as well as the interim milestones. 

Panelists additionally stated that a “gap” plan should be developed to 

identify areas that might fall between the ATO’s and JPDO’s efforts. The 

gap plan would need to be comprehensive, understandable, and explain 

who will do what and when it will be mandated. 

Page 45 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

Table 6: Midterm Strategies for JPDO

What strategy is critical for the JPDO to implement in the 

midterm (within the next 3-5 years)? 

Number of 

votes

Restructure the plan (stakeholder, requirements, metrics) and gap 

analysis 3

Outsource the development of the plan 3

Formalize collaborative structure with SESAR 3

Appoint, support, and sustain strong leadership 2

Better explain the economic consequences of doing nothing 2

Presidential directive 1

Define stakeholders (European model, other analyses) 0

Senior Policy Committee to clarify JPDO-ATO relationship and 

address legislative responsibilities 0

Total 14

Source: GAO.

Panelists again identified restructuring the plan and conducting a gap 

analysis, as well as outsourcing the development of the plan, as two of the 

key midterm (3-5 years) strategies for JPDO. The panelists also identified 

establishing a structure that formalizes collaboration with SESAR as a 

third midterm strategy. One panelist said that JPDO should work with 

ICAO to come up with a structural framework for a full exchange between 

JPDO and SESAR—one that extends beyond the exchange of a few 

experts.4

 Collaboration is important not only between JPDO and SESAR 

but also for the companies involved, the panelist said. For example, 

because Boeing and Rockwell Collins are working with SESAR, they 

contribute their views about technology, which will then become 

incorporated to ensure interoperability. In addition, panelists noted the 

importance of a collaborative structure is to help define a common set of 

performance requirements, especially for the airlines. “They want one set 

of procedures to be able to fly from A to B. And this is not only Europe, 

but worldwide,” one panelist said. 

 4

It should be noted that on July 18, 2006, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was

signed between FAA and the European Commission. This MOU establishes a framework

for cooperation between the FAA and the European Commission. 

Page 46 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

Table 7: Long-term Strategies for JPDO

What strategy is critical for the JPDO to implement in the long

term (more than 5 years)? 

Number of 

votes

Formalize collaborative structure with SESAR 5

Restructure the plan (stakeholder, requirements, metrics) and gap 

analysis 3

Appoint, support, and sustain strong leadership 2

Outsource the development of the plan 2

Better explain the economic consequences of doing nothing 1

Presidential directive 1

Define stakeholders (European model, other analyses) 0

Senior Policy Committee to clarify JPDO-ATO relationship and 

address legislative responsibilities 0

Total 14

Source: GAO.

Panelists identified the four most important long-term (more than 5 years) 

strategies for JPDO as (1) formalizing a collaborative structure with 

SESAR; (2) restructuring the plan; (3) appointing, supporting, and 

sustaining strong leadership; and (4) outsourcing the development of the 

plan, as discussed above. 

The fourth session focused on global harmonization and cooperation. 

Panelists were asked to discuss how the different accountability and 

authority mechanisms of JPDO and SESAR could affect the success of 

each effort. They were also asked to what extent harmonization is 

important and why. Finally, they were asked what lessons were learned

from other collaborative efforts between nations or other cabinet-level 

departments. The panelists were then asked to vote on the questions 

below. In this case, the possible answers were generated by GAO prior to 

the expert panel. (See table 8.) 

Session Four: Global 

Harmonization and 

Cooperation 

Page 47 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

Table 8: Importance of JPDO Involvement in Harmonization Efforts

JPDO’s involvement in global harmonization efforts is an

essential component for the success of NGATS. Do you:

Number of 

votes

Strongly agree 10

Agree 2

Strongly disagree 0

Neither agree nor disagree 0

Disagree 2

Don’t know 0

Total 14

Source: GAO.

