U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–555 PDF 2012

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FAA’S NEXTGEN 

PROGRAM: COSTS, BENEFITS, PROGRESS, 

AND MANAGEMENT 

(112–54) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 5, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Bolen, Edward M., President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association ........................................................................................................................ 11

Captain, Tom, Vice Chairman, Principal, Aerospace and Defense Sector Leader, Deloitte LLP .................................................................................................... 11 

Huerta, Hon. Michael P., Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ................................................................................................................... 11 

Moak, Captain Lee, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International ......... 11 

PANEL TWO

Dillingham, Gerald L., Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 34 

Hendricks, Thomas L., Senior Vice President for Safety, Security, and Operations, Air Transport Association of America, Inc. ........................................... 34 

Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 47 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 53 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bolen, Edward M. .................................................................................................... 56 

Captain, Tom ............................................................................................................ 64 

Dillingham, Gerald L., Ph.D. .................................................................................. 67 

Hendricks, Thomas L. ............................................................................................. 80 

Huerta, Hon. Michael P. ......................................................................................... 87 

Moak, Captain Lee .................................................................................................. 108 

Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III ...................................................................................... 127 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Huerta, Hon. Michael P., Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, responses to questions from the following members of the Subcommittee on Aviation: 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 101 

Lipinski, Hon. Daniel, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Illinois ............................................................................................................ 105 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 70555.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 70555.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 70555.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 70555.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 70555.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 70555.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 70555.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 70555.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 70555.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 70555.010
(1) 

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FAA’S 

NEXTGEN PROGRAM: COSTS, BENEFITS, 

PROGRESS, AND MANAGEMENT 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, the hearing will come to order. 

And today we will hear from witnesses about the anticipated 

benefits of NextGen and the Federal Aviation Administration’s effort to modernize our national airspace system. 

But first I want to recognize Jerry Costello. As he announced I 

think this weekend, he is not planning to seek reelection, which 

has made almost all of us here in this town unhappy, but probably 

there are a few people back in his district who are running around 

and revising their aspirations and plans as we speak. 

It has been a pleasure to work with Jerry, and I look forward to 

continuing to do that. He is a real gentleman and has the best interest certainly of the country and the aviation industry and transportation at heart and has contributed a very great deal in many 

areas, including that which we are discussing today, through a lot 

of roundtable discussions and efforts to focus the executive branch 

on moving NextGen forward more rapidly and efficiently. 

So anyway, it has been a pleasure serving with you. And I have 

a longer statement which I guess I better read. The program 

known as NextGen touches every aspect of the agency’s mission. 

NextGen is an ambitious project currently costing roughly $1 billion per year. 

From the beginning, the case for NextGen has centered on the 

FAA’s ability to deliver operational benefits to airspace users, to increase efficiency, decrease user and agency costs, decrease environmental impacts and, most importantly, improve safety. NextGen is 

also considered a job creator, allowing for continued growth in this 

important industry. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the benefits the FAA has delivered 

over the last year or so and the specific operational benefits that 

they will deliver over the next 2 years. In addition, we expect the 

FAA to present their long-term milestones and targets for NextGen 

benefits. Key to the realization of NextGen benefits is the planned 

2 

transition from the 1950s radar-based surveillance of aircraft to a 

modernized satellite-based surveillance system dependent on GPS 

avionics. As such, NextGen is capital-intensive and reliant on industry investments into avionics. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity for the FAA to present a proper accounting of NextGen benefits, including when such benefits 

will be realized in the near, mid and long terms. It is also an opportunity to build confidence among users who will need to invest 

substantial sums of money to realize the NextGen benefits promised by this new system and among Members of Congress who 

oversee and provide Federal money. 

The subcommittee will also hear testimony from representatives 

of the user committee on the benefits that are of particular importance to them. Under the NextGen moniker, this program has been 

underway for nearly 5 years, but airspace modernization has its 

roots in the second term of the Reagan administration. The idea of 

implementing dramatic improvements to the safety and efficiency 

of the national airspace system is not new. As efforts to produce 

these benefits have evolved, it has always remained critical to demonstrate real progress year over year. That includes delivery of 

benefits in the near term, as well as making the policy decisions 

to guide the long-term efforts. 

In 2008, the NextGen program was pulled off the GAO’s highrisk list, a compilation of risky Government programs. From today’s second panel of witnesses, Members will hear an update on 

FAA’s current stewardship of the NextGen program and the degree 

to which benefits are being realized. 

I believe the testimony of these witnesses will be critical to the 

NextGen authorization and funding decisions Congress will make 

in the tight budgetary times. 

Before we turn to Mr. Costello and witnesses for their statements, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the record of this hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Now, I recognize my esteemed colleague, Mr. Costello, for his 

opening. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And let me first thank you for your kind remarks. You are correct; I announced over the weekend, actually yesterday officially, 

that I would not seek re-election in the 2012 election. I said back 

in 1988, when I ran for my first term, that I didn’t intend to stay 

in Congress forever and that I had other interests and other things 

that I wanted to pursue while I was still healthy and could in fact 

pursue those interests. 

So I decided to do that. It was not an easy decision, after working here on the Hill for over 23 years with you and other colleagues. It has been a great relationship working with the chairman. I am going to be around for another 14 months until the end 

of my term. So we will be working closely together. 

And you are right, there are people back in my district that, 

namely eight grandchildren, who are very happy with my decision. 

And one of my granddaughters told me on the phone last night 

that, you know, maybe next year, you will be able to make grandVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:14 Jun 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\10-5-1~1\70555.TXT JEAN
3 

parents’ day at my school, which I haven’t been able to do in several years. 

So I am looking forward to—not retiring—but looking forward to 

turning the next page and spending time with my grandchildren 

and also trying to make a contribution in other areas other than 

elective office. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to continuing 

to work with you over the next 14 months. 

I also thank you for holding this hearing today, investing in 

NextGen now will create a legacy of savings for the next generation. The Government will save money by providing services more 

efficiently. And the aviation industry users and the flying public 

will be the beneficiaries of billions of dollars in operating cost savings. 

In the 111th Congress, we held four NextGen oversight hearings. 

We examined NextGen midterm capabilities, discussed area navigations and required navigation performance procedures, reviewed 

the RTCA midterm implementation task force report and analyzed 

the long-term planning and interagency cooperation needed in 

order to keep NextGen on track. 

Clearly, everyone in this room wants NextGen to succeed. And 

I commend the FAA under the leadership of Randy Babbitt and 

others for making progress in several key areas of NextGen, such 

as efficiently using FAA resources to streamline procedural approval process, which yields significant fuel savings. Further important NextGen-related infrastructure programs, such as ADS–B, 

are moving forward relatively on schedule and within the FAA’s 

budget requirements so far. 

However, because many of the NextGen programs are dependent 

on one or more systems, delays in one program mean delays in 

other programs. For example, a holdup with the En Route Automation Modernization program could have a domino effect on the 

other key NextGen systems. Including ADS–B, data communications and a systemwide application known as SWIM. My concern 

is, what happens when we add severe budget constraints on top of 

logistical program delays? If we are committed to our shared goal 

of spending taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently, I am concerned 

that significantly cutting funding levels for NextGen will move implementation dates back even further and will result in increased 

costs and reduced benefits for aviation users. 

When this subcommittee held two hearings on the FAA reauthorization bill in February, we had the opportunity to hear from both 

the aviation stakeholders and the FAA. Our witness panel concluded that cutting the agency’s budget to fiscal year 2008 levels, 

as proposed in the long-term reauthorization bill that passed by a 

partisan vote in April, that it would likely trigger drastic and dramatic budget cuts and cutbacks and cancellations of core NextGen 

programs. 

I want to be clear that simply providing more funding is not the 

entire solution to successful NextGen implementation. And in fact 

there are many factors that must come together in order for 

NextGen to be successful now and in the future. But when we are 

trying to implement the largest and most important aviation modernization project of our time in a safe and cost-effective manner, 

4 

at what point is doing more with less just adding to the problem 

and making it even more difficult for it to succeed on time and on 

budget? Going forward, I believe that it is important for us to have 

an open dialogue with labor and industry stakeholders as well as 

the FAA and other Federal agencies, such as NASA, the GAO and 

the Department of Transportation IG, to ensure everyone is on the 

same page. There needs to be realistic timelines, performance 

metrics and a candid discussion of cost requirements to make sure 

NextGen systems are not significantly delayed and end up costing 

the taxpayers more in the long run. 

I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing to delve 

into these details. And as a strong proponent of NextGen, I want 

this modernization program to continue to make progress and ultimately deliver the benefits that we have long discussed for all of 

our users, operators and the economy. And because the aviation industry supports millions of jobs and keeps our economy moving, enactment of a comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill that includes 

adequate funding levels for NextGen, as well as a fiscal year 2012 

appropriations measure that makes investments in NextGen a priority, will create jobs and improve aviation safety. It will also position us to create a lasting transportation infrastructure investment 

for our country. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me just divert for a second to extend my very best wishes 

to Jerry and to Georgia. 

I was really shocked the other day because I was looking for Mr. 

Costello, and usually I can find him pretty quickly. And we have 

a great rapport, incredible working relationship over the entire 

time I have been in Congress, 19 years, and he preceded me. He 

served as ranking and chair and back and forth together and 

worked to bring the Nation’s aviation system back to some sense 

of normalcy after 9/11 and to ensure the safety and security of the 

flying public. I couldn’t ask for a better partner and better friends 

than both Jerry and Georgia. So we will miss him. 

But I knew there was something wrong when I couldn’t get a 

hold of him the other day. I was quite shocked, like everyone else, 

to learn that he was going to hang it up. But we wish you well. 

I always thought you were at least as old as me, Jerry. I looked 

it up, and I will be damned if you are not a lot younger. So you 

have a chance for a full additional productive career and spend 

time with your wonderful family. 

So I know all of us on this side wish you well and thank you for 

a working relationship. It has been great, but we will miss you, 

and all of us at some time are going to have to join Jerry, either 

willingly or unwillingly. So we will be with you. 

And if you are like my brother, he is a big Democrat like you, 

there is lots of money after Congress. So good luck. He will hate 

me for saying that. But he just retired a third retirement I think, 

so there is lots of potential out there at your young age. But we 

wish you well. 

5 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. And I thank you both for convening this hearing on 

the progress of NextGen. We have got two panels, and we will hear 

the benefits, both short- and long-term, and they are many. We 

can’t continue to have an aviation system that relies on 1950s and 

1960s, even 1970s, technology, and we have got to do a better job 

at making certain that our skies are, first of all, safe and secondly 

that our system is efficient as possible. And you can only do that 

with using next-generation technology. So we have worked together 

as strong advocates to move forward. We have made some progress. 

Now, today, I don’t particularly want to be critical with FAA, but 

obviously, if you read the IG’s report or GAO report, you will see 

very specific criticism. The IG really strikes at some of the management failures. Some of the RTC recommendations from 2009 still 

have not been implemented. Only a few have been addressed. FAA 

has succeeded somewhat in trying to focus on some of the 

metroplexes and some of our congested airspace areas. But unfortunately, the very basis of putting NextGen in places, as far as programs and technology, ERAM is 4 to 6 years behind, according to 

the report. Some estimates are it could be as much as half a billion 

dollars over budget. 

We still have problems in developing our technology and NextGeneration approach to tracking aircraft. And we see problems 

with software programs and management programs in what FAA 

has taken on to move Next Generation forward. And this again is 

not my assessment. This is what the IG has said. And this isn’t 

necessarily a failure of money. 

And I share Mr. Costello and others’ concern that we adequately 

fund our FAA operations. But this is not a question of money. This 

is a question of failure of management and getting a better handle 

on setting a timeframe, keeping these programs, again, moving forward in some logical sequence and you have to build on successes 

to get to where we want to be. 

And unfortunately, there has been too many failures. The IG also 

cited failure to use onboard equipment, come up with solutions 

there. We are behind in that. It looks like also we are sort of forced 

into a full-blown NEPA environmental study. I question the need 

for that. Anyone with any commonsense or logic that couldn’t determine that this has to be vastly more favorable to the environment, more direct routing, less emissions, more efficient use of airspace, I am not sure where they are coming from. 

But again, we don’t need rocket science or continued extensive 

full-blown red tape, dotting I’s and crossing T’s when even commonsense would tell us the environmental positive impacts of NextGeneration technology and protocols. One of the things that concern me, and I am a strong investigate of having the private sector 

involved in this development and having witnessed, oh, back before 

I became chairman and sitting in this very room, and we would 

have hearings on bringing forth new technology, and FAA was 

doing the developmental programs is that they would go on and on. 

They just asked for another $1 billion or $2 billion, and they say 

that our success is right around the corner. Well, we are seeing 

some of that, unfortunately, repeated again. And also what concerns me is now with the failure of making progress and also the 

6 

milestones that aren’t met or properly identified, even baselines 

that are missing, and FAA has not identified, that the private sector is now running scared for participation and also not as willing 

to come forward and provide some of the solutions. 

So I am very concerned about our progress with the program. We 

have got some good proposals in our pending legislation. I hope to 

move forward with that in the next few weeks and certainly in the 

next couple of months to finalize our FAA reauthorization. We include provisions to set some standards, some metrics, some baselines, some milestones and timeframes. So, hopefully, that will encourage the private sector also to become re-engaged. But we have 

got to get FAA off dead center and get a handle on this very important project. 

So, again, with my compliments to our Member who we are going 

to lose next year and with the concern for the future of NextGen, 

I will yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I do add my thanks to our Ranking Member Costello, and 

of course, when he chaired this Aviation Subcommittee and the 

leadership he provided and all of the issues confronting us, including of course the many hearings we had on NextGen. And I want 

to thank Chair Petri for convening this session to bring us up to 

date on what is happening with NextGen. I am also glad that Mr. 

Costello mentioned the importance of FAA working with other 

partners, such as NASA, GAO and, in my view, particularly with 

the labor unions, who are going to be very much impacted by what 

we do with NextGen. And I will have a few questions for our witnesses along those lines. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

No opening statement, per se. I just want to reiterate what you 

and Chairman Mica, your words, generous words, directed to the 

distinguished gentleman from Illinois. He will indeed be sorely 

missed on Capitol Hill, and I look forward to the hearing today as 

well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Boswell, did you want to—— 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

I would like to join with everybody else, Jerry, in my—well, I am 

just going to say it like it is—my disappointment because you have 

made a great contribution here, and I know you will in the next 

14 months. So we are really going to lean on you a little bit. But, 

yeah. A lot has been said and more will be said as we go along and 

you have done a great job. And you will continue to do so, whatever 

you do. You are a patriot, a great American and somebodywhose 

friendship I value very much. 

