JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

OFFICE: ACTIONS NEEDED TO REDUCE 

RISKS WITH THE NEXT GENERATION AIR 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number: AV-2007-031 

Date Issued: February 12, 2007 
U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: Joint Planning and Development 

Office: Actions Needed To Reduce Risks With the 

Next Generation Air Transportation System 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Report Number AV-2007-031 

Date: February 12, 2007 

From: David A. Dobbs 

Principal Assistant Inspector General 

 for Auditing and Evaluation 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10 

To: FAA Administrator 

This report presents the results of our review of the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). The 

purposes of the JPDO are to manage work related to the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NGATS), coordinate Federal research efforts, and create a 

plan to transition from FAA’s existing National Airspace System into the next 

generation system. 

At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Aviation 

Subcommittee, we examined progress to date with the JPDO. As agreed with the 

requestors, our objectives were (1) assessing the JPDO’s progress to date in 

aligning diverse agency budgets and (2) determining actions that will help the 

JPDO move from planning to implementation. Also, the Chairman of the House 

Science Committee requested that we keep his office apprised of the results of our 

work on the JPDO. 

We have testified on progress to date with the JPDO before the House and Senate 

on several occasions and outlined actions needed to transition from planning to 

implementation.1

 This report summarizes our results and formally transmits our 

recommendations for improving coordination and reducing risk with the next 

 

1

 OIG Testimony CC-2006-032, “Observations on the Progress and Actions Needed To Address the Next Generation 

Air Transportation System,” March 29, 2006; OIG Testimony CC-2006-031, “Observations on Current and Future 

Efforts To Modernize the National Airspace System,” June 21, 2006; OIG Testimony CC-2006-065, “Perspectives 

on the Progress and Actions Needed To Address the Next Generation Air Transportation System,” July 25, 2006. 

OIG reports and testimonies can be found on our website: www.oig.dot.gov. 
ii

generation system—one of the most technologically complex undertakings FAA 

has embarked upon in years. Exhibits A through E provide details on: (A) 

research efforts needed for NGATS; (B) potential agency contributions for 

specific missions; (C) NGATS Integrated Product Teams; (D) key modernization 

platforms that will aid in moving forward with NGATS; and (E) our report 

objectives, scope, and methodology. 

BACKGROUND 

The JPDO was mandated by Congress in Vision 100—Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act2

—to develop a vision for NGATS in the 2025 timeframe and 

coordinate diverse agency research efforts. This office was established within 

FAA to coordinate research efforts underway at the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), Department of Commerce, Department of Defense 

(DOD), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

There are a number of compelling reasons for moving toward NGATS. The 

current air transportation system has served the Nation well, but FAA reports that 

the current system (or business as usual) will not be sufficient to meet the 

anticipated demand for air travel or changes in the industry. Last year, over 

700 million passengers used the system, and this number is forecasted to grow to 

over 1 billion by 2015. Figure 1 illustrates the expected increases in passenger 

traffic for both mainline and regional airlines. 

Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Air Carriers System Enplanements 

Fiscal Years 2005-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Millions of Passengers

Mainline Regional

 Source: FAA Forecast 2005 - 2017 

 

2

 Public Law No. 108-176 (2003). 
iii

As the JPDO points out in various planning documents, NGATS is more than just 

increasing capacity; enhancements are also envisioned in the areas of security, 

safety, and impact reduction for aircraft noise and emissions. For example, DHS 

and the JPDO are working to develop new security measures for the National 

Airspace System as well as new screening technology to mitigate potential threats 

to the air transportation system. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

The JPDO has established ambitious, much needed goals to create a system that 

will handle three times more air traffic and reduce FAA operating costs. The 

JPDO also expects a shift from FAA’s current ground-based automation system to 

an aircraft-based, net-centric3

 system that will significantly enhance controller 

productivity through automation. 

We found that the JPDO’s congressionally mandated mission to leverage 

resources at other agencies is critical given that FAA conducts little long-term air 

traffic management research and the fact that most of the Agency’s current 

$2.5 billion capital account goes toward keeping things running (i.e., sustainment). 

Moreover, only about 55 percent of FAA’s capital account goes toward acquiring 

air traffic control systems, the remaining funds go to personnel, mission support, 

and facilities. We have identified a number of issues that will enhance 

coordination between JPDO participants and reduce risk with developing and 

transitioning to the next generation system. 

Progress Is Being Made in Coordinating Diverse Research Initiatives 

but Not in Alignment of Agency Plans and Budgets to Date 

Central to the JPDO’s mission is the alignment of ongoing research at other 

Federal agencies. This is a complex task because each agency conducts it own 

research and development efforts to support its individual missions. To coordinate 

these interagency efforts, the JPDO has established eight Integrated Product 

Teams (IPT) with representatives from FAA, participating agencies, and the 

private sector. While there are significant opportunities to leverage ongoing 

research, there is also considerable potential for duplication of effort. 

We reviewed three of these IPTs—weather, shared situational awareness, and air 

traffic management—and found that there was considerable coordination but little 

or no alignment of research and development (R&D) budgets and plans. Further, 

 

3

 An airborne system that will use internet protocols to transfer data over an airborne/ground data network in which 

each aircraft will function as a node that will receive and pass on common information to other aircraft and the 

ground. 
iv

Range of Actions To Reduce Risk With NGATS 

and Shift From Planning to Implementation

• Establish cost estimates, quantify expected 

benefits, and develop a roadmap for industry. 

• Develop and implement mechanisms for alignment 

between agencies. 

• Develop approaches for risk management and 

systems integration. 

• Conduct sufficient human factors research to 

support anticipated changes for controllers and 

pilots. 

individual IPT team leaders have no authority to commit their parent agency’s 

resources. The difficult part of adjusting and redirecting various agencies’ 

research efforts to meet NGATS requirements lies ahead over the next year. FAA 

is taking important steps in working with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to develop an integrated budget document for the JPDO as well as a list of 

specific programs at other agencies that support the development of NGATS. 

NASA’s Role in NGATS Is Critical and Will Require More Attention 

NASA’s role in this 

coordination and leveraging 

will require sustained 

management attention and 

focus. This is important 

because NASA is expected 

to develop a wide range of 

capacity, safety, and 

environmental research to 

support NGATS. This 

includes, among other 

things, developing concepts 

and elements of new automation systems to help enhance capacity, boost 

controller productivity, system throughput (the number of aircraft that use the 

system during a period of time), and shift greater responsibility to the cockpit. 

Historically, NASA has funded and managed the majority of long-term air traffic 

management research, including the development for prototypes that were pilottested at FAA air traffic control facilities. In the mid 1990s, for example, NASA 

developed new automated controller tools for sequencing aircraft for arrival that 

were part of the successful Free Flight Phase 1 program. 

However, NASA is rethinking its overall aeronautics research portfolio and is 

spending less. Senior NASA officials have told us that NASA no longer plans to 

develop prototypes as it has in the past and that research would be restricted to 

“fundamental research.”4

 There are concerns that NASA’s restructuring efforts 

will create gaps in both funding and technology readiness that will affect 

milestones for NGATS. The extent of these gaps and impact on NGATS 

milestones will not become clear until the JPDO has developed a more definitive 

 

4

 NASA officials define “fundamental research” as continued long-term, scientific study in areas such as physics, 

chemistry, materials, experimental techniques, and computational techniques that lead to a furthering of 

understanding of underlying principles that form the foundation of the core aeronautics disciplines as well as 

research that integrates the knowledge gained in these core areas to significantly enhance capabilities, tools, and 

technologies at the disciplinary (e.g., aerodynamics, combustion, and trajectory prediction uncertainty) and 

multidisciplinary (e.g., airframe design, engine design, and airspace modeling and simulation) levels. 
v

concept of operations and a mature enterprise architecture—or technical 

blueprint—for NGATS. 

FAA and NASA need to reach agreement on what will be expected from NASA to 

support NGATS initiatives. Given the important role that NASA is expected to 

play, Congress and aviation stakeholders need to know sooner rather than later if 

FAA will have to assume a larger than expected role to complete development of 

NGATS initiatives. As a contingency, FAA should begin assessing alternatives 

and develop plans for how this research and development will be conducted, 

managed, and paid for. 

Actions Needed To Reduce Risk With Transitioning to NGATS 

Moving to NGATS is important to meet the demand for air travel, change the way 

FAA provides services, and help control operating costs. However, it is also an 

extraordinarily complex and high-risk effort given the potential multibillion-dollar 

investments by FAA and airspace users. Also, the transition to NGATS will 

involve important policy questions, such as how to spur aircraft equipage and how 

to handle a mix of aircraft with different capabilities in congested airspace. We 

have identified a range of actions that will help FAA and the JPDO transition from 

planning to implementation. 

Finalizing Cost Estimates, Quantifying Expected Benefits, and Developing 

a Roadmap for Industry 

The JPDO’s March 2006 progress report5

 to Congress was silent on funding 

requirements and complex transition issues. Moving to NGATS will require 

significant investments from FAA (new ground systems) and airspace users (new 

avionics). 