Panelists overwhelmingly agreed that JPDO’s involvement in global 

harmonization is essential for the success of NGATS. Panelists said that 

involvement in global harmonization efforts results in information sharing 

that benefits all member countries, largely through ICAO. One panelist 

noted that ICAO has a fairly good track record in helping member states 

reach agreement on harmonized standards. Panelists also noted that such 

collaborative efforts can result in sharing of best practices, as well as a 

working relationship with the European Union’s SESAR effort. For 

example, one item for collaboration between JPDO and SESAR is 

resolving time frames for completion. JPDO has 2025 deadline, while 

SESAR’s is 2020. “Gaps in things like that could be closed with

cooperation and collaboration,” one panelist said.

Table 9: Level of Coordination between Europe and the United States

Regarding the current level of coordination between Europe and

the United States, we should be: 

Number of 

votes

Very greatly concerned 7

Greatly concerned 4

Moderately concerned 1

Somewhat concerned 1

Not concerned 1

Total 14

Source: GAO.

Most panelists said that they were very greatly concerned, or greatly 

concerned, about the current level of coordination between the United 

States and Europe regarding global harmonization. (See table 9.) One 

Page 48 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

panelist stated that the existing concept of operations was developed with

considerable coordination with other countries and thought that JPDO’s 

credibility would be harmed if it unilaterally developed a concept of 

operations. Another panelist added that the United States had worked 

closely with Europe to develop Advanced Technologies and Oceanic 

Procedures, which helps increase international travel capacity. In less than

10 years, this project went from an idea to a system that a number of 

people and countries supported, the panelist said. That achievement was 

done with very close coordination among the FAA, the U.S. aviation 

industry, and the European authorities and experts, the panelist said. 

Table 10: Preparation for Success

Which initiative is better organized for success? Number of votes

Europe 12

Too early to tell 2

United States 0

Don’t know 0

Total 14

Source: GAO.

Panelists overwhelmingly said Europe’s SESAR initiative was better 

organized than JPDO for success. (See table 10.) They cited several 

reasons, including SESAR’s public-private partnership that focuses on 

letting industry develop the European plan. They also raised concerns that 

there was a lack of leadership with the U.S. effort, that there had been

much activity but little progress, and that the sheer size of JPDO’s 

bureaucracy would hinder progress. In discussing the area of publicprivate partnerships, one panelist noted that SESAR’s organization was 

industry-centric, as opposed to the U.S. effort, which involves a service 

provider or political-centric activity. One panelist stated that “[W]e have

two different models. I think one is headed toward success and one is 

going to be fraught with the problems of the past. So a solution-oriented 

answer is a more deeply focused industry set of implementations as 

opposed to an advisory role.” Another panelist expressed concern that 

FAA has a tendency to pick a project de jour and that project is now 

JPDO. Noting JPDO’s complex organizational chart, the panelist said, “[It] 

is nothing compared to the complexity that’s been built into the processes 

down at the IPT level.” The panelist said that people are being asked to 

make very large commitments of time to participate in multiple subgroups 

on each of eight IPTs, plus the NGATS institute. “I’m just concerned that 

Page 49 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix II: Results of Expert Panel Voting 

there’s an awful lot of process here and not much substance,” said the 

panelist. 

Page 50 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix III: SESAR: The European Air 

Traffic Modernization Initiative 

The Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research Programme 

(SESAR) is in some ways the European equivalent of next generation air 

transportation system (NGATS). While both initiatives are designed to 

increase the capacity of their respective air traffic management systems to 

meet expected increases in demand, SESAR is also intended to address 

Europe’s historically fragmented airspace. Europe’s patchwork of national 

systems has led to inefficiencies, capacity constraints, and delays. 

European countries have individually developed their air traffic 

management systems, but this uncoordinated development risks 

duplication of effort, significant additional cost, and unnecessary delays in

the introduction of new equipment. The European Organisation for the 

Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), ATM 2000+ Strategy, and other 

initiatives had attempted to address these issues by obtaining

collaboration among the numerous stakeholders. However, these efforts 

did not always include all stakeholders, and progress was impeded 

because consensus could not be reached. Hence, the delays continue and 

problems are expected to worsen with the expectation of at least a 

doubling of demand by 2020. 