Back to the business at hand, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

having this hearing. 

7 

I think there has been a little amnesia around here. But setting 

that aside, we have got some real challenges across the board. I 

know aviation has put a lot of jobs out there for years, growing. 

And I hear this word uncertainty thrown around, and I think we 

ought to stop and think, who is creating the uncertainty, and be 

honest about it. 

And I would hope that, for example, Mr. Bolen and some of the 

rest of you, would tell us what that means, willingness to take 

risks, whether it is in Wichita or wherever it might be, as we think 

about general aviation and what it contributes to our economy and 

the need. We keep throwing barriers in front of them for different 

things and, you know, trying to make them disclose where they are 

going to do business and so on, which is wrong. And then to be 

willing to invest in risk and so on and not knowing what is going 

to happen to NextGen. 

And, Mr. Mica, you made excellent remarks, and I certainly 

agree with those. It seems like we ought to move off center and get 

to going. Some things are an investment with a known return, and 

I think we are thinking about it. I think we have just been thinking about it a long, long time, and we ought to get off center. 

So I appreciate what is happening here today. We have had a 

number of hearings on the issue, and we ought to be moving forward. Airlines and their willingness to—new equipment, new avionics. Avionics costs so much money. General aviation. Avionics 

costs so much money. And those of us who use the system a little 

bit around here can have an appreciation for it, but we all ought 

to appreciate it because we all use the system one way or another, 

whether we are flying back and forth to a district or going where 

we go or those of us that have the privilege to participate in general aviation. 

It is my hope that we can move forward and to pick up the pace 

a little bit and realize that this will enhance the economy. It is 

needed. We need to move forward into Next Generation. That is a 

pretty good term. But it is here. It is not over the hill. It is here 

now, and we ought to be into it. And those of us who have gone 

up to the laboratory and done other things realize there is lots that 

can be done to make it safer, expedite, get manufacturers to invest 

and those users to invest and do a lot of things. So I appreciate 

it, and I hope we do actually move forward with a little bit expediency and get it done now. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I join with my colleagues in thanking you for calling a hearing 

on this most important topic and also with my colleagues on their 

comments about Mr. Costello. 

Jerry, you are what this place should be about. I have tremendously enjoyed your counsel, working with you. Almost everybody 

knows or they should know that you are not a show horse; you are 

a workhorse. You are about getting it done, you are about getting 

results. This place needs more people like you. So we thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, on the topic of NextGen, I am a huge, huge 

proponent of the program. It is no secret that the Federal Aviation 

8 

Administration Technical Center, which is in my district and I believe the premiere facility in the Nation, if not the world, in this 

particular area, has done extraordinary work. 

I want to start by saluting the leadership of Secretary LaHood 

and Administrator Babbitt, and Michael to you and your whole 

team, for what you are doing. This is incredibly complicated and 

incredibly difficult. 

But I also want to make a word of comment. I have been into 

the tech center on numerous occasions, and the men and women 

of the tech center have a dedication to excellence and a passion for 

success that makes it much more than a job for them. They understand they are a part of history. They are putting their heart and 

soul into this every day. And I think this is going to yield great 

benefits as we move forward. 

We have heard a little bit about the certainty or uncertainty. I 

think one of the biggest things that we can do to provide certainty 

is provide a long-term FAA bill. The FAA itself needs to be able 

to plan. I cannot imagine how you can plan 6 months at a time and 

have to spend so much time and resources worrying about shutting 

down or not shutting down. 

I was out at the conference, which is ongoing now, on Monday. 

Most every private sector company that I talked to mentioned the 

certainty and stability, which we don’t have right now, which is absolutely critical to our moving forward. This partnership between 

the Government and the private sector requires us to have a 

known quantity of what we are doing and how we are doing it. We 

can’t do that on these extensions, and I hope we can get by it at 

this time. 

I also believe that one of the things I have heard repeatedly as the contracts—and we have had about $7.3 billion worth of contracts under the structure known as SE2020 that have been a big 

help on how we are moving forward. But I certainly am concerned 

that this is not flowing as quickly as it could be. I would like to 

see more task orders and more funds being allocated on a faster 

basis than has been so far. 

I think it would certainly send a very important message to those 

who are paying attention. And with the big issues here in Washington and the debt limit commission and continuing resolutions, 

this is so important to the safety of our flying public, to the dollars 

that we can benefit from with our economy. It is one of the programs that we know is going to produce results. 

And I am thrilled we have the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to listen to our panel and to find ways we can be a force multiplier for 

the group that is here, and I thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Representative Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me associate myself with the remarks that have been 

made in relationship to Mr. Costello. It was very disappointing information to learn. 

But I would like to thank both of you for this hearing today to 

review the cost-benefits, progress and management of FAA’s 

NextGen program. I might add that no where I have been talking 

about transportation has there not been emphasis on NextGen and 

how important it is for the future of our aviation industry. And 

9 

coming from a congressional district that is a major air transportation hub, that encompasses Dallas and the Dallas Love Field airport that is very adjacent to the Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport, the safety of our air traffic system is of paramount importance. 

And currently the Nation’s transportation system supports more 

than 74,000 flights every day and 730 million passengers every 

year, with the FAA forecasting an increase of 53 percent to 1.1 billion passengers per year by 2025. So we are very concerned. We are 

a trade hub. Our airport is the economic engine for the area. General aviation is expected to increase to over 85,000 flights every 

day over the same period. So, clearly, the demands placed on our 

national air traffic safety programs will be far greater as time 

moves forward, and we must prepare for the future. 

While the most critical purpose of NextGen is to improve public 

safety, there are also significant cost savings and efficiencies to be 

derived from the proper implementation of the program that will 

benefit airlines, airports and air travelers. The FAA estimates that 

NextGen air traffic management improvements will reduce delays 

in flight and on the tarmac by approximately 35 percent by 2018, 

as compared to doing nothing. That 35 percent improvement in efficiency will equate to $23 billion in savings to aircraft operators, air 

travelers and FAA over 8 years. 

These cost savings and public safety improvements are far too 

important for this Congress or this committee to ignore. And I look 

forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony regarding the different 

programs of the NextGen system: the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or the ADS–B; En Route Automation Modernization, or the ERAM; the data communications, or DataComm; 

or System Wide Information Management, or SWIM; the NAS 

Voice Switch; NextGen Network Enabled Weather, the NNEW; Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies, the CATMT, and 

other expert opinions on what must be done to modernize our air 

traffic transportation system. 

And I thank you for sharing my passion for safe and efficient national airspace and the recognition that the Federal Government 

must play a partnering role in this effort. I think the future is too 

important for us to play partisan politics here and for us to talk 

about how much we have to save and not spend. There are some 

things that we must spend on to keep us on the world stage and 

in safety. I think this is one of them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Representative Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Costello, for holding these important meetings. 

And I am sorry that the ranking member is not here right now. 

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to know—there he is. I have 

just been able to get to know Representative Costello somewhat 

well. But it being a freshman Congressman opposed to a more senior Congressman, we haven’t been able to run in the same circles. 

But what I can tell you is that in dealing with Representative 

Costello and now paying him the highest of compliments is that he 

is a statesman, with that being the highest compliment I think I 

10 

could give to another fellow Representative. So I am sorry for your 

departure, but—and your wisdom for this great panel. So thank 

you very much, sir. 

NextGen modernization is critically important in our national 

airspace system and can meet the transportation capacity for the 

21st century. Moreover, implementing NextGen technology will 

lead to improved aviation and a driver for future airline productivity. 

While I do not support the President’s bill entirely, I was glad 

to see the importance the President placed on NextGen funding. I 

encourage President Obama and his administration to think seriously about working together in both Houses of Congress to enact 

NextGen-related legislation. I think this is a commonsense issue 

that transcends the usual partisan divisions, and the positive effects of implementing NextGen technologies will benefit all Americans. 

I would like to welcome the witnesses to our panel today and 

thank you for advance for your testimony. I look forward to hearing 

from you about ways to ensure the timely implementation of 

NextGen, as well as eliminating the administrative barriers preventing NextGen’s progress. Quite frankly, I am ready to kick the 

tires and light the fires on implementing NextGen. 

As in the first Aviation Subcommittee hearing this year, I will 

be specifically interested in hearing how the FAA’s contract management is impacting NextGen modernization. Again, thank you 

for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all. 

And Representative Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to begin by saying what a stunning disappointment it was 

for me to learn that we would be losing Jerry Costello, for many, 

many reasons. First for professional reasons, his unusually deep 

knowledge of this area will be hard to replicate. He knows it backwards and forwards, shares it with all of us, is hardly replaceable 

as we move by seniority in this body. 

His wonderful friendship and collegiality will be missed by all of 

us. He is a model for how to serve the People of the United States 

and this Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing to have before the 

end of the fiscal year. One is left to wonder where we would be 

with NextGen if there had not been 22—or is it 23; I have almost 

stopped counting—extensions of the FAA bill. It is impossible to believe that the failure to pass this bill has had no effect on NextGen. 

We are not only talking about billions of dollars for those of us who 

want to see more money in the economy and more savings in our 

budget; we are talking about something even more important, And 

that is the safety of our system. If we do not meet these deadlines, 

given the increasing pressure on air traffic, I don’t think any of us 

with a straight face could say that the skies are safe. 

I have no idea what cuts have had on this very critical effort. But 

I believe we must find out where we are, how far behind we are 

and whether there are enough funds for us to continue to move 

ahead on this very critical long-term effort. 

11 

And I thank you very much, again, for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

And we turn now to our first panel. And it consists of the Honorable Michael Huerta, Deputy Administrator of the FAA; Captain 

Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International; Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the National Business 

Aviation Association; and Mr. Tom Captain, who is the vice chairman and principal, Aerospace and Defense Sector Leader at 

Deloitte, a leading accounting and consulting firm globally, I believe. 

We will begin with the administrator, Mr. Huerta. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. HUERTA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CAPTAIN LEE MOAK, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; EDWARD M. BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; AND TOM CAPTAIN, VICE CHAIRMAN, PRINCIPAL, 

AEROSPACE AND DEFENSE SECTOR LEADER, DELOITTE LLP 

Mr. HUERTA. Good morning, Chairman Petri, Congressman 

Costello, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the benefits of NextGen, and I am very pleased 

to appear before you for the first time. 

NextGen is a comprehensive overhaul of our aviation system to 

make air travel more efficient and dependable while keeping you 

safe in the skies. It is a continuous rollout of new procedures and 

technology that will save fuel, reduce noise and cut pollution. 

NextGen is a better way of doing business, for the FAA, for the 

airlines, for airports and for the traveling public. Civil aviation contributes $1.3 trillion to our economy and generates more than 10 

million jobs. NextGen is vital to protecting these contributions. The 

current systems simply cannot accommodate anticipated growth. 

President Obama recognizes the economic importance of 

NextGen; the American Jobs Act includes $1 billion to continue our 

research and development to advance this transformation. The act 

also proposes $2 billion for airport improvements for runways, 

taxiways, and terminals. 

The United States has invested nearly $3 billion in NextGen. 

Why? Because our latest estimates show that NextGen will reduce 

delays by about 35 percent in the next 7 years. It will bring $23 

billion in cumulative benefits. We will save about 1.4 billion gallons 

of jet fuel and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 14 million tons. 

Let me highlight some examples where NextGen is already improving safety, helping the environment, and adding to the bottom 

line. Helicopters equipped with GPS-based technology in the Gulf 

of Mexico now have improved safety where there was no radar coverage before. They are saving flight time and fuel. 

In Colorado, NextGen enables controllers to track aircraft 

through mountains that block radar, thereby enhancing safety. 

Airlines are benefitting from NextGen routes and approaches 

that allow for more direct flights. Southwest Airlines says it could 

save $25 for every mile cut by using a shorter route. By using precise NextGen procedures in Juneau, Alaska Airlines estimates it 

12 

avoided cancelling more than 700 flights last year due to bad 

weather. And UPS estimates it will save as much as 30 percent on 

fuel during the arrival phase of flights into its Louisville hub. 

Environmental benefits are clear: Burning less fuel produces less 

carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. Through the Greener 

Skies Over Seattle Initiative, airlines using NextGen procedures 

will save several millions of dollars per year. Aircraft will emit 

about 22,000 metric tons less carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of taking more than 4,000 cars off the streets. 

A true transformation takes planning, and it takes time. So let 

me now describe some of the longer range benefits. NextGen will 

make our aviation system safer. It will increase controllers’ and pilots’ abilities to avoid potential danger. Equipped aircraft will receive information about traffic, weather, and flight restricted areas. 

On the ground, advances in tracking will make runways safer. We 

are working in a focused way to relieve congestion and tarmac 

delays in major metropolitan areas, including right here in Washington, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, North Texas and California. 

To fully achieve these benefits, we must do two things: First, we 

need to make sure that the FAA is able to properly manage the 

NextGen transformation. And second, we need to continue working 

with our partners in the aviation community. 

We appreciate congressional approval for the reprogramming request we submitted this summer. A streamlined NextGen office 

that reports to me in addition to other organizational changes that 

improve efficiency will help the FAA meet the needs of our Nation’s 

air transportation system. 

NextGen will only be successful if we work closely with the aviation community. We established a broadbased panel, the NextGen 

Advisory Committee, to provide guidance and recommendations. 

We need their help to forge industry consensus on how to equip for 

NextGen and how to measure our success. 

There is a chicken-and-egg nature to the decisions that will influence the extent and timing of NextGen benefits. The future depends upon stakeholders’ willingness to invest in equipment, staffing, and training. NextGen is happening now. 

If we delay investment, the long-term costs to our Nation, to our 

passengers and to our environment will far exceed the cost of going 

forward together at this time. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you and the members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Captain Moak. 

Mr. MOAK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Costello, and members of the subcommittee. I am Captain Lee 

Moak. I am the president of the Air Line Pilots Association, representing over 53,000 pilots who fly for 39 airlines and all cargo 

carriers in the United States and Canada. 

On behalf of our members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspectives on NextGen. 