We have reviewed some preliminary estimates developed by the Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO) and the working group from FAA’s Research, Engineering 

and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC), but those estimates have not 

been finalized or approved by senior FAA management. There are considerable 

unknowns, and costs depend on such factors as performance requirements for new 

automation, weather initiatives, and the extent to which FAA intends to 

consolidate facilities. 

An important theme from JPDO workshops, conducted with the aviation industry 

to help develop cost estimates, is the need for FAA to clearly define the expected 

benefits from NGATS initiatives, particularly for projects that require airspace 

 

5

 NGATS Report, “2005 Progress Report to the Next Generation Integrated Plan,” March 2006. 
vi

users to install new avionics. At the April 2006 workshop, industry participants 

asked FAA for a “service roadmap” that (1) specifies required equipage in specific 

time increments, (2) bundles capabilities with clearly defined benefits and needed 

investments, and (3) uses a 4-to 5-year equipage cycle that is coordinated with 

aircraft maintenance schedules. This service roadmap does not yet exist. It will 

be important for FAA to provide industry with this information. 

We are recommending that the JPDO develop and report the costs of NGATS to 

Congress and stakeholders along three vectors—development efforts, adjustments 

to existing programs, and NGATS implementation. This will give decision 

makers a clearer understanding of NGATS costs and their dimensions. 

Developing and Implementing Mechanisms for Alignment Between 

Agencies To Help Develop NGATS as Mandated by Law 

There is considerable ongoing coordination among JPDO participating agencies 

but little alignment of budgets and plans. JPDO progress reports do not provide 

specific details on participating agencies’ research projects that the JPDO expects 

to leverage. As we reported in congressional testimonies, the JPDO needs 

mechanisms to help it align diverse agency efforts over the long term. The JPDO 

recognizes this and is working with OMB to, among other things, develop an 

integrated budget document. 

We are recommending that the JPDO include in its periodic reports to Congress a 

table of specific research projects with budget data for both FAA developmental 

efforts and other agencies it is leveraging and report on how that ongoing research 

is supporting the JPDO. This will help decision makers address whether FAA is 

leveraging the right research and taking full advantage of ongoing research being 

performed by other agencies. 

Developing Approaches for Risk Management and Systems Integration 

The transition to NGATS is a high-risk effort for both the Government and 

industry potentially involving billions of dollars, and the JPDO and FAA need to 

articulate how problems that affected past modernization efforts will be mitigated 

and what specific skill sets will be required. This is important because the 

transition to NGATS will require synchronized investments over several years 

between FAA (new ground systems) and airspace users (new avionics). 

FAA is planning a number of demonstration projects for various NGATS 

initiatives, which represent important opportunities to reduce risk. Given past 

problems with certifying new systems as safe and the importance of policies and 

procedures, we are recommending that demonstration projects (1) establish a path 
vii

for certifying new systems and (2) identify changes to policies and procedures that 

will be needed to get benefits. 

Conducting Sufficient Human Factors Research To Support Anticipated 

Changes 

The JPDO is planning to make fundamental changes in how the system operates 

(for both controllers and pilots) so it can accommodate three times more aircraft in 

the system. Our work shows that focused human factors work will be needed to 

ensure that expected changes in roles and responsibilities of pilots and controllers 

can safely be accommodated. Key issues include what can reasonably be expected 

from new automation systems and how more responsibility can be shifted to the 

cockpit. We are recommending that the JPDO conduct sufficient human factors 

analyses and studies to ensure that the changes envisioned for NGATS can be 

safely accomplished. 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Our recommendations focus on actions FAA and the JPDO need to take to 

establish cost estimates, quantify benefits, align research between agencies, 

develop a service roadmap, reduce risk with next generation initiatives, and to 

speed the introduction of new capabilities into the National Airspace System. A 

complete set of our recommendations begin on page 17. 

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE 

On December 15, 2006, we provided FAA with a draft copy of this report. On 

February 9, 2007, FAA gave us its formal response, which is included in its 

entirety in the Appendix. In its response, FAA fully concurred with all but one of 

our recommendations. 

 

FAA partially concurred with our recommendation to use technology readiness 

levels in assessing the technical maturity of research and development projects 

received from partner Agencies. FAA points out that the use of technology 

readiness levels alone does not facilitate successful technology transfer. We agree 

and point out in our report that successful transition of technology also requires 

close cooperation between researchers and users of existing systems. The planned 

actions that FAA highlights in its response, such as further developing the concept 

of operations and the NGATS R&D plan and using FAA’s Operational Evolution 

Plan to track technology maturity, are responsive to the intent of our 
viii

recommendation. Therefore, we consider FAA’s planned actions responsive to all 

nine of our recommendations, subject to follow-up requirements in Department of 

Transportation Order 8000.1C. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FAA representatives during this 

audit. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call Robin Hunt, 

Acting Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and Special Program Audits, at 

(415) 744-0420 or Matt Hampton, Program Director, at (202) 366-1987. 

# 

cc: FAA Deputy Administrator 

FAA Chief of Staff 

JPDO Director 

Anthony Williams, ABU-100 

 Martin Gertel, M-1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FINDINGS _________________________________________________ 1

The JPDO’s Mission Is Critical Because Most of FAA’s 

Capital Investment Focuses on Sustainment, and FAA 

Conducts Little Air Traffic Management Research........................... 1

FAA Has Historically Relied on NASA for Long-Term 

Air Traffic Management Research ...................................................... 4

Progress Is Being Made in Coordinating Diverse 

Agency Efforts but Considerable Work Remains ............................. 5

A Range of Actions Are Critical for the JPDO To Make 

Progress in Both the Short and Long Term and Make 

the Transition From Planning to Implementation ............................. 8

Finalizing Cost Estimates, Quantifying Expected 

Benefits, and Developing a Roadmap for Industry............................ 8

Establishing Clear Lines of Responsibility and 

Accountability Between JPDO Plans and ATO Efforts 

To Better Facilitate the Introduction of New Capabilities 

Into the National Airspace System .................................................. 10

Developing and Implementing Mechanisms for 

Alignment Between Agencies.......................................................... 11

Developing Approaches for Risk Management and 

Systems Integration......................................................................... 12

Clarifying Approaches for Industry Participation To 

Prevent Potential Conflict of Interest............................................... 13

Examining and Overcoming Barriers To Transforming 

the National Airspace System That Have Affected Past 

FAA Programs................................................................................. 14

Developing a Strategy for Technology Transfer.............................. 15

Conducting Sufficient Human Factors Research To 

Support Anticipated Changes.......................................................... 16

RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________ 17

Exhibit A. Key Research Efforts Needed for NGATS_____________ 20
Exhibit B. Potential Agency Contributions_____________________ 21

Exhibit C. Integrated Product Teams and their Lead 

Agencies_________________________________________________ 22

Exhibit D. Key Platforms ___________________________________ 23

Exhibit E. Scope and Methodology ___________________________ 25

Appendix. Management Comments __________________________ 26
 

Findings 

1

FINDINGS 

The JPDO was mandated by Congress to develop a vision for NGATS in the 2025 

timeframe and coordinate diverse agency research efforts. This office was 

established within FAA; also participating are NASA and the Departments of 

Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security. The successful implementation of 

NGATS will involve coordinated efforts by all participating agencies. Because of 

the need to enhance capacity and the potential impact on FAA’s budget and 

operations, our work thus far has focused primarily on the JPDO’s air traffic 

management efforts that involve NASA, DOD, and Commerce. 

There are a number of compelling reasons for moving toward NGATS. The 

current air transportation system has served the Nation well, but FAA reports that 

the current system (or business as usual) will not be sufficient to meet the 

anticipated demand for air travel. Last year, over 700 million passengers used the 

system, and this number is forecasted to grow to over 1 billion by 2015. 

The JPDO’s mission is critical given that FAA conducts little long-term air traffic 

management research and the fact the most of the Agency’s current $2.5 billion 

capital account goes toward sustainment and day-to-day operations. However, the 

cost of NGATS remains uncertain and much work remains to refine costs; align 

diverse agency budgets; and set expectations for airspace users with respect to 

milestones, equipage, and anticipated benefits. We have identified a range of 

actions that the JPDO needs to address to transition from planning to 

implementation. These include the following: 

• Finalize cost estimates, quantify expected benefits, and develop a roadmap 

for industry; 

• Establish linkage between the plans developed by JPDO and the 

implementation priorities of the Air Traffic Organization by delineating 

lines of responsibility and accountability for both; 

• Develop and implement mechanisms for aligning resources between 

agencies; and 

• Develop approaches for risk management and systems integration. 

The JPDO’s Mission Is Critical Because Most of FAA’s Capital 

Investment Focuses on Sustainment, and FAA Conducts Little Air 

Traffic Management Research 

FAA’s capital account—or the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account—is the 

principal vehicle for modernizing the National Airspace System. It represents 

about 18 percent of the Agency’s fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget request of 
 

Findings 

2

$13.7 billion. For FY 2007, FAA is requesting $2.5 billion for the F&E account, 

which is $50 million less than last year’s appropriation. This is the fourth 

consecutive year that funding requests for the capital account are below authorized 

levels called for in Vision 100. As we have noted in previous reports and 

testimonies, FAA’s increasing operating costs have crowded out funds for 

modernization. 