To more forcefully address these issues, the European Parliament and 

member states agreed on regulations that were entered into force in April 

2004 creating a “Single European Sky.” In contrast to past efforts by 

Eurocontrol, the Single European Sky legislation provides more authority 

to unify and harmonize air traffic management equipment and procedures 

throughout Europe and establishes various mechanisms to help ensure the 

participation of stakeholders. To carry out the Single European Sky vision, 

the European Commission and Eurocontrol created the SESAR project, 

which is divided in two major phases: definition and implementation, and 

is expected to last until 2020. 

The definition phase of SESAR started in March 2006 and will last 2 years. 

Planning done under the definition phase is being handled by a 29-member 

SESAR Consortium that includes airlines, air navigation service providers,

airports, and suppliers. The SESAR Consortium is performing the planning

under a contractual arrangement with Eurocontrol that calls for specific 

time lines and deliverables. The SESAR Consortium has formed a 10-

member executive committee to make decisions on deliverables, to make 

other key decisions, and resolve disputes. To ensure that the future users 

of the new system—the airlines—have a major say in the outcome of the 

definition phase, four of the executive committee members are 

representatives of airlines. The remainder of the committee is composed 

of three members representing air navigation service providers, two 

members representing airports, and one member representing suppliers. 

Page 51 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
 Next Generation Air Transportation System

The day-to-day management of the definition phase is run by the Air 

Traffic Alliance—a consortium of Airbus, EADS, and Thales—following a 

call for tender for a project manager by Eurocontrol. The Air Traffic 

Alliance answered the call and won the contract, which calls for the 

delivery of a Master Plan that will lay out a mission for the future Single 

European Sky and a roadmap for implementation. The European 

Commission and Eurocontrol have provided 60 million euros ($76 million) 

to fund the project definition phase with half provided by each 

organization.

1

The SESAR Consortium is a bottom-up organization, meaning that the

aviation industry is essentially developing the ATM roadmap for final 

approval by Eurocontrol and the European Commission. The definition 

phase has been organized into six sequential deliverables and 20 work 

packages. A mixture of consortium members will work on each package,

to ensure the appropriate use of expertise and consideration of 

viewpoints. For example, airlines, air navigation service providers, 

suppliers, and Eurocontrol, will work on the Master Plan. The first 

deliverable, a report describing the current air transport situation, 

identifying critical issues, and recommending ways to address these issues 

was published in July 2006.2

In addition to the SESAR members, several associations are project 

associates, such as the International Air Transport Association, which 

represents commercial airlines, and the European Cockpit Association, 

which represents pilots. Project associates, including U.S. companies 

Boeing, Rockwell Collins, and Honeywell, are also involved in this phase 

of the project. 

The second phase of SESAR—implementation (2007-2013)—will focus on 

systems design and producing the key systems components. The 

commission has proposed using a joint undertaking to implement the 

Single European Sky. A joint undertaking is a legal entity that permits a 

mixture of public and private funding and was also used to implement 

Europe’s Galileo satellite navigation system. The plan for the joint 

undertaking, however, has not yet been finalized under the European 

 1

To convert euros to U.S. dollars, we used 1.26855, the foreign exchange rate for September 

19, 2006, as published in The Washington Post. 

2

SESAR Consortium, Air Transport Framework: The Current Situation, DLM-0602-001-03-

00 (July 2006). 

Page 52 GAO-07-25 
 Next Generation Air Transportation System

Union’s procedures. Tentative plans to fund the development phase (2008-

2013) call for $381 million annually.3

 One-third of the funding would come 

from the commission, one-third from Eurocontrol, and one-third from 

industry. 

 3

To convert euros to U.S. dollars, we used 1.26855, the foreign exchange rate for September 

19, 2006, as published in The Washington Post. 

Page 53 GAO-07-25 
Appendix IV: Comments from the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Page 54 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Page 55 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

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

In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report 

were Nabajyoti Barkakati, Jay Cherlow, Kevin Egan, Colin Fallon, Brandon 

Haller, David Hooper, Heather Krause, Elizabeth Marchak, Edmond 

Menoche, Faye Morrison, Taylor Reeves, Richard Scott, and Sarah Veale.

Page 56 GAO-07-25 Next Generation Air Transportation System

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(540105) 
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