A few weeks ago, I was the captain of an aircraft operating in 

the Reagan National Airport, an approach that all of you are familiar with, and you probably experienced the rapid altitude decline 

13 

over the Potomac in the last few minutes of a flight when you are 

arriving here from the South and the DCA, a necessary drop because air traffic controllers keep airplanes high, the air traffic high 

in the Reagan until the last few minutes to avoid Andrews to the 

east and Dulles to the north and west. Now, we are kept high to 

avoid the other traffic because, as a Nation, we are operating our 

air traffic control system largely with the same outdated and imprecise equipment and, I stress, procedures that were used during 

the 1950s. 

NextGen will bring precision approach capability to locations and 

runways where precision approaches do not currently exist, like at 

Reagan and some of the runways at Chicago Midway, Boston 

Logan and Minneapolis. NextGen technology gives pilots and controllers precise aircraft location and altitude information relative to 

the landing runway, improving safety and capacity, especially 

when operating in adverse weather conditions. 

There is no question, NextGen brings with it enhanced safety 

and also increases airspace capacity and efficiency. 

Now, what is it going to cost? The cost for NextGen, as estimated 

by GAO, has been somewhere around $40 billion initially and as 

high as $160 billion in some scenarios. However, there is little debate over the urgent need to modernize the system, but industry 

agrees; with a price tag this high, we must get NextGen right the 

first time. 

With a project of this magnitude and complexity, as well as a 

well coordinated fully integrated plan known to and agreed upon 

by all stakeholders, along with supporting equipment standards is 

critical. Today we do not have a way forward on NextGen. There 

is no coordinated plan. 

Now, some of you know I am new to DC here, and I can give you 

a couple of great examples of that in just a moment. But I will give 

you an example of the point that aircraft manufacturers are delivering aircraft that possess capabilities that cannot be utilized either because of the current infrastructure, the infrastructure not 

being prepared to use the technology, or the operational procedures 

necessary have not been approved. 

In addition, Government has required the installation of 

NextGen equipment, including ADS–B, that does not meet the end 

state standard necessary to achieve the desired long-term goals. 

The Government must step forward with greater financial commitment and show real aviation leadership. 

ALPA was pleased to see the President’s inclusion of $1 billion 

for NextGen projects in the jobs package, and it is our hope that 

it becomes law, and the $1 billion NextGen investment will serve 

as the tipping point for investment in industry and Government to 

move forward on the critical initiatives that we are engaged in. 

But again, on the total cost of NextGen, what will $1 billion get 

you? Being new, it is like putting a quarter into a parking meter 

up here on Capitol Hill and expect to get 2 hours in that meter. 

It is not going to happen. A quarter only has gotten me 7.5 minutes, and if you don’t plan it out quite right, you are going to get 

a ticket or, worse yet, you are going to get towed. And that is a 

penalty for a lack of investment and an industry and consumers 

14 

are being penalized for not having an investment in NextGen with 

higher costs that sacrifice safety. 

You know, when we move forward on NextGen and we try to motivate the industry to invest, it is only going to happen if we see 

a path forward and return to—and a return on the investment, and 

the Government needs to show that financial leadership and make 

decisions moving forward on NextGen. In Chicago, in 1945—1944, 

the International Civil Aviation Conference was held in Chicago at 

that time, and they decided that the U.S. was the leadership in the 

world, and they made a fundamental decision to make English the 

language of aviation. And right now, we need to move forward with 

NextGen so that we don’t lose that leadership role. 

Now, I know I have gone over my 5 minutes, and I will leave my 

other comments for the Q&A period. But NextGen is important for 

our members. Our pilots are trained. There is equipment out there. 

We need to figure out a way to work together to get this timeline 

sped up. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Bolen. 

Mr. BOLEN. Thank you, Chairman Petri. 

Thank you for convening this important hearing and thank you 

for opening today’s hearing by recognizing Mr. Costello. On behalf 

of the business aviation community and all of the general aviation 

community, we certainly appreciate the effort that the Congressman has made to understand our industry and to recognize the 

benefits and importance of general aviation to our country and to 

be a leading advocate on the value of allowing us to use per-gallon 

charges to fund the system, rather than devastating per-flight fees. 

So I want to thank Mr. Costello for all that he has done during his 

service in the Congress. 

This is an important hearing and an exciting one because I think 

NextGen, as you will hear from all of us, is something that we fully 

embrace. What we are trying to do is transition from a groundbased, radar-based system to a satellite-based, airplane-centric system of air traffic control. 

The benefits are clear. We do believe we can reduce our environmental footprint. We do believe we can enhance safety. We are convinced we can reduce delays and increase capacity. And for the 

business aviation community, it is the ability to increase system capacity that is really exciting to us. What we have seen over a period of years, is that as airports become congested, general aviation 

gets pushed out. We are forced to go to secondary airports. Some 

of you will recall back when Chicago Midway was a great general 

aviation airport. Manchester, Fort Lauderdale, San Jose, the list 

goes on and on. But as those airports saw growth in scheduled 

commercial operations, we began to get pushed from secondary airports to tertiary airports. We need to expand the capacity of the 

system to allow more safe, efficient operations out of all of our Nation’s airports and all of our airspace. 

So business aviation and the entire general aviation community 

has been very supportive of our move to NextGen. I think over the 

course of the past several years, we have seen reason to be excited 

about some of the things that are going on. We see that Joint PlanVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:14 Jun 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\10-5-1~1\70555.TXT JEAN
15 

ning and Development Office has put forward a vision. We have 

seen the community come together in Task Force 5 to work on implementation, and currently, we are working very closely with the 

FAA and the NextGen Advisory Council to develop ways that we 

can move forward in a coherent, coordinated way and make some 

of the benefits a reality today. 

I think the important thing about NextGen is that we all understand NextGen is not just about technology. There are important 

technology programs. But NextGen is also about procedures and 

policies and a culture. And I think we can do more. Part of the 

Task Force 5 recommendations and the early NAC comments suggest that we have a lot of onboard technology today that we are not 

using to the fullest extent possible. We can do more with regard 

to satellite-based approaches and WAAS-based approaches 

throughout the United States that can yield some immediate benefits. 

When people want to know how we move forward with NextGen 

faster, we see room for improvement in these areas. That means 

getting more approaches done and not just overlaying just the approaches that we have in place today. Let’s create new approaches 

that provide real benefits. That does bring some environmental 

challenges, but we think where there is a commitment to working 

together, we can overcome those. So getting more of those approaches out there, making sure that they deliver benefits and 

streamlining the approval process so that business aviation can 

participate in that is a fundamental way that we can all work together to move forward. 

Business aviation and the entire general aviation community is 

committed to NextGen. We have never wavered in that commitment. We participate in all of the advisory groups so that we can 

have input into building a system that doesn’t just improve transportation for business aviation but for the entire aviation community as well. 

We appreciate the leadership that we have seen from this committee and the commitment to work together with the aviation 

community. 

We are frustrated by recent proposals that distract us and force 

us to spend time and effort on Capitol Hill working on these funding proposals rather than on the important communication and coordination that is necessary to make NextGen a reality. We are 

grateful that this committee has understood the need to move forward and kept our feet to the fire. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Captain. 

Mr. CAPTAIN. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation today 

to testify, to provide input on the benefits of NextGen. 

Deloitte published an extensive study this past May on the business case, based on best commercial practices, for the global implementation of air transportation system transformation efforts, with 

particular attention to the U.S. NextGen program. My name is 

Tom Captain. I am the lead author of the study. 

That study was funded and performed independently by Deloitte 

and was intended to provide input to the ongoing industry dialogue 

regarding the quantification of benefits and costs, funding, scope, 

16 

timing and potential merits of these transformation and modernization initiatives. It also identified the risks and the challenges 

associated with this very complex undertaking, as has been mentioned before. 

In our business case, we found that conversion to satellite-based 

positioning, navigation and timing systems enables better pilot situational awareness, point-to-point and closely spaced aircraft operations, continuous descent procedures, and all-weather air traffic 

operations, resulting in significant reduction in weather and congestion related delays as well as reduced flight times. 

We found that the successful implementation of NextGen by 

2025, using reasonably conservative assumptions about future demand for travel, price increases in oil and other factors, results in 

an estimated net present value of $281.3 billion and an internal 

rate of return of 44.8 percent. By 2026, the first year of full implementation, the study found $29 billion of first year net benefits, 

which only would increase each year there after, as the price of oil 

and air travel demand increases. This is made up of 830 million 

gallons of jet fuel savings per year again; 900,000 hours of time 

saved; and 6.8 million metric tons of carbon emissions avoided. 

It should be noted that these did not include several upside benefits potentially that could make this business case more positive, 

including potentially inclusion of NextGen for general aviation and 

for military aircraft operations, nor did the scope contemplate potential consolidation, again, potential, of the national airspace operation, more efficient air traffic control procedures or reduction of 

legacy ground radar systems, for example. 

To provide additional insight about the business case, we examined three NextGen schedule scenarios, number one implementing 

as planned in 2025, acceleration to 2020, and then delay by 5 years 

to 2030. We found that acceleration resulted in an additional $19.8 

billion of net present value and increased that high internal rate 

of return by another 21.7 percent. Alternatively, delayed implementation still has a positive business case of that $281 billion, but it 

would result in a net present value reduction of about $47.6 billion 

and reduces that internal rate of return by 131⁄2 percent. Additionally, the business case found that the net benefits would accrue to 

constituents as follows: 35 percent to airlines, 59 percent to passengers, 5 percent to Government and airports, and 19 percent to 

the general economy. These savings are not only in fuel costs, people’s time, and emissions, but in less airplane maintenance and 

labor costs, insurance, reduction in noise, increased airspace capacity, and overall economic benefit from a much more efficient air 

traffic system. 

As outlined in our study, to achieve these benefits, there are a 

number of challenges and risks that must be addressed to successfully meet these implementation timetables. These include, but are 

not limited to, funding, technology and program risk, workforce 

transformation, regulatory reform, legal, air traffic control procedures, technical and certification standards and harmonization, 

and so forth. In addition, the program continues to be impacted by 

program management challenges of cost overruns and schedule 

delays due to technical complexity, requirements creep and uncertainty, as well as system verification and integration challenges. 

17 

Due to the integrated nature of these elements, success will be 

highly dependent on the ability to manage requirements, cost and 

schedule in a coordinated manner as a program. A key lag in one 

of these elements could impact the ability of the entire program to 

be on schedule, as has been mentioned before, and a focus on interdependencies would necessarily be required. 

Our study highlights considerations targeted at addressing a 

number of these concerns, which include assessments of potential 

funding to address NextGen equipage to close the gap, to close the 

business case for airlines, as well as program management to include oversight and governance programs to better ensure overall 

programmatic performance and accountability, as has been mentioned by the Administrator early year this week. 

In summary, the business case demonstrates that the return on 

investment is significant for all scenarios considered. It looks like 

it is an open-and-shut business case. As we have said earlier, it is 

all about execution. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I was going to ask you, just to build on your concluding statement, if you do a—your firm does a lot of consulting for the multinationals of this world, and assume for a minute that we are not 

talking about a Government, but we are talking about, say, Exxon 

Mobil, which does billion-dollar projects all the time all over the 

world. And if they could borrow at the Government’s costs—we are 

borrowing at 2 to 3 percent now—and get a 65 percent return on 

their investment if they moved things up a little bit faster—I think 

you indicated 44 percent on the current timetable, and if we cut 5 

years off it, we would get 21 percent more—would you say that 

that is the kind of thing that we would be yelling that they are robbing someone because they are making such a huge profit, or is 

this a no-brainer, or what—could you bring it to life a little bit for 

us what we are talking about? 

Mr. CAPTAIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think if you look at most investment cases for property, plant, and equipment, most companies 

would say that a return on investment of 44 percent would be outstanding, and that is why we say this is an open-and-shut business 

case. It is not about the investment return, it is about how you do 

it and manage the risk. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Huerta, you are kind of in charge of managing the risks 

or helping to get this thing done. It is a big assignment, and it is 

in a way out of the ordinary for the FAA in that normally the FAA 

is a line agency that is trying to put out fires every day and managing the—has responsibility for managing the safe and efficient 

flow of air traffic, among other things, in the United States. This 

is a different type of an operation. It is managing a transformative 

process to reconfigure the way it is doing business. Could you discuss that a little bit, and the magnitude of the problem, and how 

we can help you to do as effective and efficient a job as possible? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think you provided an excellent summary of the challenge that the FAA faces. 

The FAA is, first and foremost, an operating agency with a safety 

18 

focus, and we never want to do anything that is going to get in the 

way of our ability to maintain a safe system that operates as efficiently as possible. And you are correct in pointing out that our 

transformation to NextGen represents a very significant difference 

in the way that we do business. 

One of the things that Administrator Babbitt identified early on 

when he came to the FAA was the importance of separating the 

program management functions associated with NextGen from the 

day-to-day operational functions of the FAA, and that was with a 

very deliberate intent, to ensure that we had the appropriate level 

of focus and oversight on delivering NextGen programs as effectively as possible, and at the same time not allowing people that 

are delivering those programs to be distracted by the day-to-day operation that is always there. 

We appreciate the support that has been shown by the Congress 

in reorganizing the functions of the FAA to create a new program 

management office and to elevate the profile of the NextGen organization, and we are very focused on putting the tools in place to 

ensure that we are able to deliver these programs so that we can 

maximize the benefit. 

We also recognize the need to accelerate, and make very visible 

to everyone, the benefits from delivering NextGen. You have heard 

from the other witnesses the importance of advanced navigation 

procedures, and you have also heard that, in fact, most aircraft are 

equipped to take advantage of those procedures today. That has become an area of very significant focus for us, and in the year ahead 

what we really want to do is focus on how can we improve the 

quality of these procedures, how can we accelerate their deployment, and how can we see the very real benefits associated with 

reduced fuel consumption, reduced time, and corresponding environmental benefits as well. But it starts with how we manage and 

how we oversee the programs, and we put changes in place in the 

last few months that I think maximize our ability to do that. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Huerta, let me ask a question, but before I do, I think we 

all recognize that everyone in the room, both on this subcommittee 

and everyone here today, supports NextGen and wants to see it 

successfully implemented. We also, all of us, as Members of Congress, and you as taxpayers, want to see us do the responsible 

thing in reining in spending, trying to balance the Federal budget, 

and that is a challenge, trying to make investments that, in fact, 

pay off in the end, while at the same time trying to figure out in 

the Federal budget what can be reduced, what can be cut. 