As illustrated in Figure 2, only about 55 percent of FAA’s FY 2007 F&E request 

(or $1.4 billion) will actually go for acquiring air traffic control systems. The 

remainder will be spent on personnel, mission support, and facilities. 

As we have noted in previous testimonies, the majority of FAA’s capital account 

now goes for keeping things running (i.e., sustainment), not new initiatives. A 

review of the top 10 projects by dollar amount in the FY 2007 budget request 

shows that while some projects will form the platforms for future initiatives, the 

bulk of funds are requested for projects that have been delayed for years and for 

efforts to improve or maintain FAA facilities or replace existing radars. 

Over the last several years, FAA has deferred or cancelled a number of projects as 

funding for the capital account has remained essentially flat. This includes efforts 

Source: FAA’s FY 2007 Budget Request 
 

Findings 

3

for a new air-to-ground communication system, controller-pilot data link 

communications, and a new satellite-based precision landing system. FAA has 

also postponed making decisions on projects like the billion-dollar Standard 

Terminal Automation Replacement System. 

Even though FAA lacks clarity about NGATS, it is requesting F&E funds for two 

projects that are considered “building blocks” for the next generation system. 

These are not new programs and have been under development or been funded in 

previous budgets. 

• Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)6

 is a satellite-based 

technology that allows aircraft to broadcast their position to others. FAA is 

requesting $80 million in FY 2007 for this satellite-based technology. In 

prior budgets, ADS-B was funded under the Safe Flight 21 Initiative, which 

demonstrated the potential of ADS-B and cockpit displays in Alaska and 

the Ohio River Valley. 

FAA expects to award a service contract for the ADS-B ground 

infrastructure in 2007. However, a number of challenges must be 

addressed: conducting human factors work and determining how air and 

ground elements will be certified as safe. FAA may have to rely on a 

rulemaking initiative to help speed equipage. This illustrates why the JPDO 

must address complex policy issues as well as research as it moves forward 

with NGATS initiatives. 

• System Wide Information Management (SWIM) is a new information 

architecture that will allow airspace users to access securely and seamlessly 

a wide range of information on the status of the National Airspace System 

and weather conditions. It is analogous to an internet system for all 

airspace users. FAA is requesting $24 million for this program in FY 2007, 

which is scheduled to be reviewed by the Joint Resources Council in the 

spring of 2007.

 

6

 The first phase of ADS-B implementation, known as ADS-B out, is expected to replace many ground radars that 

currently provide aircraft surveillance with less costly ground-based transceivers. Aircraft would be equipped with 

ADS-B out, which broadcasts a signal to these transceivers. However, implementing ADS-B out is just the first step 

to achieving the larger benefits of ADS-B, which would be provided by ADS-B in. ADS-B in would allow aircraft to 

receive signals from ground-based transceivers or directly from other aircraft equipped with ADS-B. This could 

allow pilots to “see” nearby traffic and, consequently, transition some responsibility for maintaining safe separation 

from the air traffic controllers to the cockpit. 
 

Findings 

4

FAA Has Historically Relied on NASA for Long-Term Air Traffic 

Management Research 

Historically, FAA’s R&D efforts have focused on short-term research, with NASA 

conducting the majority of long-term air traffic management research, including 

automated controller tools and human factors work. NASA has requested 

$724 million for FY 2007 on aeronautical R&D. The JPDO is looking to NASA 

to develop automated aircraft metering and sequencing and dynamic airspace 

reconfiguration. Table 1 illustrates NASA investments in aeronautics research in 

FY 2005 and FY 2006 and the request for FY 2007. 

Table 1. NASA Funding for Aeronautics Research 

(Dollars in Millions) 

NASA 

Aeronautics 

Research 

FY 2005 

Operating Plan 

FY 2006 

Operating Plan 

FY 2007 

Budget 

Submission 

Fundamental 

Aeronautics 630 571 447 

Airspace Systems 149 174 120 

Aviation Safety 183 148 102 

Aeronautics Test 

Program 0 0 55 

 Total 962 893 724 

Source: NASA FY 2007 Budget Request and FY 2006 September Operations Plan Update

Note: It is difficult to compare prior year aeronautics R&D budgets because the recent restructuring has 

changed the way individual programs are portrayed in budget requests and planning documents. 

As shown above, NASA will be spending less on aeronautical research than it has 

in the past and is planning on restructuring its aeronautical research portfolio. In 

discussing progress with the JPDO, NASA’s Associate Administrator for 

Aeronautics told us that NASA no longer plans to develop prototypes and that 

research would be restricted to “fundamental research.” This is in sharp contrast 

to the support it gave FAA with the Free Flight Phase 1 program. Exhibit A 

outlines several examples of required research. 

An April 2006 draft REDAC report7

 on financing the next generation air 

transportation system raised concerns about NASA’s efforts to restructure its 

aeronautic program and its potential impact on NGATS. The draft report stated 

that NASA changes to its aeronautical research efforts will place uncertainty on 

the ability of NASA to deliver development efforts at the same level of 

 

7

 Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee draft report, 

“Financing the Next Generation Air Transportation System,” April 2006. 
 

Findings 

5

technological maturity that it has in the past. As a result, FAA would have to 

assume a larger burden and the associated costs to complete development and 

bring new systems to fruition. 

Progress Is Being Made in Coordinating Diverse Agency Efforts but 

Considerable Work Remains 

To align agency budgets and plans, Vision 100 requires the JPDO to coordinate 

and oversee research that could play a role in NGATS. Central to the JPDO’s 

mission—and making it an effective multi-agency vehicle—is alignment of 

agency resources. This is a complex task, and the law does not give the JPDO 

authority to redirect agency resources. Exhibit B provides information on 

potential agency contributions to the JPDO and each agency’s area of expertise. 

JPDO’s March 2006 progress report to Congress outlined various 

accomplishments to date, including the establishment of multi-agency teams and 

the NGATS institute (a mechanism for interfacing with the private sector). 

However, the report did not provide details on specific ongoing research projects 

at FAA or funding that the JPDO expects to leverage at other agencies. Without 

this information, it is difficult to assess the JPDO’s progress with aligning budgets. 

The majority of the JPDO’s work is 

done through eight Integrated Product 

Teams (IPT) that focus on eight 

strategies, such as how to use weather 

information to improve the performance 

of the National Airspace System. The 

teams are composed of personnel from 

FAA, other Federal agencies, and the 

private sector. Exhibit C provides more 

information on the IPTs. 

We believe that a more product-driven 

focus for IPTs would be an important 

step forward. In 2005, the National 

Research Council examined JPDO plans 

and was also critical of the IPT structure. 

The Council’s report8

 found that even though the teams have multi-agency 

participation, they are functioning primarily as experts in specific disciplines 

rather than as cross-functional, integrated, multidisciplinary teams organized to 

deliver specific products. One of the report’s recommendations was that the IPTs 

be reduced in number and made more “product driven.” 

 

8

 National Research Council, “Technology Pathways Accessing the Integrated Plan for a NGATS System,” 2005. 

JPDO’s Integrated Product Teams

(With the Lead Agency)

• Airports (FAA) 

• Security (DHS) 

• Air Traffic Management/Agile 

Air Traffic System (NASA) 

• Shared Situational Awareness 

(DOD) 

• Safety (FAA) 

• Environmental (FAA) 

• Weather (Commerce/National 

Oceanic Atmospheric 

Administration) 

• Global Interoperability (FAA)
 

Findings 

6

Our work on three IPTs shows that there is considerable coordination but little 

alignment of agency budgets to date. Moreover, the IPT leaders have no authority 

to commit agency resources to JPDO efforts and often have no products other than 

plans. The following illustrates progress and challenges to date with the three 

IPTs we examined in detail. 

The Weather IPT is led by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), an agency of the Department of Commerce. FAA, NASA, DOD, and 

NOAA are all conducting weather research tailored for their specific missions. 

Thus far, this team’s efforts have focused on contributions to FAA’s Traffic Flow 

Management Program (which helps traffic managers optimize air traffic by 

working with airlines). NOAA is also helping the JPDO refine its concept of a 

fully automated system. Integrating new, up-to-date weather forecast systems into 

planned automation efforts will be challenging. 

As we noted in congressional testimony before the House and Senate, the JPDO 

had not determined whether or not a considerable amount of applied research and 

development conducted by NOAA at the Office of Atmospheric Research and the 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service could be 

leveraged for NGATS initiatives.9

 We shared our concerns about taking full 

advantage of weather research conducted by others with the JPDO throughout our 

review. In commenting on our report, JPDO officials stated that the weather IPT 

has done a better job of identifying the research that needs to be done and the task 

now focuses on getting it aligned. 