What I am trying to do here is to get a handle on how cuts will 

affect the implementation of NextGen. So my question is, your people at the FAA, surely they have done an analysis concerning the 

various proposals in Congress. There are proposals in Congress 

that would cut FAA anywhere from 5 to 10 percent in the capital 

and operating budgets, including accounts for NextGen. So regardless of where we are and how much should be cut and how much 

shouldn’t be cut, I think we have a responsibility and the agency 

19 

has a responsibility to tell us how various proposals will affect the 

implementation of NextGen. 

I said in my opening statement that throwing money at this 

issue or any issue is not the only answer, that there are other 

things that have to be done in order to make sure that it is— 

NextGen is implemented in an efficient, effective way, but obviously you have to have the funding to move forward. 

So my question to you is there are proposals in the Congress now 

to reduce your operating budget, which will, in fact, affect 

NextGen. Have you done an analysis from a budgetary standpoint 

as to what a 1-percent, what a 5-percent, what a 10-percent cut 

would do as far as the progress that the agency is making with the 

implementation of NextGen? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Costello. 

President Obama has put forward in his budget for fiscal year 

2012 the Administration’s view on what we think are the resources 

that are necessary to keep the program on track and to ensure that 

the benefits that we would like to achieve are there. 

The question that you are also raising, which is in tight budgetary times, what can we do to maximize the investments that we 

make, and how do we ensure that we keep NextGen on track. I 

think, first and foremost, what the President has put forward is 

what we believe to be the appropriate balance of maintaining the 

operation and ensuring that we are able to deliver the goals of 

NextGen. If we are looking at less than that, first and foremost, 

what we need to be concerned about is maintaining a safe system, 

and that puts us in the position of needing to consider are there 

future investments that we would need to delay? If we delay the 

investment, we delay the realization of the benefit, and the challenge of that is that the aviation industry continues to grow, and 

a lot of what we are investing in is to enable us to manage that 

ever-increasing share of traffic. 

We have done an analysis, and we have been engaging in discussions with industry of how we should look at it, and I think the 

tension that we have in a reduced funding scenario is: do we cut 

everything across the board—what is called the famous peanut butter spread—or do we really focus on a couple of key programs and 

try to maximize their benefit? And we don’t have an answer to that 

because we want to consult with industry in terms of where do 

they want to see the maximum benefit. You have heard from them 

that in the near term, the focus needs to be on advanced procedures. 

I would also like to point out that the investment we have made 

as of today, about half of that has been in the deployment of the 

ADS–B ground stations throughout the country, and we need to remain on track to deliver that by 2013 because that is a 

foundational program that enables us to build on the rest of the 

NextGen technologies. 

To keep the program to meet our timetables that industry has 

asked for, Task Force 5 has laid out a series of things they would 

like to see us accomplish between now and 2018. To be able to 

meet that, though, the President’s budget really provides the template to get us there. 

20 

Mr. COSTELLO. One more question regarding funding. I asked 

Administrator Babbitt when he testified before the subcommittee a 

similar question, and I asked him what effect the proposed cuts at 

the time would have on the implementation of NextGen, and he 

said—I have a transcript of his testimony here, and he said that, 

So I don’t think that we should be penny wise and pound foolish. 

Yes, we could save the penny, but in the end it is going to cost 

more money over time to delay a lot of what we are proposing. 

And what I am trying to do is get a handle on what that means. 

So I hear you say that, you know, we would take a couple of programs and prioritize, but, you know, I think for those of us who 

are making decisions on the budget and funding levels for the 

agency, it would be good for us to know that if you rollback to 2008 

or 2009 funding levels, that that is going to delay the implementation by a year, 2 or 3 years, 4 years, whatever it may be, so that 

when we are making these decisions to vote on budget levels, we 

know exactly what the effect of that vote will be, that we know that 

we are delaying NextGen by a specific amount of time. And I don’t 

think I have heard that from the agency yet, and I think it would 

be helpful for everyone to know that. 

Mr. HUERTA. There is no question that civil aviation is a major 

economic contributor, and, yes, any delay would result in delays in 

benefits to that industry and would significantly impact the job potential of that industry. 

In terms of if we cut here, if we reduce by this, what does it 

translate to in years? I think it is dependent on a number of factors, paramount among them which is, how does it affect various 

funding categories within the FAA? But there is no question that 

reduced funding will result in delays, and delays will cost us more 

in the future in lost benefit as well as the cost of deploying the program. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have the panelists with us today. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to another meeting, 

but I want to put a question to Mr. Huerta, if I may. 

Mr. Huerta, very elementary definition, tell us what ERAM is, 

and more specifically why is the program $500 million, I am told, 

over budget and 3 to 5 years delayed? Is there a plan to get it back 

on track? And let me put a two-part question to you to tie on to 

that. 

In your testimony you say that ERAM delays are attributable to 

not having enough stockholder inclusion. If you would, sir, elaborate in more detail, is that to say that there were no air traffic controllers involved in the development of ERAM? And if you will respond to that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

ERAM represents the new platform for handling high-altitude 

traffic at air traffic control centers all across the country, and it is 

a foundational program to NextGen. The original contract was 

awarded to our primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, in July of 

2003. 

21 

The challenges that we encountered in the deployment of ERAM 

related to what you pointed out as stakeholder or shareholder involvement, and that is the air traffic controllers that actually have 

to use this program to safely separate aircraft every day. What we 

found a couple of years ago was as we started to roll the system 

out into our first test sites, that there were difficulties in the 

human interface, the controllers’ ability to work with the program 

as compared with the program that they were migrating off of, an 

older system known as HOST. And so we elected at that time, a 

couple of years ago, to stop where we were and really focus on how 

could we address the controllers’ concerns and to ensure that challenges and difficulties we were seeing in the software could be addressed such that the controllers would feel confident that they 

would be able to operate on this program. 

That has been very successful, and we now have the program up 

and running at two of our air traffic control centers, Salt Lake Center and Seattle Center. On October 19th, we will pass the 1-year 

mark when we will be operating on ERAM at Salt Lake Center, 

and later in the year we will pass the 1-year mark at Seattle. And 

we are very confident that we are going to roll out ERAM and operate traffic-operating capability at another six sites between now 

and the end of this calendar year. 

The delaying challenges have resulted in a rebaselining of the 

program, though, in terms of its schedule for rollout. I indicated 

that we expect to be at a total of seven sites by the end of this 

year, and the next 2 years it is our expectation that we will complete the rollout of ERAM at the remaining sites throughout the 

country. 

There are a lot of lessons learned associated with ERAM, and the 

one that you pointed out is really the key: the importance of the 

involvement of the operators of the system early on in the development. And that is something that we have really focused on as we 

have looked at standing up the program management operation 

within the FAA: How do we adopt those best practices and ensure 

that, as we develop further technology programs, that we have the 

right connection between the operators and the users of the system 

with those that are developing it? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I am still having difficulty 

in embracing the delay and the monetary, the budgetary problem, 

but I will try to do better as I plow through it. 

Thank you all for being with us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I noted in my brief opening comments, and you mentioned the 

importance of involving the operators of the system early on, and 

so you said in your testimony that there will be a new committee 

to address the various issues that confront FAA as we seek to implement the NextGen. And so I wanted to know, this committee 

that you referred to, the coordinating committee, who is on it? Are 

the air traffic controllers sitting at the table with you? Because 

22 

they are the ones who are going to have to really move to, you 

know, implement and be a part of this whole system. 

Mr. HUERTA. The NextGen Advisory Committee was created by 

the Administrator about a year ago, and it is a broad-based committee of industry representatives, all the users of the system, and 

the question put before them is really how do we look at the business of NextGen, how do we advance the benefits and ensure that 

NextGen is responding to the needs of the aviation industry? 

The members include, yes, labor as well as air carriers. It involves all segments of the industry. In fact, two of my fellow witnesses on this panel are members of the NextGen Advisory Committee. The committee itself meets quarterly, and there are a series 

of working groups that deal with very specific taskings and questions that are provided to them by the FAA. Examples of recent 

taskings that we provided to the NextGen Advisory Committee are 

to do some work so that we could reach industry agreement on 

what are appropriate metrics for measuring benefits, and then how 

do we ensure that we are able to actually realize those benefits on 

a timely fashion. We have asked for input from them on questions 

such as ‘‘how do we address equipage of the fleet?’’ 

The aviation industry has always been founded as a partnership 

between Government and industry, and in creating the NextGen 

Advisory Committee, it is really to further that partnership for this 

very important initiative to transform our—— 

Ms. HIRONO. Who are the two other people on the panel? Raise 

your hands. 

Thank you very much. 

To go on, one of the testifiers talked about how important it is 

to get the airlines on board, because they are going to need to put 

forth the funds to make sure that their planes have the proper 

equipment, and I believe, Mr. Huerta, you said that most—maybe 

I heard this wrong—that most of them are already equipped to be 

able to use the NextGen procedures. That seemed to be at variance 

with some of the other testimony that we need to figure out a way 

to incentivize and have the aviation, the airlines have the confidence that FAA is actually going to be able to move forward with 

NextGen. Would you like to comment? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yeah, thank you. 

There are two distinct levels of equipage. Many aircraft are currently equipped to handle advanced navigation procedures known 

as area navigation or required navigation performance, RNAV and 

RNP, respectively. That is a type of approach to airports that enables you to operate with reduced fuel burn and operate shorter 

distances coming into airports, and so that is one level of equipage. 

Longer term, there will be other benefits associated with other 

equipage; for example, advanced data-communications technologies 

that will minimize opportunities that might exist in the system for 

error associated with radio transmissions. Instead, by providing secured data transmissions, you have a higher level of confidence 

that there wouldn’t be errors in the system. 

What the industry is telling us is many of them are equipped for 

RNAV and RNP, and they would like to maximize the benefits of 

those things, and they want to ensure that the FAA is doing what 

it needs to do to enable them to maximize those benefits, and they 

23 

are right. That is an important confidence-building step that is 

needed in order for them to have the confidence to do investments 

in the future. 

Ms. HIRONO. So for any of the other testifiers, do you think that 

things are moving along; for the equipment that the airlines already have, that you have the confidence that FAA will be able to 

allow the airlines to use, utilize those equipments currently? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, I think at this point it is closer to a ‘‘trust but 

verify’’ type situation. As the Deputy Administrator stated, and I 

thought it was a very accurate portrayal of where we are today. A 

number of groups in the aviation community, not just the airlines, 

but also general aviation and even the military, have put GPS 

equipment on board their airplane at their own cost. We have also 

worked to be trained to use this, so investment in NextGen has already been made by the private sector. 

Our frustration at this point is that we don’t feel we are freely, 

consistently, and ubiquitously operating with those types of approaches, thus I earlier spoke about the need to get more approaches, have them be beneficial approaches, and make sure that 

we are using them to the greatest extent possible. We are committed, we are investing in it today, and when we do get to that 

second level of equipage, whether it is ultimately purchased by the 

Government or by industry, there will be additional costs. Not just 

in buying the box, but installation costs, training costs, the keeping 

everybody current and proficient on the system. These will be significant for industry, but we shall bear those costs, just as we did 

with RVSM and GPS. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. My time is up, but I do—I will submit 

one question to you, Mr. Huerta, that has to do with FAA’s plans 

for the NextGen upgrades in Hawaii, which has a vast area to 

cover, our Honolulu air traffic control system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Huerta, I have expressed some concerns about the SE2020 

pipeline not flowing as quickly as it could be. I have got a couple 

parts of the question surrounding SE2020. I have heard and I 

would like you to comment on whether right now it is not new 

work that is being assigned, but existing work that is simply being 

brought under SE2020 from other contracts, and can you shed 

some light on when we can expect more dollars and tasks to be 

flowing through the pipeline? Any reasons for the slow start, and 

what you are doing to help address this? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. 

Yes, as you know, SE2020 is a contract vehicle that enables the 

FAA to contract with the private sector on specific task orders associated with the deployment and delivery of NextGen. Over the past 

year, since the award of SE2020, we have processed about 144 task 

orders, and that totals close to $400 million in investment that has 

been run through that task vehicle. That is about half of our fiscal 

year 2011 enacted capital budget, and as I talked about in my testimony, this partnership with the private sector is very important. 

I think that we would all like to maximize the level of private parVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:14 Jun 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\10-5-1~1\70555.TXT JEAN
24 

ticipation in the development of this because it is a force multiplier 

for us. It enables us to move things as quickly as we possibly can. 

I think that there is concern that is expressed on the part of 

some contractors that we need to be doing more, that there are important things that can be done. I think it is important to balance 

that, though, against the overall challenge that we have to ensure 

that all of the work is fully integrated as we are developing various 

parts of an extremely complex system, and what we are doing is 

ensuring that that level of integration is there so as to maximize 

the benefit and to ensure that we don’t have disconnects as programs get developed by different contractors. Would we like to do 

more, and would we like to do it more quickly? Absolutely. But our 

overriding challenge is to ensure that we do it right. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. You mentioned that the FAA just accomplished the realignment, which is supposed to help NextGen along. 

Could you elaborate a little bit on how specifically these changes 

will help the FAA deliver NextGen? 

Mr. HUERTA. Two major things that we did associated with our 

realignment relate to the NextGen program office itself, and then 

the second relates to a program management function, how we deliver complex technology programs. 

Taking first the NextGen program office. Previously, it was 

housed within the Air Traffic Organization, which reflects the fact 

that fundamentally what we are redeveloping is an air traffic system. But, concern had been expressed by members and industry, 

and, in fact, by this committee, that that organizational relationship did not fully reflect the transformational nature of NextGen. 

It is more than developing a computer system; it is also how procedures get certified, it is how we integrate procedures into airports. 

It involves the full scope of all aspects of the FAA, and there are 

interagency components. You and others have touched on the importance of relationships with the Department of Defense, with 

NASA, and a host of other external stakeholders. 

What we have done as part of our restructuring is to elevate the 

NextGen program office into a new Assistant Administrator for 

NextGen that reports directly to me, and I am pleased to be joined 

by my colleague, Vicki Cox, who is the Assistant Administrator for 

NextGen. She has broader agencywide responsibility that we think 

will be very effective in leveraging the full Resource of the FAA 

against this agencywide transformation. That is the first thing. 

The second thing is program management. Under our old structure, new programs such as ERAM were housed within the operating unit that they were ultimately going to support. So in the 

case of ERAM, it was housed in our En Route Organization within 

Air Traffic. The En Route Organization is fundamentally an operating organization, and it is very difficult to ensure consistency 

across all programs if they are managed by distinct operational 

units in the FAA. And the second thing is operating units are consumed with operations. Deployment of a new program is a longterm management program that must be kept on track, and we felt 

it was important to elevate the profile of the programs to give them 

dedicated oversight and ensure that they are appropriately linked 

to the operation to keep them on track. And so the two elements 

were elevating the NextGen program itself and then creating withVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:14 Jun 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\10-5-1~1\70555.TXT JEAN
25 

in the ATO a program management office to oversee large technology development programs. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Once again, thank you and your team for what 

you are doing. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My time is running out, but I want to compliment all four of you. 

This has been a great panel. You have said the things we need to 

hear. Some of it we have heard before. Just keep saying it. 

I especially want to associate myself with Captain Moak and Mr. 

Bolen. Thanks for hanging in there. You have said it clearly, Captain Moak, you are going to be OK on Capitol Hill, you did a good 

job, so thanks for making yourself available to do what you are 

doing because we appreciate it very much. 

It is investment with a known return, Mr. Chairman. This is investment, and I think for our—call it fiduciary responsibility, whatever. If we know this is an investment with known return, and also 

it adds all of the capabilities to safety and so on, let us get on with 

it. Let us get on with it. 

I have to go, so I would like to yield the remainder of my time 

to my good friend and colleague—and I think we are on the same 

frequency—Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. I appreciate it, Leonard, I really do. 

I actually have a couple of different questions. I don’t even know 

where to start. The first one is—and I am going to direct it to Mr. 

Huerta, and we touched just briefly on the budget, and you said 

that the President’s bill provides us with the tools to get there. And 

I think we are all concerned about implementation of NextGen and 

getting there, but what I worry about is—and the administration 

has proposed a $100 user fee on commercial and general aviation 

operations in controlled airspace, and I worry about that hampering us considerably when it comes to implementation of 

NextGen, and for that matter even the general aviation industry 

altogether. But out of curiosity, are you all worried about that proposal? 

Mr. HUERTA. Clearly, we are in a time of significant fiscal challenge in the country, and I think what the President has put forward is a proposal to try to attempt to address that challenge that 

we have. Establishment of the fee would address what are regarded as current inequities in the cost of operating the air traffic 

control system. And we recognize that the GA community currently 

pays a fuel tax, but these revenues are far less than the cost of the 

air traffic control services that are provided to that community of 

users. It is a relatively small cost in relation to the total operating 

cost of a flight, and I think that what we heard from the President 

is that everyone needs to do their part to address the fiscal challenges that we face as a country. 

Mr. GRAVES. Does the FAA support the $100 fee? 

Mr. HUERTA. I support the President. 

Mr. GRAVES. Do you support the $100 fee? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Moak, do you want to—— 

26 

Mr. MOAK. I would like to comment on the $100 fee is clearly a 

tax. The Air Line Pilots Association is against that tax. That is a 

job killer for our members, for the airlines. You put another tax on 

the airlines, you couple that with the tripling of the TSA tax, and 

you are going to have a capacity reduction in the system. It is a 

fact that airline tickets are market based. You put those taxes on 

there, we won’t need to have NextGen hearings because you won’t 

need to modernize the system because there won’t be enough people flying. Enough is enough on these fees that are taxes in disguise. That is how we feel about it. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Bolen? 

Mr. BOLEN. Congressman, the $100-per-flight fee proposal is at 

best a distraction at a time when our industry cannot afford to be 

distracted, and at worst it is a very destructive force. 

A couple of comments. First of all, the idea of a per-flight charge 

is not a new idea. It is an idea that this committee and several 

other committees on Capitol Hill have thoroughly studied, analyzed. It has been the subject of numerous hearings and a great 

deal of input, and after 4 years of considering this question at the 

deepest level, on both sides of this Hill, in four different committees, a decision was made to reject a per-flight fee. It is not in the 

House reauthorization bill, it is not in the Senate reauthorization 

bill. A per-flight fee is just a bad idea. Congress has rejected it in 

the past, and it needs to reject it again. 

Let me add a couple of other points. Deputy Administrator 

Huerta talked about cost allocation. As we know from previous 

hearings, the last time the FAA did a cost allocation study, it was 

a flawed study. It did not use sound economic principles. The last 

time the FAA did a cost allocation study that relied on proven and 

established economic principles, it found that general aviation imposes maybe 7 to 9 percent of the cost of operating the system. Our 

contribution is currently 8.6 percent to the system. We are paying 

our fair share. That does not mean we have not been willing to 

work with the committee to find ways to fund and support 

NextGen. In fact, we have. But we have been very clear. A perflight fee is not just a tax, it is the most destructive tax possible, 

and not only would it create administrative burdens for the general 

aviation industry, but it would distract the FAA from its core focus. 

We want the FAA to be focused on promoting safety and making 

NextGen a reality. We don’t want the FAA to become the Sky IRS, 

a collection bureaucracy that is focused on billing agents, collection 

agents, and auditors. It is time to move forward on NextGen. Serious proposals are on the table. This approach is destructive, and 

it should be rejected. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim my time. I 

think I have got 4 minutes left. 

Real quick, and I apologize, Mr. Huerta, if I mispronounce your 

name, but you said that the $100 fee is going to be used to pay for 

inequities in the air traffic control system. I thought it was going 

to be used to pay for the Jobs Act. Which is the case? 

Mr. HUERTA. Right now the current funding profile of the FAA 

is about half and half user fees associated with fuel taxes and other 

fees that go into the Aviation Trust Fund and General Funds. I 

27 

think what the President is proposing is a larger share of the latter 

would be based on fees. 

Mr. GRAVES. All right. We will move on. 

When it comes to NextGen, and my question is—and I am going 

to have a hearing on this issue in my own committee, the Small 

Business Committee, coming up here pretty quick—but being as 

NextGen is a GPS-based system, and we have got the 

LightSquared issue that is out there—and I would like to direct the 

question to Mr. Moak and Mr. Bolen. Please elaborate. Give me 

your concerns, because I am concerned about it, the bleed-over, and 

particularly when we have got this elaborate system going into 

place, and all of a sudden, you know, we have got equipment that 

maybe may not even work under the new system. 

Mr. MOAK. So the bottom line on equipage in an aircraft as we 

go into NextGen and the money that has been spent since early 

2000, it depends on GPS. So if GPS has any erosion in capability, 

all this will be for naught. We are against that LightSquared issue. 

We spoke publicly on it, we have been up on the Hill on it. The 

bottom line is we need to protect GPS as a fundamental tenet of 

the future of the national airspace, and so I would be happy to attend your hearing on that, by the way. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Bolen? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, the GPS satellite system was obviously created 

by the military, but provided to the civilian community, and the 

benefits to our country have been immeasurable. Whether it is agriculture, transportation, or commerce, it has just been tremendous. And for aviation it has not just been the technology that has 

helped make us safer and made so much of today’s avionics advancements possible, but as Captain Moak just said, it is the cornerstone of where we want to go, and it is incomprehensible that 

we are at a point where we are talking about interference with the 

GPS signal. The military is against it, the Department of Transportation is against it, the aviation community is against it. 

This is about safe navigation. It is about the transportation system that is so fundamental to our economy, to our jobs, to our way 

of life. I am not sure how we got here, but we need to make sure 

that going forward the GPS signal is clear and reliable. We are all 

depending on it, and in the general aviation community we have 

invested heavily in its equipment. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back, and I appreciate everybody being here today. I think this is a good hearing. 

But I do want to associate myself with the comments of Captain 

Moak and Mr. Bolen when it comes to the $100 fee and how I think 

it is going to affect the implementation of NextGen, and particularly what Captain Moak had to say, I don’t know if there will be 

any GA left after a $100 fee is imposed, and then I would like to 

invite everybody to my hearing on LightSquared. But this user fee 

is something that concerns me in a big way, and I think it is going 

to hinder us, hinder us considerably. 

And with that I will yield back, and I appreciate very much Mr. 

Boswell yielding me his time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

28 

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing, and very briefly, Jerry, I want to echo my 

colleagues’ comments about how much we will miss you here on the 

committee and in Congress, but most importantly I want to congratulate you on making—everything that you have done and making this decision. I always think about the fact that my predecessor, my father, who retired from here 7 years ago, people still 

say today that he looks younger now than he did 7 years ago when 

he was still here, so you have that to look forward to certainly. 

We all know that NextGen is vital for the future of aviation in 

our Nation, and I want to commend the chairman and ranking 

member’s efforts to ensure that we see some real near-term benefits from the program. For northeastern Illinois, realizing these 

near-term benefits is especially important because our airports lie 

at the heart of the regional, national, and international aviation 

system. Midway and O’Hare handle over 40 million passengers 

every year. That number is expected to jump by almost 20 percent 

within the next 5 years, 15 percent for each 5 years after that. So 

given the large increase that is expected to happen in the near 

term, it is clear we need to emphasize the results today. 

I am happy that we are taking a look at that, while at the same 

time working to invest in more long-term efforts, like equipping 

aircraft with ADS–B out. In particular, I am proud to have worked 

with the chairman and ranking member to include language in the 

draft FAA reauthorization that aims to boost NextGen equipage 

like ADS–B out with the use of public-private partnerships. 

So I want to start my questioning with Mr. Huerta. Several Federal Aviation commissions recommended that the Federal Government consider a variety of financial and operational incentives to 

commercial and GA operators for NextGen equipage. Can you explain what types of incentives, if any, are currently under consideration by the FAA, and do you think that operators will be able to 

meet the 2020 mandates based on where we stand today? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

One of the things we have heard loud and clear in our discussions with industry about any level of incentive is that there needs 

to be a clear linkage between equipage and benefit, and that there 

need to be mechanisms that would ensure that benefits are delivered, and that the FAA actually signs up for doing its part so that 

people are able to take advantage associated with equipage. 

We asked the NextGen Advisory Committee to provide us a 

framework to look at future equipage incentives. I think Mr. Bolen 

led that activity, but I think that I can share with you on a summary level that they looked across the whole scope of the industry 

and suggested that if you are looking at incentives, while they 

would like to see some direct Federal support, they feel that there 

is a great deal of promise through credit programs that would enable them to take advantage of lower cost of borrowing, but those 

credit programs would need to be linked to specific performance 

targets that the FAA would need to hit. 

They also go on to say that they think we need to look across the 

whole scope of the industry, and that is not only air carrier, but 

also general aviation, because we operate in a mixed environment 

that everyone uses. 

29 

Getting back to the point of linking together any sort of a credit 

program with commitments on the part of the FAA, I think that 

is entirely fair. I think it is appropriate that the FAA be required 

to step up for delivery of benefits because it is consistent with the 

philosophy I talked about before. Our whole aviation system is 

founded on partnership, and if we are depending on the private 

sector to make certain investments, they need to be assured that 

the benefits will be there. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Captain Moak, briefly? 

Mr. MOAK. If you don’t mind, I want to just give you a little more 

on that view on the why. The why behind this problem that we are 

talking about here is that in the airlines they have invested in equipage that is on the airplane right now, they have trained the 

crews to use the equipment that they have, and they are not currently able to use it because of the process and procedures of the 

FAA. So that is why this incentive discussion continues and continues, because we have that equipment there, we are not able to 

use it, and they are not believing that they will be able to deliver 

when you don’t have a work plan and a timeline-based project 

management delivered, with a deliverable at the end. And that is 

why they are going with the idea in the airline business that we 

have already invested in training the pilots, we have bought equipment that we can’t use, and we don’t know when the FAA will ever 

be up to speed so we can use it. So they are making the argument 

on a return on investment, and it is because of the past. 

So, again, pilots are ready, and we are trained on RNP, on 

RNAV, on CPDLC, which we can’t currently use in the continental 

U.S. We have to use CPDLC over the North Atlantic when we 

leave the continental U.S. So that is what the argument is about. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. If the chairman will indulge me for 30 seconds, I 

am going to submit for the record some questions on performancebased navigation as something that I think we need to expedite the 

implementation of that, and I am interested in what is going on, 

what the FAA is currently doing on that, but I will leave that for 

the question for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the distinguished panel for being here today. Lots 

of questions, little time. 

The first question of Mr. Huerta. Reading the most recent IG report, we keep on hearing the term ‘‘investment,’’ we have got to 

keep on investing in this, but how can we invest in something 

when the report of the IG says the FAA has not approved total 

cost, schedule or performance baselines for any of NextGen’s transformational programs nor developed an integrated master schedule 

for managing and executing NextGen? How can we invest in something, sir, we don’t even know what the parameters are? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think a couple of things on that. First of all, what 

the FAA has adopted as a philosophy is: in order to minimize program risk is break the program into short and longer term investment decisions, and what we would like to see is that there is a 

pairing of costs and benefits with shorter term investments so that 

we minimize the risk, for example, of investing over many, many 

30 

years and waiting for some big payoff at the end. We are trying to 

match costs and benefits over a consistent period of time. 

The IG had also suggested that there were certain aspects of the 

program, two in particular, where they identified that the FAA has 

not established baselines for even the first phase. We are expecting 

that in 2012, the next year, that we will be at a point where we 

will have the initial stage for one program in terms of baselining, 

and that we will have a contract award for the other, and so we 

are moving forward to identify program baselines. 

On your question related to integration, we have, over the last 

couple of years, developed two guiding frameworks that I think go 

a long way toward addressing that question. The first is the 

NextGen Implementation Plan, which we publish annually. We will 

be publishing again next spring, and in which we make every effort 

to match up specific investments with things that have come out 

of industry in terms of specific proposals that they would like to see 

the FAA adopt against specific timetables. 

Within that and on a more detailed level, we have developed the 

NextGen Segment Implementation Plan that then deals with the 

first segment of those and the highly detailed project decision to 

identify dependencies among the programs and to ensure that they 

are fully synchronized. 

I think that what we have tried—it has certainly been my mission since I joined the FAA a year and a half ago—to focus on 

much better integration, much better program management, and I 

think that we have made significant progress in that area. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I appreciate that comment, sir, but in the end 

that doesn’t really help us trying to put a price tag on this overall 

and when we are actually going to have it implemented. So I appreciate it, and hopefully it will be more clear in the future. 

Captain Moak, I read your testimony, and I found something interesting in your testimony, your written testimony, is that in regards to unmanned aircraft systems. I found that to be kind of intriguing, international airspace. In your written testimony you actually mentioned that there has been no extensive study to the potential hazards, and the ways to mitigate those hazards must be 

undertaken before we can really implement this program. 