The Shared Situational Awareness IPT is led by DOD. All participating agencies 

are adopting network-centric systems.10 As noted earlier, FAA is developing its 

own network system called SWIM. While there are considerable opportunities for 

leveraging net-centric efforts, there is also potential for duplication of effort. 

Challenges here focus on taking an approach pioneered by DOD and applying it 

specifically to air traffic control to enhance capacity and reduce delays. 

An active role by DOD is vital because it is both a provider and a consumer of air 

traffic services. Thus far, work in this IPT has focused almost exclusively on 

maximizing agency network capabilities in DOD, such as the Global Information 

Grid, which is a net-centric communication system DOD is developing for global 

use. Moreover, DOD’s real-world experiences and lessons it has learned in 

sharing data (from air and ground systems) in actual real-time operations have not 

been tapped and will prove invaluable in reducing cost and technical risks in 

developing NGATS. 

 

9

 For additional details, see OIG Testimony CC-2006-065, “Perspectives on the Progress and Actions Needed To 

Address the Next Generation Air Transportation System,” July 25, 2006. 10 A net-centric system uses internet protocols to transfer data over a network. 
 

Findings 

7

Another area where DOD could provide expertise is with sensor fusion11—

integrating information on an aircraft’s position from radar and non-radar sources, 

such as satellite-based systems. While fusion could help reduce separation 

between aircraft, it will be technically challenging to integrate radar and satellitebased systems (which have different update rates and levels of accuracy) to 

manage traffic in high-volume airspace, particularly in the vicinity of airports. 

DOD expertise with target acquisition and sensor fusion for weapons targeting 

could prove helpful for the JPDO. 

The Air Traffic Management IPT is led by NASA. It is expected to play a key 

role by helping to develop the automated systems to boost controller productivity. 

The bulk of this work will be funded by NASA, which has conducted the majority 

of long-term air traffic management research over the last few years.12 FAA has 

neither planned nor budgeted for this type of research. Major challenges focus on 

establishing requirements and gaining a full understanding of the risks associated 

with developing and acquiring these new software-intensive systems before 

making financial commitments. This is important because future automation 

efforts will be a major cost driver for NGATS. 

JPDO and NASA are working on several complex concepts for new automation 

systems (e.g., for monitoring multiple aircraft trajectories, separation minima, and 

responding to weather events) and the timing of research efforts. This work will 

be funded through NASA efforts on “airspace systems” (with an FY 2007 

requested funding level of $120 million). This effort will be a significant for 

“mid-to-long-term” development and implementation of automation platforms for 

“strategic 4D trajectory management,” i.e., the monitoring and effective safety 

management of large numbers of aircraft with respect to time, longitude, latitude, 

and altitude. 

While FAA and NASA need to reach agreement on how far NASA will develop 

cutting edge concepts, it is also true that NASA will need more details about FAA 

system requirements with respect to reliability, performance, and failure rates. 

Ultimately, FAA and the JPDO must effectively manage the transfer of technology 

from NASA, from the research stage, and to system development and full 

implementation. 

 

11 For additional views on “sensor fusion” or “fusion tracking,” see OIG Report Number AV-2005-016, “Terminal 

Modernization: FAA Needs To Address Its Small, Medium, and Large Sites Based Upon Cost, Time, and 

Capability,” November 23, 2004. 12 For additional details on the FAA and NASA relationship and funding profiles, see OIG Testimony CC-2006-032, 

“Observations on the Progress and Actions Needed To Address the Next Generation Air Transportation System,” 

March 29, 2006. 
 

Findings 

8

A Range of Actions Are Critical for the JPDO To Make Progress in 

Both the Short and Long Term and Make the Transition From 

Planning to Implementation 

Key questions for FAA and the JPDO are what they can deliver, when it will be 

delivered, and how much the next generation system will cost. These questions 

are central in the discussion about how to best finance FAA and will shape the 

size, requirements, and direction of the capital program for the next decade. 

Moving to NGATS is important to meet the demand for air travel, change the way 

FAA provides services, and help control operating costs. However, it is also a 

high-risk effort given the potential multibillion-dollar investment by FAA and 

airspace users. Since we testified in July 2006, FAA has taken some positive 

steps. For example, FAA named a new Director for the JPDO and released a draft 

concept of operations for NGATS (a vision for how controllers, pilots, and new 

systems will work together). We understand that the JPDO is planning to 

restructure its IPTs to better facilitate the development of concepts and 

technologies and better align NGATS partner agency efforts. Nevertheless, a 

number of issues that we raised over the last year remain to be addressed, and 

actions need to be taken. 

Finalizing Cost Estimates, Quantifying Expected Benefits, and Developing 

a Roadmap for Industry 

The JPDO’s progress report to Congress was silent on funding requirements and 

complex transition issues. Moving to NGATS will require significant investments 

from FAA (new ground systems) and airspace users (new avionics). FAA is 

conducting workshops with industry to gather input on the potential costs of the 

future system. 

We have seen some preliminary estimates developed by the Air Traffic 

Organization and a working group of FAA’s REDAC, but they have not been 

finalized or approved by senior FAA management. These estimates indicate that 

an additional $500 million to $1 billion annually will be required between FY 

2009 to FY 2012 to accommodate NGATS initiatives. However, there are still 

considerable unknowns, and costs will depend on, among other things, 

performance requirements for new automation, weather initiatives, and the extent 

to which FAA intends to consolidate facilities. 

FAA will have to analyze information from the JPDO and industry workshops and 

the REDAC working group and provide Congress with expected funding 

requirements and the expected timeframe for when funding will be needed. When 

transmitting this information to Congress, FAA should provide cost data on three 

vectors—research and development needed (including demonstration projects), 
 

Findings 

9

adjustments to existing projects, and estimates for implementing NGATS 

initiatives. This will give decision makers a clear understanding of NGATS costs. 

A key short-term cost factor for NGATS is the 

level of development funding that will be 

required to transition efforts from other 

agencies (e.g., NASA), successfully implement 

them in the National Airspace System, and 

meet FAA’s safety and certification 

requirements. The REDAC working group is 

raising concerns about this in light of NASA’s 

restructuring of its aeronautics research 

portfolio and plans to focus more on 

fundamental research. To accommodate changes in NASA investments, the 

REDAC working group estimated that approximately $100 million annually for 

development funding will be needed to address this technology gap. 

The impact of changes in NASA’s aeronautical research and development 

priorities will necessitate a better understanding of the level of technical maturity 

planned for the NASA research efforts developed for NGATS. FAA is working 

with its partner agencies, including NASA, on a memorandum of understanding to 

clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to NGATS. This is an important 

action that needs to be completed. 

We believe that it will be important for FAA and NASA to come to a clear 

understanding of the level of technical maturity NASA projects will have. This 

has cost and schedule implications for NGATS, particularly new automated 

systems for controllers. If NASA is unable to provide projects at a level that FAA 

can transition to prototypes, the JPDO and FAA will have to determine how this 

R&D will be completed, managed, and paid for. 

In addition, it is important to recognize that FAA’s existing investments will 

heavily influence NGATS requirements and schedules. In fact, ongoing projects, 

like En Route Automation Modernization and FAA Telecommunications 

Infrastructure, will form important platforms for JPDO initiatives. Exhibit D 

provides details on selected modernization projects that will likely play a key role 

in moving toward NGATS. FAA will have to assess how JPDO plans affect 

ongoing projects and determine which ones need to be accelerated or re-scoped. 

An important theme from the April 2006 JPDO cost workshop is the need for FAA 

to clearly define the expected benefits from NGATS initiatives, particularly for 

projects that require airspace users to install new avionics, such as ADS-B. As 

noted at the industry workshops, airspace users have a much shorter timeline for 

the return on investment from new systems than FAA, and incentives (e.g., tax 

Key NGATS Cost Drivers

• Development of new systems 

and meeting FAA 

certification requirements 

• Adjustments to existing 

modernization programs 

• NGATS implementation

• Aircraft equipage
 

Findings 

10

incentives, financing options, or targeted deployments for users that equip early) 

will likely be needed to spur equipage. 

At the April 2006 workshop, industry participants asked FAA for a “service 

roadmap” that (1) specifies required equipage in specific time increments, (2) 

bundles capabilities with clearly defined benefits and needed investments, and (3) 

uses a 4-to 5-year equipage cycle that is coordinated with aircraft maintenance 

schedules. This service roadmap does not yet exist. It will be important for FAA 

to provide industry with this information. 

Establishing Clear Lines of Responsibility and Accountability Between 

JPDO Plans and ATO Efforts To Better Facilitate the Introduction of New 

Capabilities Into the National Airspace System 

Establishing effective and clear lines of responsibility and accountability is 

important because the JPDO, as currently structured, is a planning and 

coordinating organization—not an implementation or program-execution office. 

At the April 2006 workshop, industry groups also expressed the need for a much 

stronger linkage between JPDO and ATO programs. 