What a lot of people aren’t aware is that we have a lot of DOD 

missions that actually originate here in the United States, flying 

CONUS, continental airspace, and head on out to overseas missions. How much work do you know has been done thus far about 

the Federal Government in studying these potential hazards? 

Mr. MOAK. We have been interacting and identifying to the FAA, 

they have been very cooperative on this matter, but currently there 

is no transparency and there is no clarity on linkage problems, certification of pilots. And I believe until we have those type of studies 

where we are working together, it would be tough to integrate 

them into the national airspace, especially in close proximity to 

passenger or cargo aircraft. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. That is something that definitely we have to look 

forward in the future, because as UAVs become more prevalent, we 

are going to definitely be having them in the same airspace as we 

have passengers and cargo. 

31 

Mr. Bolen, real quickly, I have got 50 seconds, in regards to 

LightSquared, Representative Graves brought that up as well, 

what would be the cost to the GA community on having to implement any type of equipage that would have to try to make sure 

that they were able to maintain the proper signal? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, first of all, right now we don’t know that a filter is possible. Tests have been run. I think what we are sensing 

from the manufacturers of GPS equipment is they are not comfortable that a filter can be effective. 

Certainly having gone to the effort of investing in GPS, having 

gone to the effort at making that the cornerstone going forward, to 

try to do a retrofit is going to be enormously costly, and it comes 

in a backdrop when our industry is struggling. Over the last 3 

years we have seen employment at some of our companies drop by 

50 percent. Aircraft operations are down, the inventory of used airplanes are up, the prices for some models have fallen 30, 40, 50 

percent. 

So this is a tough time for us, and the idea that we are going 

to simply go buy new GPS equipment or a new filter for GPS 

equipment because somehow we have given away spectrum that 

was vital to the future of GPS is just incomprehensible. I urge this 

Congress to do all it can to preserve the integrity of GPS. We have 

all invested in it, and its benefits are enjoyed by all Americans. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. Indulgence for 30 seconds. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree that a user tax would be absolutely detrimental to our community. As a pilot I have been laid off before for 

2 years because of the tenuous operations, what the dollar value 

is in the aviation community. I have gone through a bankruptcy 

with my company as well because of the troubling effects what has 

happened in our economy. I think adding this is just—as Captain 

Moak said, we are not going to need this because there won’t be 

any need for it because our skies will be clear. 

So thank you very much, sir, and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Huerta, Captain Moak raised a kind of ‘‘emperor has no 

clothes on’’ issue, although I want to focus on safety, not funds. He 

in his own way, ever respectful way, mocked the billion dollars, I 

guess it is, in the President’s budget, calling it like a quarter in a 

meter, and it will get you, you know, 7 minutes. I think that was 

fair. I don’t know about you, but I think that was fair, and I understand that we are under tremendous pressure, so I am not asking 

this question out of criticism. I just think that it was an important 

point to raise because there is a big elephant in this room. 

The elephant is that we are sitting here as if this is going to happen. You can ask, are we on track? Let me tell you something, we 

are on track if we are going at the slowest possible pace, and we 

are on track if we are trying to meet some deadline, so on track 

tells us nothing. And whether or not we are on track matters to 

me for one critical reason, and that is the increase in air traffic. 

Captain Moak spoke about Reagan, which is right here, where 

for years they have to use special procedures just to get into the 

airport closest to the Nation’s Capital. These safety concerns are, 

for me, paramount. 

32 

Now, you are going to have a situation where, according to all 

the figures we have, by 2025 you will have a 53 percent increase 

in passengers riding planes. Well, I will tell you what, in this country what you are going to do is you are going to keep airplanes 

going, you know. The airlines are going to keep it happening, and 

nobody is going to say we are grounding airplanes because we 

haven’t finished our GPS, and everybody is going to say it is safe 

to fly. 

So let me ask you questions that are very specific. On the surveillance broadcast aspect, that is supposed to be done by 2015— 

2013; on the data communication segment of it should be done between 2015 and 2018; on the systemwide information that we are 

all depending upon, well, segment 2 has not been baselined, and 

I think segment 1 was baselined in 2009. 

I have got to ask you, Mr. Huerta, in terms of the safety of the 

skies, if GPS stays on—I am sorry—if— yes, if GPS stays on the 

track it is going, are we prepared to limit air travel in the United 

States because we cannot guarantee its safety, or do you think we 

will be able to guarantee the safety going at this pace with a 3- 

percent—53-percent increase in air travel in just a few years, by 

2025? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mrs. Norton. 

The FAA will never do anything that would compromise the safety of the system. 

Ms. NORTON. Please don’t give me your stock answer. 

Mr. HUERTA. No, but to respect your question, you have asked 

are we on track for the delivery of the benefits. 

Ms. NORTON. Or the systems that I have just named. 

Mr. HUERTA. Let me talk first about ADS–B, surveillance broadcast, by 2013. The FAA is very confident that we will meet our 

deadline for delivery of the ground infrastructure for ADS–B by 

2013. And as I said, we have made significant progress in that deployment, and we have—— 

Ms. NORTON. OK, go on to Data—I have limited time. 

Mr. HUERTA. DataComm, we are expecting to receive proposals 

from bidders in the next few days, and based on what we see from 

proposals, I will have a better sense of where we will look relative 

to 2015, 2018. But we have identified those deliveries as required 

under the procurement, and I am looking forward to seeing what 

we get there. 

System Wide Information Management, yes, you are correct that 

on the first segment of that, I think that that was baselined back 

in 2009. There are some benefits that we have seen associated with 

SWIM. That program is one that we continue to focus on in order 

to improve its overall delivery. 

Overall, managing these programs in a very complex and synchronized fashion is our highest priority, but I think, I am confident that we will be able to meet our timetables. 

Ms. NORTON. One further question for you, Mr. Huerta, and for 

Captain Moak. Assuming experienced personnel and the kinds of 

regulations that helicopters use all over the country, do you think 

helicopters should be able to come back and forth into the Nation’s 

Capital 10 years after 9/11? 

33 

Mr. MOAK. I will speak to that. I believe they can. I was out at 

Potomac TRACON on Monday in anticipating this hearing, and 

they have an excellent system set up out there that is probably better talked about privately. But I think they are running a great operation out there, the FAA does, with their DIN network, so I believe it is very safe. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Bolen. 

Mr. BOLEN. Congresswoman Norton, the idea of simply closing 

down airspace or closing down airports is really an inadequate and 

inappropriate response to our Nation’s security needs, and you 

have been a terrific advocate. The reality is we need to find a way 

to facilitate mobility in the United States and do it in a secure 

manner, and that takes attention, it takes commitment, but it has 

to be done. The idea that we resolve aviation security issues by not 

allowing any aviation is self-defeating. We have got to find a 

way—— 

Ms. NORTON. Of course, this is the only place where you say ‘‘not 

have any aviation.’’ In New York, which was the main, the major 

part of our country hit on 9/11, helicopters were up within a few 

days. Helicopters are up all over the United States of America. It 

is a terrible comment on the aviation system in this country, even 

as it now stands, that even in the Capital of the United States, you 

cannot fly back and forth. 

Mr. Huerta, do you think that given the requisites I indicated, 

the tightest kind of regulations, experienced personnel, helicopters 

should be able to fly into the Nation’s Capital the way they fly into 

cities with skyscrapers like Chicago and New York? 

Mr. HUERTA. There are two dimensions to that. From an operational standpoint, yes, we can certainly find a way to accommodate helicopter traffic, but the security aspect of that, which is, of 

course, of great interest to other agencies and the executive branch, 

is also something that we need to coordinate as well, and I can’t 

really speak on their behalf. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you to do this, Mr. Huerta? This was 

not done in this administration, it was done before, and, of course, 

there were some reasons why it was done before. Could I ask you 

when you return to take it upon yourself to sit down with the other 

agencies involved to see if some revision of this policy is not in 

order a decade after 9/11? 

Mr. HUERTA. Certainly. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I would like to thank the full panel for the statements that you 

submitted and for your testimony, your answering questions. The 

committee, as you have heard from Mr. Costello and myself and 

other Members, is very interested and supportive of trying to help 

any way we can to advance the date when we will recognize the 

benefits of the transformation of our air traffic space, and as Mr. 

Captain testified, based on his study, the returns are so enormous 

of this investment that even if the Government lags in doing it, we 

are seeing increasing signs of individuals in general aviation and 

other aspects of air travel in other countries moving forward more 

rapidly on this new technology. And so it behooves us to not linger 

unnecessarily because the world is going to go on, and we are going 

34 

to be left behind if we don’t get our Government sector up as efficiently as possible accommodating growth in the private sector 

with all the advantages that this new technology offers. 

So thank you again, and we will continue to work with you in 

monitoring this situation and hopefully do our part through a reauthorization of giving you more tools and greater focus going forward. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. The second panel consists of the Honorable Calvin 

Scovel, who is the inspector general of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation; Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues of the GAO, Government Accountability Office, both of 

whom have been before this Congress and committee on many occasions; and Mr. Thomas L. Hendricks, who is senior vice president 

for safety, security, and operations of the Air Transport Association 

of America. 

We thank all of you for your patience and for being here today, 

and we will begin with Calvin Scovel. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GERALD L. 

DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND 

THOMAS L. HENDRICKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

SAFETY, SECURITY, AND OPERATIONS, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on 

FAA’s progress in implementing NextGen. 

NextGen is FAA’s most complex effort to date and requires 

multibillion-dollar investments from both Government and airspace 

users to overhaul the national airspace system. Since the effort 

began, we have reported on cost and schedule risks as well as challenges FAA must resolve to successfully transition to NextGen. 

FAA has taken action to adjust its NextGen plans and budgets in 

response to our concerns as well as RTCA’s September 2009 recommendations. 

Pressing challenges remain, however. Today I will highlight 

three challenges that significantly impact FAA’s ability to manage 

NextGen’s implementation and realize benefits. 

The first challenge concerns FAA’s Metroplex Initiative, a 7-year 

effort intended to reduce delays at congested airports in 21 major 

metropolitan areas. Initial studies at 5 of the 21 metroplex locations have been completed, and 2 more are underway; however, 

FAA has not established key milestones or capitalized on more advanced procedures, as RTCA recommended, raising concerns among 

airspace users about the pace, execution, and viability of the effort. 

The Metroplex Initiative depends on the timely deployment of 

more efficient flight procedures. However, as we have previously 

reported, FAA’s new procedures are mostly overlays of existing 

routes, which provide few benefits to users. While FAA completed 

a study that identified initiatives for streamlining the process for 

deploying new flight procedures, it may take as long as 5 years to 

implement them. 

35 

The second challenge involves ERAM, a $2.1 billion system for 

processing flight data. Testing revealed significant software problems with ERAM’s core capabilities for safely managing and separating aircraft. To compensate for ERAM’s deficiencies, controllers 

at the key sites have had to rely on cumbersome workarounds. For 

sites with complex and congested airspace, such as Chicago and 

Los Angeles, risks will increase. 

ERAM’s problems are the direct result of poor program and contract management. For example, FAA and its contractor were overly optimistic that ERAM could be fielded within 1 year and ignored 

early warning signs of trouble during initial site deployment. FAA 

did not begin to detect and mitigate significant risks until almost 

3 years after software problems surfaced at Salt Lake Center, a 

key implementation site. Despite ERAM software deficiencies and 

cost and schedule overruns, FAA continues to pay incentives to the 

contractor. 

Given that FAA and its contractor continue to add new capabilities while attempting to resolve problems, challenges are likely to 

remain and will add to costs and delays. A MITRE study and our 

analysis estimate that total cost growth could be as much as $500 

million, with potential delays stretching to 2016, 6 years beyond 

FAA’s planned date for implementing ERAM. 

Prolonged problems with ERAM will affect FAA’s capital budget 

and could crowd out other critical programs. For example, delays 

in fielding ERAM have required FAA to maintain aging systems 

longer, reprogram funds from other projects, and retrain controllers 

and maintenance technicians, who must operate and maintain two 

different systems. 

Despite the significant program risks and unresolved issues associated with ERAM, FAA has not conducted a detailed assessment 

of ERAM’s interdependencies or impact on other programs, costs, 

and schedules. To date, FAA plans to allocate nearly $600 million 

to integrate and align NextGen transformational systems with 

ERAM. 

The third challenge FAA must address concerns the costs, schedules, and benefits of its transformational systems. FAA plans to 

spend almost $2 billion over the next 5 years on three transformational systems, but it remains uncertain what the programs 

will deliver and how much they will cost. For example, FAA has 

already delayed plans to deploy key capabilities of DataComm, a 

wireless system for sharing data between controllers and pilots, 

from 2016 to 2018. Total program costs for DataComm are uncertain, but FAA estimates that they could be as much as $3 billion. 

Like DataComm, ADS–B, a satellite-based surveillance technology, 

must integrate with multiple FAA automation systems, but FAA 

has not fully addressed requirements and system risks for ADS–B. 

Unstable requirements for SWIM, a system expected to provide 

a secure network for NextGen, have already added $100 million to 

SWIM’s first of three segments and delayed completion by at least 

2 years. A lack of clear lines of accountability for overseeing 

SWIM’s development and management largely underlies SWIM’s 

problems. 

Finally, FAA has yet to develop an integrated master schedule 

to manage NextGen. FAA’s approach of baselining smaller segVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:14 Jun 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\10-5-1~1\70555.TXT JEAN
36 

ments of larger programs, such as DataComm, ADS–B, and SWIM, 

may reduce some risks in the short term; however, as requirements 

continue to evolve, programs are left with no clear end state, and 

decisionmakers in the Congress and Department lack sufficient information to assess progress. Moreover, delays with one program 

can significantly slow another, since the programs have complex 

interdependencies with each other and with FAA’s existing automation and communication systems. 

While FAA recognizes the need for an integrated master schedule 

to manage the implementation of these NextGen capabilities, it has 

not yet developed one. Without a master schedule, FAA cannot 

fully mitigate operational, technical, and programmatic risks and 

prioritize trade-offs among its NextGen programs. Much work remains for FAA to implement RTCA’s recommendations and achieve 

promised near-term benefits. 

Regardless of the funding levels Congress provides for NextGen, 

FAA must focus on establishing NextGen budget priorities, detailed 

milestones, and performance goals and metrics; it must focus on resolving program management and contract problems with ERAM; 

and it must focus on developing an integrated master schedule for 

all NextGen programs. FAA needs to take these actions now to advance NextGen and protect taxpayers’ interests. 