Although the JPDO’s progress report discusses new capabilities, such as ADS-B 

and SWIM, ATO is responsible for managing the efforts and establishing funding 

levels, schedule, and performance parameters. The ADS-B and SWIM projects 

are not yet integrated into ongoing communications and automation efforts but 

need to be. If the JPDO and ATO are not sufficiently linked and clear lines of 

accountability are not established, cost and schedules for NGATS will not be 

reliable and expected benefits will be diminished or postponed. 

Linking JPDO and ATO efforts is challenging because NGATS projects cut across 

ATO’s different lines of business (e.g., terminal and en route) and will require 

adjustments to ongoing projects managed by different ATO vice presidents. 

For example, SWIM is envisioned as an FAA-wide effort, and planning 

documents show that SWIM will interface with at least 12 ongoing projects, 

including FTI which is managed by the Vice President for Technical Operations. 

Also, SWIM will need to be integrated with ongoing projects to revamp systems 

for controlling high-altitude traffic managed by the Vice President for En Route 

and Oceanic Services. Projects managed by the Vice President for Terminal 

Services (to modernize controller displays used in the vicinity of airports and 

weather systems) will also be affected. It will be important to establish clear lines 

of accountability for linking JPDO efforts to ATO programs and resolving 

differences between the two organizations. This is an important matter that will 

require sustained management attention. 
 

Findings 

11

We shared our concerns about effectively linking the JPDO and ATO and 

establishing clear lines of accountability with the Chief Operating Officer and the 

Acting Director for ATO Planning in the June 2006 timeframe. They recognize 

the need for close coordination and are examining ways to better link the two 

organizations. One step that is underway is to adjust the Operational Evolution 

Plan (the Agency’s capacity blueprint) to reflect JPDO efforts. 

Additionally, there have been discussions in the aviation community about the 

possible creation of a new ATO Vice President for Transformation. This position 

would be responsible for the success of the JPDO and FAA development of 

NGATS and would include responsibility for funded F&E programs that are 

determined to be enablers, such as SWIM and ADS-B. 

Developing and Implementing Mechanisms for Alignment Between 

Agencies 

As noted earlier, there is considerable coordination among JPDO participating 

agencies but little alignment of budgets or plans. There is a need for mechanisms 

to help the JPDO align diverse agency efforts over the long term. 

The JPDO recognizes that more needs to be done and is working with OMB to 

develop an integrated budget document that provides a single business case (a 

document similar to the “OMB Exhibit 300”) to make sure efforts are indeed 

aligned.13 As part of this, the JPDO, in the FAA FY 2008 budget submission, 

provided OMB with an initial list of programs in other agency budgets that it 

intends to leverage. 

The JPDO’s ongoing efforts to develop 

the enterprise architecture, or overall 

blueprint for NGATS, will help in 

setting goals, supporting decisions, 

adjusting plans, and tracking agency 

commitments. The architecture will 

also show requirements from FAA and 

the Departments of Defense and 

Homeland Security and where various agency efforts fit in NGATS. It will prove 

helpful in the future in resolving difficult policy decisions, including who pays for 

what elements of the system. 

The JPDO is taking an incremental approach to architecture development and 

plans to have a definitive version in calendar year 2007. However, considerable 

 

13 OMB Exhibit 300 was established by OMB as a source of information on which budgetary decisions could be based 

so that they are consistent with Administration and OMB policy and guidance. 

NGATS Enterprise Architecture

is a blueprint that links FAA’s core 

programs and systems to the 

Agency’s mission. This includes 

the transition from the “as-is” to 

the “to-be” environment. 
 

Findings 

12

work remains to link current systems with future capabilities and develop 

technical requirements, particularly for new concepts for automation. 

Until these actions are taken, it will be difficult for the Congress and aviation 

stakeholders to determine if the JPDO is leveraging the right research, if funding is 

adequate for specific efforts, or how projects will improve the U.S. air 

transportation system and at what cost. Therefore, we are recommending that the 

JPDO include in its periodic reports to Congress a table of specific research 

projects with budget data for FAA developmental efforts and for other agencies it 

is leveraging and data showing how that ongoing research is supporting the JPDO. 

Developing Approaches for Risk Management and Systems Integration 

Given that the transition to NGATS is 

a high-risk effort potentially 

involving billions of dollars, the 

JPDO and FAA need to articulate 

how problems that affected past 

modernization efforts will be 

mitigated and what specific skill sets 

will be required. Our prior audit 

work14 on FAA’s modernization 

efforts found billions of dollars in 

cost overruns and years of schedule delays that were traceable to overly ambitious 

plans, complex software development, changing requirements, and poor contract 

management. How these risks for NGATS initiatives will be managed was not 

addressed in the most recent progress report. 

The central issue focuses on what will be done differently from past modernization 

efforts with NGATS initiatives (other than conducting demonstration projects) to 

ensure success and deliver much needed benefits to FAA and airspace users. 

While it is true that FAA has done a better job managing major acquisition 

programs in the past several years, developing and implementing NGATS will be 

an enormously complex undertaking. As the JPDO notes in its Integrated Plan,15

there has never been a transformation effort similar to this one with as many 

stakeholders and as broad in scope. 

FAA faces a wide range of risks; such as complex software development, complex 

systems integration, and engineering challenges; with NGATS initiatives (such as 

SWIM and ADS-B) and existing FAA projects. As previously noted, FAA also 

 

14 OIG Report Number AV-2005-061, “Status of FAA’s Major Acquisitions: Cost Growth and Schedule Delays 

Continue To Stall Air Traffic Modernization,” May 26, 2005. 15 JPDO “Next Generation Air Transportation System – Integrated Plan,” December 2004. 

Key NGATS Risks

• Complex software development 

• Systems integration 

• Policy and procedure 

development 

• Certification issues for air and 

ground systems 

• Equipage issues for industry 
 

Findings 

13

faces difficult challenges in keeping agency investments synchronized with user 

investments. To maintain support for NGATS initiatives, the JPDO and FAA 

need to articulate how problems that affected past modernization efforts will be 

mitigated and what specific skill sets with respect to software development and 

system integration will be required. This will help reduce cost and schedule 

problems with NGATS initiatives. 

JPDO and FAA officials told us that they intend to rely on demonstration projects 

with participating agencies and airspace users to get a better understanding of 

potential cost and benefits of NGATS initiatives. We agree but think that 

demonstration projects should also be designed to provide insight into the range of 

the policies and procedures that must be changed to get the expected benefits. 

These demonstration projects should also identify certification issues and safety 

requirements needed to move from demonstrating a capability to full-scale 

development and implementation. 

To help manage the transition to NGATS, FAA is considering whether or not a 

lead systems integrator—a private contractor that would help link new and 

existing systems and help manage other contractors—will be required. DOD has 

relied on this for complex weapon systems. Models for using a lead system 

integrator throughout the Government differ with respect to roles and 

responsibilities. We note that FAA has used a systems engineering and integration 

contractor in the past to help integrate modernization projects, but questions about 

the role, responsibility, and expected costs will need to be examined. 

Clarifying Approaches for Industry Participation To Prevent Potential 

Conflict of Interest 

The JPDO established the NGATS Institute in 2005 specifically to allow industry 

to participate in shaping NGATS. Currently, industry representatives are 

participating in JPDO IPTs. The JPDO’s March 2006 progress report noted that 

over 140 industry and private sector participants (from 66 organizations) are 

involved in IPT planning efforts. 

Industry groups have expressed concern that participation in JPDO activities might 

preclude them from bidding on future FAA acquisitions related to NGATS 

because it may create an organizational conflict of interest. Generally speaking, 

FAA’s Acquisition Management System precludes contractors from competing on 

production contracts if the contractor either participated in or materially influenced 

the drafting of specifications to be used in future acquisitions for production 

contracts or had advance knowledge of the requirements. 
 

Findings 

14

FAA is aware of the industry’s concern and is working to ensure that industry 

participation does not result in organizational conflicts of interest. JPDO officials 

believe—and we agree—that resolving this issue will be essential to get the 

desired skill and expertise from industry. 

Recently, the JPDO revised the contracting mechanism with the NGATS Institute 

to address this issue. Specifically, the JPDO and the Institute have committed to 

develop procedures to avoid organizational conflicts of interest. Putting these 

procedures in place will help get and sustain the desired expertise from industry 

and help prevent problems in the future. 

We believe that the JPDO needs to continue to foster awareness of potential 

conflicts of interest among IPTs and its contractors to identify information that 

might later lead to conflicts of interest. It will be particularly important for FAA 

and the JPDO to monitor these matters as the role of the JPDO evolves and 

various efforts shift from planning to implementation. 

Examining and Overcoming Barriers To Transforming the National 

Airspace System That Have Affected Past FAA Programs 

Our work on many major acquisitions shows the importance of clearly defined 

transition paths, expected costs (for both FAA and airspace users), and benefits 

(reduced delays). This is particularly the case for initiatives that require airspace 

users to equip with new avionics. 

For example, FAA canceled the controller-pilot data-link communications 

program because of uncertain benefits, concerns about user equipage, cost growth, 

and the impact upon the Agency’s operations account. The inability to 

synchronize the data-link program with other modernization efforts, such as the 

multibillion-dollar En Route Automation Replacement Program, was also a factor. 

Other critical barriers to be overcome include ensuring that new systems are 

certified as safe for pilots to use and getting expertise in place at the right time. 

These will be critical when ADS-B is being fielded nationwide. For example, 

FAA’s multibillion-dollar Wide Area Augmentation System’s (a new satellite 

navigation system) problems were directly traceable to problems in testing and 

certification. 
 

Findings 

15

The September 20, 2005, REDAC report16 on barriers to transitioning air traffic 

management research into operational capability underscores the importance of 

certification and safety issues: 

The aviation community continues to be concerned that certification 

requirements can be initially uncertain, may evolve late in the program, and 

take too long to meet. There is a related concern that methods do not exist to 

certify increasingly complex future integrated air-ground systems.... There 

is also concern that if avionics requirements are directly applied to ground 

systems without accounting for the different safety-of-flight considerations, 

system certification may be unnecessarily difficult. 

As we reported in congressional testimonies, it will be important for FAA to stay 

engaged in the certification process for JPDO initiatives. This will help reduce 

risks for cost increases, schedule slips, and diminished resources. 

Developing a Strategy for Technology Transfer 

Technology transfer—the movement of technology from one organization to 

another—is a central issue for the JPDO because the law envisions new 

capabilities developed by other Federal agencies (or the private sector) being 

transitioned into the National Airspace System. The JPDO will have to pay 

greater attention to this matter as it moves forward to reduce development times 

with NGATS initiatives. 

Our past work shows that FAA has experienced mixed results in transitioning 

systems developed by others into the National Airspace System. For example, 

FAA ultimately abandoned work on a promising new controller tool developed by 

NASA (the Passive Final Approach and Spacing Tool) for sequencing and 

assigning runways to aircraft because of complex software development 

(including site-specific customization) and cost issues and because the benefits 

were unlikely transferable to other airports. 

This issue surfaced again in a recent National Research Council report17 that 

examined NASA’s aeronautical research efforts. Specifically, the report stated 

that: 

...too many NASA aeronautics projects stopped short of full demonstration 

of their technical success and utility to users. Experience shows that a 

potential innovation must be reduced to practice in the complex environment 

 

16 FAA REDAC report, “Transitioning Air Traffic Management Research into Operational Capabilities,” September 

20, 2005. 17 National Research Council report, “Aeronautics Innovation, NASA’s Challenges and Opportunities,” 2006. 
 

Findings 

16

in which it will function before it will be accepted as credible and adopted by 

the target user community. 

As we noted in our review of FAA’s Free Flight Phase 1 Program,18 the use of 

“technology readiness levels”19 could be useful to help assess maturity of systems 

and ease issues associated with the transfer of technology. Stated simply, it is the 

problem of efficiently transitioning a new technology from concept to viable 

product in the shortest possible time and at the least cost. Both NASA and DOD 

have experience with categorizing technology maturity, which could help reduce 

cost, schedule, and technical risks with implementing JPDO initiatives. A JPDO 

official pointed out that efficient transition of new technologies will also require 

close cooperation between researchers and users of existing systems. This could 

include the establishment of “transition” or “maturation” teams to create a 

developmental pipeline for new systems. 

Conducting Sufficient Human Factors Research To Support Anticipated 

Changes 

The JPDO is planning to make fundamental changes in how the National Airspace 

System operates and how controllers manage traffic to accommodate three times 

more aircraft in the system. Currently, the union that represents controllers is not 

yet participating in JPDO efforts, but it needs to be. Additionally, changes must 

address cultural issues within FAA that could potentially inhibit the 

implementation of NGATS; this will require doing business differently than the 

way it is done with the current system. 

History has shown that insufficient attention to human factors can increase the cost 

of acquisition and delay much needed benefits. For example, problems in the late 

1990s with FAA’s Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System were 

directly traceable to not involving users early enough in the process. 

The need for focused human factors research extends well beyond the traditional 

computer-machine interface (such as new controller displays) and has important 

workforce and safety implications. For example, FAA expects the controller’s 

role to change from direct, tactical control of aircraft to one of overall traffic 

management. There also will be significant human factors concerns for pilots, as 

they will be expected to rely more on data-link communications. 

 

18 OIG Report Number AV-2002-067, “Free Flight Phase 1 Technologies: Progress to Date and Future Challenges,” 

December 14, 2001. 19 Technology Readiness Levels – DOD and NASA use a nine-point scale to differentiate the maturity of technologies 

Level 1 (Basic Principles Observed and Reported) to Level 9 (Actual System, Proven Through Successful Mission 

Operations). Source: GAO Report GAO/NSIAD-99-162, “Better Practices, Better Management of Technology 

Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes,” July 29, 1999 and OIG Report Number AV-2002-067, 

“Free Flight Phase 1 Technologies: Progress to Date and Future Challenges,” December 14, 2001. 
 

Recommendations 

17

Key issues for human factors research focus on what can reasonably be expected 

of new automation systems and cockpit displays. The following issues identified 

in FAA’s concept of operations for NGATS will require additional human factors 

work: 

• How will increased automation and new technologies affect flight crew 

workload? 

• What effect do the changing roles and responsibilities have on safety? 

• What alerts and information displays does a pilot need to safely oversee 

conflict detection and resolution when no one on the ground is responsible 

for tactical separation? 

• If automation fails, what is the back-up plan in terms of people, procedures, 

and automation? 

FAA will have to prioritize its ongoing human factors work and make sure it is 

targeted to address critical issues affecting controllers and pilots. This will also 

require close cooperation with NASA, which also conducts human factors 

research. We agree with the JPDO that simulations and modeling will be 

important to gain a full understanding of the human factors issues and 

corresponding requirements for NGATS initiatives. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The transition to NGATS is an enormously complex undertaking that will span 

years and require considerable investments from both the Government and 

airspace users. We shared our views with the JPDO and FAA on the range of 

actions needed to shift from a research agenda to one of implementation, and 

actions are underway to address our concerns about better linking JPDO and ATO 

efforts. 

To help better manage NGATS efforts, we recommend that the Federal Aviation 

Administrator: 

1. Report NGATS cost data along three vectors—developmental efforts, 

adjustments to existing programs, and NGATS implementation—when 

reporting NGATS financial requirements to Congress and stakeholders. 

2. Determine the level of technical maturity of NASA’s research projects 

developed for NGATS initiatives. If NASA will be unable to provide 

research projects at a level that FAA can quickly move to prototype 

development, then FAA will need to develop contingency plans for how 

this research and development will be conducted, managed, and paid for. 
 

Recommendations 

18

3. Review existing ongoing modernization programs to determine if they are 

still needed and, if so, what adjustments in cost, schedule, and performance 

parameters will be needed. 

4. Include information in the annual JPDO progress report on specific 

research projects with budget data for FAA developmental efforts as well 

as budget data of other agencies that are being leveraged and specify how 

the ongoing research is supporting the JPDO. 

5. Determine what skill sets and expertise, with respect to software 

development and system integration, will be required by the ATO and 

JPDO—and how they will be obtained—to manage and execute NGATS 

initiatives. 

6. In planned NGATS demonstration projects, develop sufficient data to 

establish a path for certifying new systems and identify the full range of 

adjustments to policies and procedures needed to get benefits. 

7. Continue to develop and refine procedures that address conflict of interest 

issues with JPDO initiatives and conduct annual reviews of the matter as 

the role of the JPDO evolves from planning to implementation. 

8. Use technology readiness levels in assessing the maturity of research 

conducted at other agencies to help speed technology transfer and the 

introduction of new capabilities into the National Airspace System. 

9. Fund targeted human factors research to ensure that the changing roles of 

controllers and pilots envisioned by the JPDO can safely be accommodated. 

This will require a re-prioritization of ongoing efforts at FAA and close 

cooperation with NASA, which also conducts human factors research. 
 

Management Comments and OIG Response 

19

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS AND OIG RESPONSE 

On December 15, 2006, we provided FAA with a draft copy of this report. On 

February 9, 2007, FAA gave us its formal response, which is included in its 

entirety in the Appendix. FAA concurred with the following eight 

recommendations, and we consider them resolved: 

• Report NGATS cost data and development efforts to Congress and 

stakeholders along three vectors, 

• Determine the level of technical maturity of NASA’s research and 

development projects related to NGATS, 

• Review ongoing modernization efforts and determine what adjustments 

must be made, 

• Report in JPDO’s annual progress report research and budget data of FAA 

and partner Agencies that are being leveraged for use in NGATS, 

• Determine critical skill sets and expertise that will be required with respect 

to software development and system integration, 

• Develop NGATS demonstration projects that will develop sufficient data to 

establish pathways to certification, 

• Continue to develop and refine procedures to address conflicts of interest 

issues with JPDO initiatives, 

• Fund human factors research that will address changing roles of pilots and 

controllers. 