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

happy to address any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority 

Member Costello, and members of the subcommittee. 

You have heard a lot about the benefits of NextGen from the previous panel, and we are all aware of those benefits. I would like 

to take my time this morning and identify with my colleague, the 

DOT IG, and focus on some of the challenges that FAA faces going 

forward. 

The first and arguably the most important challenge for FAA is 

to establish and maintain credibility with NextGen stakeholders. 

This is especially true for airlines, since several NextGen benefits 

depend on having a critical mass of properly equipped aircraft flying in the NAS. Program cancellations, cost overruns, and schedule 

breaches in prior ATC modernization programs have given stakeholders cause for concern about whether FAA can and will deliver 

desired NextGen capabilities on time and on budget. 

According to the airline representatives with whom we spoke, 

two developments would give them the type of reassurances that 

they are seeking. The first is the opportunity to make greater use 

of aircraft technology that is currently available in the fleet, such 

as you have heard earlier, RNAV and RNP. The second is on-time 

delivery of NextGen systems with defined benefits and an acceptable return on investment. We are optimistic that the recent reorganization at FAA, which is partly intended to provide greater and 

more focused accountability for NextGen implementation, will also 

raise the stakeholders’ confidence. 

A second challenge for FAA is to deliver NextGen capabilities on 

time and on budget. Delays in implementing key programs can 

37 

have significant implications, given the integrated nature of 

NextGen. For example, the scheduled delays associated with the 

ERAM program affect the delivery of several other systems, including ADS–B, SWIM, and DataComm, each of which requires the use 

of some ERAM functions. Additionally, program delays could have 

a negative impact on the plans for harmonization with Europe’s 

ATC modernization effort as well as the U.S. avionics industry. 

Thus the implementation of NextGen, both in the midterm and the 

long term, will depend on how well FAA manages program implementation and program interdependencies. 

A third challenge for FAA is to integrate human factors research 

into NextGen system development and training for those who will 

be responsible for operating and operating within the system. FAA 

and its partners will have to identify and develop training for controllers and pilots to carry out their changing role and have this 

training in place before NextGen can be fully implemented. Meeting these training requirements may be particularly difficult during the transition period when some aircraft will be equipped with 

NextGen systems, and others will not. 

A fourth challenge for FAA is to expedite environmental reviews 

and develop strategies to address the environmental impacts of 

NextGen. With the changes in aircraft flight paths that will accompany NextGen efforts, some communities that were previously unaffected or minimally affected by aircraft noise and emissions could 

be exposed to increased levels of both. Obtaining the environmental 

clearances, including community buy-in, can sometimes take several years. 

The last challenge is to manage NextGen implementation and 

current operations with potentially constrained resources. Largely 

because of governmentwide budget constraints, and perhaps project 

implementation delays, FAA has reduced its capital budget by a 

total of $2.8 billion, or 20 percent, for fiscal year 2012 through 

2015. This proposed reduction could affect NextGen and NextGenrelated spending. We note that significant reduction in FAA’s program funding or its operations budgets could contribute to delays 

in establishing NextGen capabilities, increase total cost for implementation, and postpone benefits. In the final analysis, FAA would 

have to balance its priorities to keep NextGen implementation on 

course, while also sustaining the current system’s infrastructure, 

level of safety, and operational efficiency. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Hendricks. 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Thank you, Chairman Petri, and Ranking Member Costello and other members of the subcommittee. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Hendricks. I am the senior vice president 

of safety, security, and operations for the Air Transport Association. We are committed to evolving the national airspace system 

into the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen. 

To enable this evolution, we believe that Congress and the administration should be guided by a national airline policy that recognizes America’s airlines as the global businesses they are and enables them to operate as such. An indispensable element of such 

38 

a policy is NextGen. We appreciate the opportunity to express our 

views today about the progress of that modernization. 

Airlines understand the importance of NextGen. They are deeply 

engaged in it. Airlines also recognize that we cannot wait for what 

is over the horizon. Improvements are within our reach and are 

needed now. We believe that tangible, near-term benefits that improve customer satisfaction, with better on-time performance and 

that save fuel and reduce emissions can be achieved. The FAA 

should therefore focus on ensuring that needed policies, procedures, 

and training are implemented to ensure that the benefits of existing navigation technologies are maximized without delay. 

Our priorities for this modernization are to accelerate the development and approval process of performance-based navigation procedures, the RNAV and RNP approaches that were previously referred to; streamline the National Environmental Policy Act review 

process to expedite the development and implementation of PBN 

and other NextGen procedures; and to develop metrics that gauge 

the performance of NextGen. 

We appreciate that each of these objectives was addressed in the 

FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, H.R. 658, which this 

committee and the full House approved earlier this year. We also 

commend the House and Senate for resisting any increases in commercial aviation taxes in their respective FAA bills. Airlines and 

passengers are already subject to 17 Federal taxes and fees which 

totaled nearly $17 billion last year in our industry. As a result, 

Federal taxes now constitute $61 of every $300 domestic round-trip 

ticket, putting commercial aviation at a higher Federal tax rate 

than so-called sin taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. 

We urge House and Senate transportation leaders to resolve 

their differences and send a final multiyear FAA bill to the President’s desk as soon as possible. We also ask that Congress reject 

aviation taxes included in the White House’s debt reduction plan, 

a new $100-per-flight departure tax, and a tripling of the passenger 

security tax from $2.50 to $7.50. These taxes would cost passengers 

and airlines an additional $31⁄2 billion annually, a 21-percent increase in our annual Federal tax bill, the results of which would 

be devastating to our industry, our passengers, and the U.S. economy. 

U.S. airlines have lost $55 billion and cut 160,000 jobs since 

2001. The new taxes would result in another 10,000 airline job cuts 

next year and permanent reductions in service to less profitable 

small and medium-sized communities. 

In addition to holding the line on the tax burden of our passengers and airlines, enactment of a long-term FAA bill will help 

advance NextGen. NextGen offers the potential to further improve 

aviation safety and deliver substantial efficiency and environmental improvements. 

The national airspace system, despite being the most complex 

aviation system in the world, is extraordinarily safe. That remarkable safety record reflects the determined efforts of the FAA, airlines and its employees, as well as other stakeholders, and we appreciate the support and oversight provided by this committee, 

which has played a key role in helping shape that success. HowVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:14 Jun 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2011\10-5-1~1\70555.TXT JEAN
39 

ever, as the committee knows all too well, the national airspace 

system relies on safe but outdated technology. 

An FAA-commissioned study published last November estimated that the total cost of U.S. air transportation delays was over $31 

billion in 2007. Without significant modernization of the system, 

congestion and delays will worsen as traffic increases, thereby undermining not only the viability and global competitiveness of U.S. 

aviation industry, but the economy as a whole. 

Concern about the future of airspace management, as these data 

show, is not a parochial consideration. Aviation is one of the principal drivers of the U.S. economy. Commercial aviation drives $1.3 

trillion in annual economic activity, or 5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, and 10 million good-paying jobs. In this context, 

the need to improve airspace management is immediate and pressing. We cannot wait for all the pieces of NextGen to come together. 

We must get the most out of the technology investments already 

made in our aircraft. This means that the FAA should focus resources on expediting the introduction of the most cost-beneficial 

elements of NextGen that are available, most notably PBN procedures. These will pay immediate dividends for all stakeholders, including passengers and shippers, by reducing delays, lowering fuel 

burn, and decreasing emissions. 

We commend the FAA for launching its so-called NAV Lean program to expedite the deployment of PBN procedures. Unfortunately 

implementation is scheduled to occur over 5 years. We need a leaner NAV Lean program, and we need it now. Airline fuel costs have 

spiked by nearly one-third this year, which will cost the industry 

an additional $15 billion. U.S. airlines have already invested billions of dollars in new equipment, infrastructure, and technology to 

maximize fuel efficiency. We are doing our part, and we want to 

work with the FAA to ensure that procedures, policy, and training 

are updated so that we realize the benefits from this investment. 

I will be happy to take any questions from the subcommittee. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

One thing that I think has been done more formally in the last 

year was the appointment of a fairly senior stakeholder, if you 

wish, or industry and other involved people, advisory group, to 

work with the FAA to try to help move NextGen forward more efficiently. Is that process working, Mr. Scovel, or is there—are there 

ways we could strengthen that? And I guess also I wonder if—it 

is a complex process, and it involves decisions by the private sector, 

but the Government sector is in the catbird seat, at least in the 

short run, because if they don’t provide the infrastructure, the industry has stranded investment, and that is a great deterrent if 

they don’t—if the Government doesn’t meet its guidelines, or the 

FAA, with NextGen. 

So you talk about trying to set better benchmarks or ways not 

just for Congress, or other, or your agency, but for the private sector to calculate their own lead times and investments they need to 

make. How can we strengthen that process? Is that committee 

helping with that and doing it effectively? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

40 

Let me preface my answer to your question by noting that despite the hard-hitting nature of our testimony this morning, my 

staff and I are firm believers in the concept of NextGen. We should 

not be mistaken as being naysayers before the committee today. 

We are certainly not. 

The benefits are indisputable, and, as Mr. Captain testified from 

the first panel, the business case is open and shut. It is all about 

execution, and that is where our office comes into play. 

Our statutory mission, of course, as you well know, is to keep the 

Congress fully and currently informed on the efficiency, economy, 

and effectiveness of the Department’s programs, and that is what 

brings us to NextGen. We have been looking at it now for a number 

of years, and I would be remiss in my duties if I did not point out 

areas where the Department has been successful as well as those 

areas where its efforts at execution have been less than fully successful. So that is what our objective has been with this testimony 

and every other appearance of my office before the committee. 

Your specific question goes to our views of the effectiveness of 

what is now called the NextGen Advisory Committee. I would relate our assessment of that back to the RTCA Task Force 5, which 

met in 2009 and made 32 recommendations across a number of 

cross-cutting areas, including one that FAA has chosen to focus on 

first as being most beneficial to users and, therefore, to the American flying public; that is, the Metroplex Initiative. FAA adopted, 

recognized, and approved those recommendations in January 2010 

and has been proceeding with Metroplex ever since. To its great 

credit, the agency recognized that it needed a vehicle primarily in 

order to continue to solicit input from the industry, but also to provide labor and other stakeholders with a voice in the development 

process. So it established the NextGen Advisory Committee. 

We have not examined the Advisory Committee in great detail, 

but our preliminary assessment is that it has been helpful to the 

agency in driving the process forward. The agency has referred specific questions to the NextGen Advisory Committee, hoping to get 

more detailed input so that the agency can formulate its approach. 

You asked, Mr. Chairman, specifically about metrics. That has 

been a matter of great dispute, frankly, between FAA and the industry. As a case study, we can use what has been discussed at 

length this morning: the development of required navigation procedures, RNAV and RNP procedures. FAA has worked on RNAV and 

RNP procedures, but only to the extent of trying to develop quantity over quality, in the views of the industry. It has developed 

RNP procedures to overlay existing routes; however, those aren’t 

the routes that the industry assesses as most valuable to their 

needs. The industry has repeatedly asked FAA not to simply shoot 

for a quota, but to consider metrics such as were cited in a statement by a senior industry official last week where he spoke of the 

percent of an airline’s total operations that could be governed by 

RNP, the number of approaches, and the clearance rate by air traffic controllers. And that brings into play the need for FAA to train 

its air traffic controllers in handling aircraft that have RNP and 

aircraft that don’t have RNP, in the mixed equipage environment, 

so that they can safely maintain separation and accommodate the 

industry’s needs as well. 

41 

That is the kind of detailed discussion that has to take place now 

between industry and FAA as far as developing a common language on metrics so that they can together act to bring NextGen 

to reality, and it is going to take both, as we have heard this morning, with significant investments and effort from both Government 

and the industry. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I just would be remiss if I didn’t follow up with Mr. Hendricks 

on one. You have been here before, and I think the last time you 

were before this committee, we were talking about kind of a cloud 

out there having to do with all this depends on—a lot of it depends 

on communication and using part of the spectrum, and we were 

looking at the impacts that the aspirations of LightSquared would 

be on GPS-based communications. They have come out with a—and 

they at the testimony indicated that they were thinking about 

using only a part of the spectrum, and then they have come out 

with now some proposals about reequipage or whatever. Do you 

have any evaluation of how realistic any of that is or—— 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am happy to report that the laws of physics have not changed 

since my last testimony in June. LightSquared’s proposals have 

been studied very carefully by a special committee of the RTCA. As 

you recall from the testimony, there are two 10-megahertz bands 

both above and below the current GPS spectrum that are affected 

by this. LightSquared has stipulated they will not utilize the upper 

10-megahertz band. 

The lower band still causes some concern to the industry, and 

that was validated in the RTCA special committee report. We currently believe that the upper 5 megahertz of that lower band 

causes problems for aviation GPS users and precision GPS users 

like farmers. The lower 10-megahertz band may be available to us, 

but these so-called filters that LightSquared is referring to have 

not been certified; to my knowledge, they have not been manufactured, and the certification standards to put any avionics system 

on an aircraft are extremely high. That is one of the reasons we 

have an incredibly safe system in the United States. 

So while theoretically there may be solutions out there, we know 

from experience that the path to those solutions is very rigorous, 

and we need to maintain the highest levels of safety possible as we 

transform to NextGen. So unless we can guarantee that, we see 

very little opportunity for the current proposal to be successful. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Dillingham, I wonder if you might give us a brief assessment 

as to the progress that the FAA is making concerning NextGen. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. That is a big question, Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. It is. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I think in the first few years there was a lot 

of starts and stops and false starts. Over the last couple of years— 

and some of this is understandable. This is one of the most complicated undertakings that we have done across the U.S. Government. 

42 

I think we are beginning to turn the corner. We are at least 

guardedly optimistic, and it is because what you have heard this 

morning, that, for example, the RTCA Task Force 5, which brought 

together for the first time all the players, even the industry, and 

everybody agreed if you do these kinds of things, then everybody 

is on board. Another first for the FAA is the NAC, which is a—to 

help them implement the recommendations. 

So, I mean, again, we are guardedly optimistic, but, you know, 

it is the implementation where it all falls down, and we are watching this for the committee, this committee and other committees. 