FAA partially concurred with Recommendation 8 to use technology readiness 

levels in assessing the technical maturity of research and development projects 

received from partner agencies. FAA points out that the use of technology 

readiness levels alone does not facilitate successful technology transfer. We agree 

and point out in our report that efficient transition of technology also requires 

close cooperation between researchers and users of existing systems. In its 

response, FAA points to a number of steps, such as further developing the concept 

of operations and the NGATS R&D plan and using the Agency’s Operational 

Evolution Plan to track technology maturity. We consider FAA’s alternative 

actions responsive to the intent of this recommendation. 
Exhibit A. Key Research Efforts Needed for NGATS 

20

EXHIBIT A. KEY RESEARCH EFFORTS NEEDED FOR NGATS 

Based upon our work and understanding of the JPDO interim capabilities, the 

concept of operations, and the REDAC report, the following are examples of 

several key research and development activities that are underway or planned by 

NASA and others that will be essential in realizing the expected capacity benefits 

from NGATS. 

• Automation Improvements. Research is needed to develop 

automation that performs routine separation and traffic flow 

management functions with almost flawless performance. It will be 

important to determine the optimum roles for controllers and pilots 

in a highly automated system that shifts greater responsibility to the 

pilot. 

• Separation Standards for an Automated Environment. 

Research is needed to assess current separation standards, which 

have created a remarkably safe system. Work is required to 

determine what is achievable and how mishaps can be 

accommodated. 

• Cockpit Displays. Research is needed for a cockpit-based display 

that will enable pilots to self-separate. 

• Weather Integration Into Automation. Research is needed to 

design and develop systems that integrate up-to-date weather 

information into automation systems that identify hazardous 

weather (e.g., thunderstorms, in-flight icing, and turbulence) for all 

phases of flight. 

Overall, FAA’s concept of operations for NGATS has identified over 70 research 

or policy areas that require further investigation. These research areas will be 

needed regardless of the technology ultimately selected. Some research on these 

issues is planned or has been done in the past. To see benefits in the 2012 

timeframe, as projected by the JPDO, FAA officials have told us that work must 

begin now, given the lag time between development and actual deployment. It is 

not yet clear who or what agency will do this research. To be effective, the 

research must also focus on policies, procedures, and methods for certifying 

systems as safe for use. 
Exhibit B. Potential Agency Contributions 

21

EXHIBIT B. POTENTIAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 

Agencies participating in the JPDO are conducting a wide range of research for 

their specific missions. We note that only some of the ongoing research will be 

applicable to the JPDO’s efforts. 

Table 2. Federal Agencies and Their Key Leverage Areas 

Agency Key Area of Leverage

Department of 

Defense (DOD)

DOD has an extensive and diverse Research and 

Development (R&D) base, including research in new 

aircraft, composites, imaging systems, and data exchange 

systems for all services. DOD has requested $73 billion 

overall for R&D in FY 2007. The JPDO is particularly 

interested in DOD’s broadband communication networks, 

such as the Global Information Grid. DOD planned 

upgrades to the Global Positioning System Constellation 

will be critical to civil aviation. 

Department of 

Commerce/ 

National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA) 

Commerce is requesting $1.1 billion for research in 

FY 2007. NOAA is a part of Commerce and is responsible 

for the National Weather Service; the National 

Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; 

and Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. NOAA requested 

$533 million in FY 2007 for R&D. The JPDO is seeking 

from NOAA probability weighted forecast capabilities, a 

national uniform weather database of forecasts and 

observations, and transparent automatic adjusted traffic 

management for weather. 

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration 

(NASA)

For years, NASA has conducted the majority of long-term 

Air Traffic Management research, including automated 

controller tools and human factors work. NASA has 

requested $724 million for aeronautical R&D for FY 2007. 

The JPDO is looking to NASA to develop automated 

aircraft metering and sequencing and dynamic airspace 

reconfiguration. 

Department of 

Homeland 

Security (DHS)

DHS contributes expertise in the areas of security and netcentric initiatives. The Agency has requested $1 billion in 

FY 2007 for Science and Technology R&D. FAA is 

looking to DHS to develop automated passenger and cargo 

screening, hardened aircraft security, and flight control 

overrides. 
Exhibit C. Integrated Product Teams and Their Lead Agencies 

22

EXHIBIT C. INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAMS AND THEIR LEAD 

AGENCIES 

Integrated Product Teams are multi-agency teams that are defining the specific 

concepts and capabilities and coordinating the actions necessary to make the 

transformation possible in each of the eight strategies of the NGATS Integrated 

Plan. We understand that the JPDO will restructure its IPTs sometime in 2007. 

The following represents the structure at the IPTs at the time of our review. 

1. Develop Airport Infrastructure To Meet the Future Demand – FAA 

2. Establish an Effective Security System Without Limiting Mobility or 

Civil Liberties – DHS 

3. Establish an Agile Air Traffic System – NASA 

4. Establish User-Specific Situational Awareness – DOD 

5. Establish a Comprehensive Proactive Safety Management Approach – 

FAA 

6. Develop Environmental Protection That Allows Sustained Aviation 

Growth – FAA 

7. Develop a System-Wide Capability To Reduce Weather Impacts – 

Commerce/NOAA 

8. Harmonize Equipage and Operations Globally – FAA 
Exhibit D. Key Platforms 

23

EXHIBIT D. KEY PLATFORMS 

Table 3. Issues With FAA Systems 

System Status and Key Issues 

Terminal Modernization: 

Standard Terminal 

Automation Replacement 

System (STARS), 

Common Automated 

Radar Terminal System 

(Common ARTS): 

Controller work-stations that 

process surveillance data 

and display it on-screen to 

manage air traffic in the 

terminal environment. 

FAA has struggled with how to complete terminal 

modernization. STARS, which so far has cost of 

$1.3 billion for only 47 sites, was envisioned as the 

centerpiece of terminal modernization. Because of 

technical problems and schedule delays with STARS, 

FAA decided to deploy another system, Common 

ARTS, as an interim solution at over 140 facilities in 

several configurations. FAA is rethinking its approach 

to terminal modernization and recently decided to field 

STARS to only five additional sites. A decision 

affecting the remaining 100-plus sites has been 

postponed for over a year. FAA needs to resolve how it 

will complete terminal modernization and what 

additional capabilities will be needed as it works with 

the JPDO. 

En Route Automation 

Modernization (ERAM): 

Replaces the Host computer 

hardware and software 

(including the Host backup 

system) and associated 

support infrastructure at 

20 En Route Centers. 

With an estimated cost of $2.1 billion, ERAM is one of 

the largest and most complex acquisitions in FAA’s 

modernization portfolio. Progress is being made with 

the first ERAM deliverable—a back-up system for the 

Host computer. However, the bulk of the work focuses 

on developing the first major ERAM software release, 

which involves developing over 1 million lines of code. 

A number of new capabilities (e.g., dynamic airspace 

management and data link) depend on future 

enhancements to ERAM that have yet to be defined or 

priced. 
Exhibit D. Key Platforms 

24

System Status and Key Issues 

FAA Telecommunications 

Infrastructure (FTI) is 

designed to replace existing 

telecommunications 

networks with one new 

network through a phased 

process. A single provider 

is responsible for acquiring, 

operating, and maintaining 

the new 

telecommunications 

infrastructure. 

FTI is FAA’s effort to transition from multiple telecommunication networks to a single new network to reduce 

operating costs. FTI is expected to replace about 

20,000 existing telecommunications services and circuits 

at more than 4,000 facilities. FAA re-baselined FTI in 

August 2006, increasing Agency telecommunications 

lifecycle costs from $3.2 billion to $3.3 billion. In 

addition, FAA has added another year to the FTI schedule 

and plans to complete the effort in December 2008. This 

delay occurred because FAA did not have a realistic 

master schedule or effective transition plan identifying 

when each site and service would be accepted, when 

services would be cut over to FTI, and when existing 

services would be disconnected. By the end of FY 2006, 

FTI equipment was installed at more than 1,000 sites, and 

about 35 percent of 20,000 planned FTI services were 

operational, leaving a vast amount of existing equipment 

still being sustained. As a result, expected FTI cost 

reduction benefits are eroding. FAA continues to face a 

number of risks with FTI, including complex transition 

issues. We are currently reviewing progress with FTI and 

will issue a report later this year. 

Traffic Flow 

Management (TFM) is an 

FAA initiative to 

modernize the hardware 

and software used to 

manage the flow of air 

traffic. 

Traffic Flow Management Infrastructure products and 

services are designed to support the Traffic Management 

Specialists and Traffic Management Coordinators in 

optimizing air traffic flow across the National Airspace 

System. The specialists and coordinators analyze, plan, 

and coordinate air traffic flow through continuous 

coordination with the airlines and the use of surveillance 

sources, weather, automation, and display subsystems. 
Exhibit E. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

25

EXHIBIT E. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Aviation 

Subcommittee, we initiated a review of the newly established JPDO to assess 

progress to date. As agreed with the Subcommittee, we focused this report on (1) 

accessing JPDO’s progress to date in aligning diverse agency budgets and what 

barriers remain to be overcome and (2) determining actions that will help the 

JPDO move from planning to implementation. 

To get an understanding of the challenges FAA faces with NGATS, we gathered 

and reviewed budgetary documentation for key projects, including the top 

10 largest ongoing acquisitions in terms of dollars. We also examined cost and 

schedule reports for key projects, such as FTI, and their funding profiles contained 

in FAA’s Capital Investment Plan. In addition, we examined the progress and 

issues associated with SWIM and ADS-B—two key projects highlighted in the 

JPDO’s recent progress report to Congress. To understand the potential affects to 

ongoing projects, we interviewed key JPDO personnel responsible for developing 

NGATS and senior FAA management, including the Director of FAA’s Capital 

Expenditures Programs. 

To determine progress to date with coordination and alignment of JPDO partner 

agencies, we collected information from the eight IPTs with respect to plans and 

what ongoing research that could be leveraged by the JPDO. We focused the 

majority of our work on the IPTs that relate directly to air traffic management. 

Additionally, we interviewed NASA’s Associate Administrator for Aeronautical 

Research and members of her staff and FAA budget office staff. We gathered 

applicable program documentation from FAA and reviewed relevant Agency 

documents, such as the 2005 JPDO Progress Report to Congress. 

To determine the range of actions needed to shift from planning to 

implementation, we interviewed officials from FAA, ATO, NASA, JPDO, and the 

aviation industry. Also, we reviewed a recent report by the National Research 

Council that highlighted the need for changes with the JPDO’s IPTs. In addition, 

we attended the April 2006 JPDO/Industry Workshop on NGATS costs, as well as 

an expert panel sponsored by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and 

facilitated by the National Academy of Sciences. 

We performed our survey and verification work from July 2005 through 

September 2006. We performed our work in accordance with Generally Accepted 

Government Auditing Standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. 
Appendix. Management Comments 

26

APPENDIX. MANAGEMENT COMMENTS 

 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: (February 8, 2007) 

To: David A. Dobbs, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and 

Evaluation 

From: Ramesh K. Punwani, Assistant Administrator for Financial Services/CFO 

Prepared by: Anthony Williams, x79000 

Subject: OIG Draft Report: Joint Planning and Development Office: Actions 

 Needed to Reduce Risk with the Next Generation (NextGen) Air 

 Transportation System 

In the subject draft report dated December 15, 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) was requested to provide written comments to be incorporated into your final 

report. 

The following is FAA’s response to each of your recommendations. 

Recommendation 1: Report NGATS cost data along three vectors—developmental 

efforts, adjustments to existing programs, and NGATS implementation when reporting 

NGATS financial requirements to Congress and stakeholders. 

FAA Response: Concur. In early 2007, Congress will receive the FAA's 

reauthorization proposal, which will include budget projections consistent with the 

reauthorization period. The projections include base FAA programs and incremental 

NextGen funding for RE&D and ATO Capital appropriations. 

In February, subject to OMB approval, Congress will receive the JPDO Annual Progress 

Report, which will include initial 5-year, 10-year, and end state cost projections for 

NextGen. 

JPDO will be building a comprehensive cost estimate throughout this fiscal year. The 

results will support the FY 2009 budget process and associated out-year planning. 
Appendix. Management Comments 

27

Recommendation 2: Determine the level of technical maturity of NASA’s research 

projects developed for NGATS initiatives. If NASA will be unable to provide research 

projects at a level that FAA can quickly move to prototype development, then FAA will 

need to develop contingency plans for how this research and development will be 

conducted, managed, and paid for. 

FAA Response: Concur. By August 31, JPDO will develop an R&D Plan that identifies 

responsibilities of JPDO member agencies for the NextGen pre-implementation work 

leading to agency implementation decisions. The pre-implementation work includes 

foundational research, applications research, policy and benefits analyses, and system 

engineering. 

Recommendation 3: Review existing ongoing modernization programs to determine if 

they are still needed and, if so, what adjustments in cost, schedule, and performance 

parameters will be needed. 

FAA Response: Concur. As part of its resource planning activities with the partner 

agencies, and based on the enterprise architecture roadmap, JPDO will identify those 

capital programs that are still needed to support NextGen and what adjustments will be 

needed. The architecture roadmap will also inform FAA funding priorities by indicating 

how long legacy technologies will be needed before new technologies/capabilities are 

transitioned into the NAS. 

Recommendation 4: Include information in the annual JPDO progress report on specific 

research projects with budget data for FAA developmental efforts as well as budget data 

of other agencies that are being leveraged and specify how the ongoing research is 

supporting the JPDO. 

FAA Response: Concur. The Progress Report will contain a high level description of 

the specific research projects in the partner agencies and how they contribute to NextGen. 

More detailed descriptions of the program elements will be available in the budget white 

sheets that accompany the President’s FY 2008 budget. For the FY 2009 budget 

formulation cycle, this information will be formalized in the NextGen Exhibit 300 and 

the NextGen R&D Plan, which will be completed in time for submission with the agency 

budgets. 

Recommendation 5: Determine what skill sets and expertise, with respect to software 

development and system integration, will be required by the ATO and JPDO—and how 

they will be obtained—to manage and execute NGATS initiatives. 

FAA Response: Concur. ATO will work with the Chairman of the Research, 

Engineering and Development Advisory Committee National Airspace System 

Subcommittee to form a panel of external government and industry experts to conduct an 

independent assessment of the ATO’s ability to successfully integrate the operational 

improvements required to transition to NextGen. Recommendations will be sought as to 

how best achieve NextGen implementation. This work will be completed by the end of 

September. 
Appendix. Management Comments 

28

Recommendation 6: In planned NGATS demonstration projects, develop sufficient data 

to establish a path for certifying new systems and identify the full range of adjustments to 

policies and procedures needed to get benefits. 

FAA Response: Concur. FAA has redefined the successful Operational Evolution 

Partnership (OEP) to serve as the framework that will guide, monitor and report the 

transition to NextGen. The OEP process now spans all phases of NextGen development 

and establishes the path from concept validation, to applications research, through system 

engineering, to acquisition and implementation. Participation by all relevant FAA 

executives ensures that the full range of changes (technology, training, policy, 

certification, and procedures) come together at the right time to achieve operational 

benefits. The next publication date of the annual OEP plan is scheduled for June. 

Recommendation 7: Continue to develop and refine procedures that address conflict of 

interest issues with JPDO initiatives and conduct annual reviews of the matter as the role 

of the JPDO evolves from planning to implementation. 

FAA Response: Concur. On the basis of the work planned for this fiscal year, JPDO 

will consult with FAA’s legal counsel and develop and deliver appropriate awareness 

training for private sector participants in JPDO activities. The training for this fiscal year 

will be completed by March 30. JPDO will conduct similar assessments and training 

each year. 

Recommendation 8: Use technology readiness levels in assessing the maturity of 

research conducted at other agencies to help speed technology transfer and the 

introduction of new capabilities into the National Airspace System. 

FAA Response: Partially concur. Use of technology readiness levels does not by itself 

facilitate technology transition. However, we agree that a smooth technology maturation 

pipeline is needed to speed introduction of NextGen capabilities. Several factors and 

actions should help to assure that smooth pipeline: (1) the NextGen Operational Concept 

provides the operational “pull” that is often missing in technology maturation; (2) the 

NextGen R&D Plan will identify responsibilities of JPDO member agencies for the 

NextGen technology requirements; and (3) at the FAA, use of the OEP to plan and track 

technology maturation provides the leadership that is critical to successful tech transfer. 

Recommendation 9: Fund targeted human factors research to ensure that the changing 

roles of controllers and pilots envisioned by the JPDO can safely be accommodated. This 

will require a re-prioritization of ongoing efforts at FAA and close cooperation with 

NASA, which also conducts human factors research. 

FAA Response: Concur. By August 31, JPDO will develop an R&D Plan that will 

identify responsibilities of JPDO member agencies for the NextGen technology 

requirements, including human factors research. 
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts found in this 

document. These pages were not in the original document but have been added 

here to accommodate assistive technology. 
Joint Planning and Development Office: Actions Needed To Reduce Risks 

With the New Generation Air Transportation System 

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

Figure 1. United States Commercial Air Carriers System Enplanements, 

Fiscal Years 2005 to 2007 (Passenger figures are in millions) 

Fiscal Year Mainline Passengers Regional Passengers

2005 587.3 151.4

2006 584.7 155.9

2007 604 165.1

2008 621.8 171.8

2009 640.1 179.6

2010 659.6 187.6

2011 679.6 195.9

2012 700.8 204.4

2013 722.6 213.1

2014 745.6 222.1

2015 769.4 231.3

2016 794.5 240.8

2017 821.1 250.4

Source: Federal Aviation Administration Forecast 2005-2017 

Figure 2. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Fiscal Year 2007 Facilities 

and Equipment Budget Request 

Category Amount Requested Percentage of Total Request 

Personnel and Related Expenses $447,900,000 18 percent

Mission Support $282,000,000 11 percent

Facilities $402,000,000 16 percent

Air Traffic Control Modernization $1,370,000,000 55 percent

Source: The Federal Aviation Administration’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request