Mr. COSTELLO. One of the problems that, I think, everyone identified in the past was that the FAA had a tendency not to include 

all of the stakeholders, not only labor, but also the private sector 

and so on, bringing them to the table to get their benefit of their 

knowledge and their input on a system that they will all be using 

and benefit by. It appears to me that that is in the past, and the 

cooperation now is working pretty well; is that correct? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I would agree with that, Mr. Costello, and it is 

because of the work of this committee and the willingness to cooperate between the two parties. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well—and I appreciate that, and I appreciate 

your comments, because Chairman Petri and I, when I was chairman and now since I am ranking member and he is chair, I think 

we both agree that it was the responsibility of this committee to 

continue to hold the FAA responsible, and that the more pressure 

that we put on them, the more they would respond. And hopefully 

that is one of the reasons why we are seeing some progress as well 

as a number of other things. 

Final question. You heard me ask—I believe you were in the 

room—you heard me ask earlier, we all know that we have a budget problem, we all know that all of us want to address the deficit 

spending issue and get to a balanced budget at some time. We also 

know that there is things that should be cut maybe deeper than 

others, and we also know that some of the money that we invest, 

in fact, will reap benefits, and NextGen obviously is one of those 

investments. 

My concern is trying to figure out, both in talking informally and 

at hearings, as we go forward, and there are cuts that are proposed, some 5 percent, some 10 percent, operation maintenance, 

also in NextGen, how that is going to affect NextGen. As you heard 

me say earlier, it is not all about money. There is a lot of other 

things that have to come about, but you have to have the money 

in order to bring the private sector and the private contractors in. 

What is your assessment of where we are from a fiscal standpoint, I mean, as far as the budget is concerned and what, for instance, a 5-percent cut would do as far as delaying NextGen as to 

where we are now? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Costello. 

We did some preliminary look when the discussion was taking 

place about moving back to 20O6 and 2008 and 2011 and that kind 

of thing. Basically I think everyone would agree a shortage of funding almost automatically means a delay in the implementation of 

the programs, and as delays increase, so do costs for various and 

sundry reasons. We have seen it in the past, and we are seeing it 

43 

now. You heard the discussion of ERAM and the $300 million and 

$10 million a month to maintain the old system. 

So delays are costly, and I guess as important as delays is confidence. As we said, the credibility for FAA is beginning to rise, but 

when you see situations, it brings back the thought that maybe 

they can’t do this. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you very much, Dr. Dillingham, and, General Scovel, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again for being here today and all the information 

you are providing us, and in particular I would like to thank Mr. 

Scovel. I thank you very much, you and your team, for all the work 

that you do. The information you gave us today was very thorough, 

very informative, and I just want to thank you and your team for 

all that you do. 

One of the things I could ask you, sir, if you don’t mind, is the 

NextGen has never really suffered a lack of funding; would that be 

a correct statement? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Historically, sir, the Congress has taken good care 

of NextGen. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK. 

Mr. SCOVEL. We have looked at the Congress’ funding of FAA 

programs across the board for many years now, dating all the way 

back to the ground-based radars. The Congress has been generous, 

and appropriately so, in taking care of FAA and its capital needs. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. OK, thank you. 

So is it a funding insufficiency, or is it management issues that 

are basically leading to the delay of NextGen’s implementation? 

Mr. SCOVEL. As it currently stands, sir, to date—and I am not 

looking ahead to whatever budget cuts for FAA may lie in the future, but I am looking at the agency’s posture today fiscalwise and 

executionwise—I would have to say that it relates to the Department’s inabilities along three lines, if you will. First, when it comes 

down to program execution, it is unstable requirements, or requirements that change along the way during the development process, 

that increase costs and incur delays. Second, poor program and 

contracting management and decisionmaking also contribute to 

delays. 

The third area that I would have to cite would be the inability 

of FAA to bring to bear all of the sources of information that it may 

need in order to make proper decisions along the line. Whether 

that is industry, stakeholders, or labor, all of those voices need to 

be heard for FAA to make the proper decisions. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you for that. It is interesting you bring 

that up. Because in your written testimony you spoke of the FAA 

continued contract management problems. Could you elaborate on 

that a little bit? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, I could. Let me use ERAM as a case study, because ERAM was referred to by a senior FAA official last week as 

the chassis on which all NextGen functionalities must be bolted, 

and that is an arresting image. I would say that the vehicle, that 

chassis, is not right now up on blocks, but it is certainly not running. It is at idle. It may be at park, in fact. 

44 

FAA has recognized problems, and it has been attempting at 

great speed to try to fix those, but as we dug deeper into ERAM 

over the last couple of years, we had to come to the conclusion that 

this was a program that was hobbled from the start. It never had 

a clean start out of the gate. 

We looked at the contract structure, and we saw undefinitized 

contract elements, and that means that basically FAA was going to 

be billed down the line for work that it couldn’t identify that it had 

required in the first place. 

We also saw that this is essentially an IT contract, sir, and best 

practices for IT contracts call for rather small segmented divisions 

so that the agency letting the contract can quickly identify where 

problems may arise and direct the contractor to make corrections. 

With ERAM, however, FAA contracted in very large segments so 

that when the problems ultimately did arise later, FAA had to engage in very lengthy troubleshooting in order to try to pin down the 

sources. 

The testing process is another one that is mentioned in our written testimony today. FAA sent ERAM to the tech center in Mr. 

LoBiondo’s district—and it is a state-of-the-art facility—but the 

contractor sent an incomplete software package. It turned out that 

the tech center’s capabilities were not up to testing this offering 

along all the functions that would be required to replicate the field. 

But the program was approved, it was accepted by the Government, and it was sent to the 20 en route centers, and that is when 

the problems began to be identified as they arose as the controllers 

began to work with the new system. 

That testing process needs to be fixed. FAA cannot go ahead with 

another program along the lines of ERAM, send it to the tech center, whether it is an incomplete version of the package or that may 

require capabilities that are simply not resident in the tech center, 

and expect the tech center to do its level best on the mission, because that can’t happen. 

Once ERAM got out to the field, sir, the controllers identified 

problems. They identified workarounds that they needed to take. 

Those were able to be made at the Seattle and Salt Lake Centers, 

but as the project rolls out to far more complex en route centers, 

and I am thinking now of Chicago and L.A., which are supposed 

to pick up the ERAM program in the next several months, as Mr. 

Huerta testified, those very busy centers where the sectors are 

quite small and the traffic is quite dense, controllers are not going 

to be able to engage the same workarounds that they used successfully at Salt Lake. 

For all of those reasons, this was a very troubled program from 

the beginning, and it dates all the way back to the contract structure and management decisions along the line. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. I appreciate all that. 

If I could just have a little bit of indulgence. First off, outstanding controllers that we have, the boots on the ground that actually make this stuff work, our hats have to be off to those controllers that do an exceptional job on a daily basis. None of us 

know the challenges that they go through on a daily basis. 

With that said, Mr. Hendricks, you kind of commented early in 

your written testimony and also the testimony you brought out 

45 

today that we actually have capabilities within a lot of the aircraft 

already to go ahead and execute RNAV and RNP; is that correct? 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, both in our flight management systems and 

with the navigation capability on the aircraft itself.So about 45 percent of the U.S. fleet is capable of RNP approaches right now, 

about 90-plus percent can do area navigation, and most of the aircraft have advanced flight management computers that allow very 

optimized cruise altitude and descent planning, as you are well 

aware, and we are not able to take advantage of that, and that 

technology has been around for a couple of decades. 

I have flown RNP approaches myself. One of the ones we have 

gained great benefit from is in Quito, Ecuador, where we improved 

the safety and the reliability of the operation in Quito. We need to 

do the same thing at Chicago Midway, where we could fly an RNP 

approach to runway 22 after flying straight in to runway 31. These 

are things that we can do now. We need to streamline our processes for environmental reviews, we need to put the internal FAA 

processes that give us approvals to do these on steroids and crank 

out some of the benefit to the industry. We will all benefit. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you for that. That is the point I wanted 

to bring out. 

Mr. Chairman, as a pilot, I know, I have aircraft that I have 

flown that have the capability of doing the exact same things that 

we are talking about, that have the capability of having the efficiencies already in there, and yet because of rules, regulations and 

restrictions, we are not able to capitalize on that. As Mr. Hendricks 

said, that is something we need to streamline, because we have the 

capability of doing that right now. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I do 

want to clarify a point that my friend asked the questions, I think, 

to Mr. Scovel, and you said that based upon where we are now, 

that it is not budget issues or funding issues, it is management 

issues and going forward. And I just wanted to point out for the 

record, because I asked that question at a previous hearing, and it 

was addressed in a GAO report. Actually it is—GAO report is ‘‘FAA 

Has Made Progress But Continues to Face Challenges in Acquiring 

Major Air Traffic Control Systems.’’ It is GAO Report 05–331 in 

June of 2005 at our request. 

And then the GAO said some key factors cited by the Government Accountability Office as contributing to cost scheduling and 

performance shortfalls include, and the number one thing that was 

listed was budget cuts led to cost overruns and schedule delays. 

Now, that was a 2005 report that the GAO—so I just wanted to 

put that on the record. And again, you know, money is not the only 

issue here. There are other issues. There are management issues 

and monitoring contracts, and I understand that. 

What I want to do is just get out in the open and on the record 

for Members and the stakeholders to understand, as we go forward 

to making decisions about budget issues, the decisions that we 

make, how it will affect NextGen. And if you came in here and 

46 

said, hey, for the next 2 years it is not a money issue, it is a management issue, then that is fine; but if you said that, you know, if 

you cut 1 percent or 5 percent, it is going to delay it 2 or 3 years, 

then we just need to know that upfront so that when we cast our 

vote and when we make decisions, we know what the consequences 

are going to be. 

So that is the only point that I wanted to make for the record, 

and with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank our witnesses for being here, 

and I thank you for holding our hearing. 

Mr. PETRI. I join in thanking you, and we look forward to continue working with you as we do our best to oversee and to accelerate this vital national program. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

47 


Insert offset folio 11 here 70555.011
48 


Insert offset folio 12 here 70555.012
49 


Insert offset folio 13 here 70555.013
50 


Insert offset folio 14 here 70555.014
51 


Insert offset folio 15 here 70555.015
52 


Insert offset folio 16 here 70555.016
53 


Insert offset folio 17 here 70555.017
54 


Insert offset folio 18 here 70555.018
55 


Insert offset folio 19 here 70555.019
56 


Insert offset folio 20 here 70555.020
57 


Insert offset folio 21 here 70555.021
58 


Insert offset folio 22 here 70555.022
59 


Insert offset folio 23 here 70555.023
60 


Insert offset folio 24 here 70555.024
61 


Insert offset folio 25 here 70555.025
62 


Insert offset folio 26 here 70555.026
63 


Insert offset folio 27 here 70555.027
64 


Insert offset folio 28 here 70555.028
65 


Insert offset folio 29 here 70555.029
66 


Insert offset folio 30 here 70555.030
67 


Insert offset folio 31 here 70555.031
68 


Insert offset folio 32 here 70555.032
69 


Insert offset folio 33 here 70555.033
70 


Insert offset folio 34 here 70555.034
71 


Insert offset folio 35 here 70555.035
72 


Insert offset folio 36 here 70555.036
73 


Insert offset folio 37 here 70555.037
74 


Insert offset folio 38 here 70555.038
75 


Insert offset folio 39 here 70555.039
76 


Insert offset folio 40 here 70555.040
77 


Insert offset folio 41 here 70555.041
78 


Insert offset folio 42 here 70555.042
79 


Insert offset folio 43 here 70555.043
80 


Insert offset folio 44 here 70555.044
81 


Insert offset folio 45 here 70555.045
82 


Insert offset folio 46 here 70555.046
83 


Insert offset folio 47 here 70555.047
84 


Insert offset folio 48 here 70555.048
85 


Insert offset folio 49 here 70555.049
86 


Insert offset folio 50 here 70555.050
87 


Insert offset folio 51 here 70555.051
88 


Insert offset folio 52 here 70555.052
89 


Insert offset folio 53 here 70555.053
90 


Insert offset folio 54 here 70555.054
91 


Insert offset folio 55 here 70555.055
92 


Insert offset folio 56 here 70555.056
93 


Insert offset folio 57 here 70555.057
94 


Insert offset folio 58 here 70555.058
95 


Insert offset folio 59 here 70555.059
96 


Insert offset folio 60 here 70555.060
97 


Insert offset folio 61 here 70555.061
98 


Insert offset folio 62 here 70555.062
99 


Insert offset folio 63 here 70555.063
100 


Insert offset folio 64 here 70555.064
101 


Insert offset folio 65 here 70555.065
102 


Insert offset folio 66 here 70555.066
103 


Insert offset folio 67 here 70555.067
104 


Insert offset folio 68 here 70555.068
105 


Insert offset folio 69 here 70555.069
106 


Insert offset folio 70 here 70555.070
107 


Insert offset folio 71 here 70555.071
108 


Insert offset folio 72 here 70555.072
109 


Insert offset folio 73 here 70555.073
110 


Insert offset folio 74 here 70555.074
111 


Insert offset folio 75 here 70555.075
112 


Insert offset folio 76 here 70555.076
113 


Insert offset folio 77 here 70555.077
114 


Insert offset folio 78 here 70555.078
115 


Insert offset folio 79 here 70555.079
116 


Insert offset folio 80 here 70555.080
117 


Insert offset folio 81 here 70555.081
118 


Insert offset folio 82 here 70555.082
119 


Insert offset folio 83 here 70555.083
120 


Insert offset folio 84 here 70555.084
121 


Insert offset folio 85 here 70555.085
122 


Insert offset folio 86 here 70555.086
123 


Insert offset folio 87 here 70555.087
124 


Insert offset folio 88 here 70555.088
125 


Insert offset folio 89 here 70555.089
126 


Insert offset folio 90 here 70555.090
127 


Insert offset folio 91 here 70555.091
128 


Insert offset folio 92 here 70555.092
129 


Insert offset folio 93 here 70555.093
130 


Insert offset folio 94 here 70555.094
131 


Insert offset folio 95 here 70555.095
132 


Insert offset folio 96 here 70555.096
133 


Insert offset folio 97 here 70555.097
134 


Insert offset folio 98 here 70555.098
135 


Insert offset folio 99 here 70555.099
136 


Insert offset folio 100 here 70555.100
137 


Insert offset folio 101 here 70555.101
138 


Insert offset folio 102 here 70555.102
139 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 103 here 70555.103