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

72–812 PDF 2012

A REVIEW OF ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH 

PROTECTING AND IMPROVING OUR NATION’S 

AVIATION SATELLITE-BASED GLOBAL 

POSITIONING SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 

(112–71) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 8, 2012 

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

Hon. John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .. 3 

Vincent Galotti, Deputy Director, Air Navigation Bureau, International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) of the United Nations ....................................... 3 

PANEL TWO

Captain Sean P. Cassidy, First Vice President, Air Line Pilots Association, 

International ......................................................................................................... 15 

Thomas L. Hendricks, Senior Vice President of Safety, Security and Operations, Airlines for America ................................................................................ 15 

Craig Fuller, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ........................ 15 

John M. Foley, Director, Aviation GNSS Technology, Garmin International, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 15 

Scott Pace, Ph.D., Director, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University ....................................... 15 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Jerry F. Costello, of Illinois ........................................................................... 28 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. John D. Porcari ............................................................................................... 30 

Vincent Galotti ......................................................................................................... 36 

Captain Sean P. Cassidy ......................................................................................... 43 

Thomas L. Hendricks .............................................................................................. 56 

Craig Fuller .............................................................................................................. 59 

John M. Foley .......................................................................................................... 64 

Scott Pace, Ph.D. ..................................................................................................... 79 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

John M. Foley, Director, Aviation GNSS Technology, Garmin International, 

Inc., responses to questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ......................................................... 75 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Jeffrey Carlisle, Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy, LightSquared, letter to Hon. Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Aviation, February 8, 2011 [sic], including response to hearing briefing 

memorandum and request to Federal Communications Commission for initiation of proceeding ............................................................................................ 94 

David R. Hinson, Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, letter to Dr. Assad Kotaite, President of the Council, International Civil Aviation Organization, October 14, 1994 .................... 122 

Marion C. Blakey, Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, letter to Mr. Roberto Kobeh, President of the 

Council, International Civil Aviation Organization, September 10, 2007 ....... 124 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 72812.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 72812.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 72812.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 72812.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 72812.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 72812.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 72812.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 72812.008
(1) 

A REVIEW OF ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH 

PROTECTING AND IMPROVING OUR NATION’S 

AVIATION SATELLITE-BASED GLOBAL 

POSITIONING SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. We meet today 

to discuss a critical part of transportation infrastructure, the Global Positioning System, commonly referred to as GPS. 

So, I thank the witnesses for their participation in today’s hearing, and would like to say a special welcome to Deputy Secretary, 

Mr. Porcari, and Mr. Galotti, our witnesses from the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization, a very important 

framework for our global aviation industry. Your participation in 

today’s hearing speaks to the importance of this issue, not only 

here, but around the globe. 

For this committee, for this subcommittee, aviation safety is the 

top priority. According to the Department of Transportation, the 

Global Positioning System has served as a critical component of 

aviation safety improvements that the aviation community has embraced. Moreover, GPS is critical to the safety and efficiency improvements planned as part of NextGen, that we are in the process 

of rolling out here in this country and other countries as well. 

Our aviation infrastructure and efforts to update it with the Department of Transportation’s NextGen program are a platform for 

growth in the U.S. economy. NextGen is also a catalyst for job creation within the aviation industry. 

It is important for Government to avoid constraining that growth 

by limiting the efficiency gains and job creation achieved by 

NextGen, which is reliant on GPS. As important as GPS is to 

transportation safety and efficiency, its signal strength is very 

weak. Therefore, GPS is susceptible to interference by other transmissions, even if those other transmissions are constrained within 

their own spectrum allocation. 

Over the past year or so, the subcommittee has watched with interest the developments of issues related to radio spectrum within 

the L band. As the Federal Communications Commission delibVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
2 

erates the issues before it, we recognize the potential impacts on 

the transportation community, and hence, today’s hearing. 

However, out of fairness to the parties involved in the FCC proceedings, I would ask the witnesses to focus their comments today 

on the question at hand regarding the importance of GPS as an element of transportation infrastructure, and the public policy considerations of the transportation community to protect that infrastructure. 

Today’s hearings serve as an opportunity to hear ideas for the 

best way forward, given what we have learned about GPS. Where 

there are good engineers, there may be a variety of solutions. And 

it would be helpful for technologies to co-exist because, given the 

spectrum demand, the problem of interference between competing 

uses on various points along the spectrum is not going away. 

So, I would encourage the agencies and industry to find a way 

to safely co-exist, if possible. I believe that we can and must find 

a way for us to continue to encourage innovation in both the 

broadband and GPS industries. 

Finally, before I recognize Mr. Costello for his opening statement, 

and other Members, 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. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. And now I will recognize Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to thank 

you for calling the hearing today. I will submit my statement for 

the record. 

I welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing their testimony. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Cravaack, did you—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Costello for holding these 

important hearings on the critical importance of GPS to our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

I would like to welcome today’s witnesses, and I look forward to 

hearing your testimony on the importance of the issue regarding 

the future of GPS. GPS is the cornerstone, as you well know, of 

aviation system that is in our country, and any threat to GPS 

needs to be handled with the utmost care, and ensure that our 

skies are safe. 

One of my key concerns has been the LightSquared project, and 

how it affects GPS devices. I am very concerned that the reliability 

of GPS might be put at risk. I will be interested to hear any opinions or any solutions to the situation, because we need to solve all 

concerns before they become a problem and put lives at risk. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, their thoughts on 

the GPS and its role in our aviation system. Thank you again, and 

I look forward to hearing from your testimony. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Now we turn to our first panel, which 

consists of the Honorable John Porcari, deputy secretary of the 

United States Department of Transportation, and Mr. Vincent 

Galotti, who is the deputy director, air navigation bureau, InterVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
3 

national Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, of the United Nations. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. Thank you for your 

prepared statements. And we would invite you to summarize them, 

if possible, in about 5 minutes, and then we will have some questions, I suspect. 

Thank you very much, and we will begin with Mr. Porcari. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND VINCENT 

GALOTTI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NAVIGATION BUREAU, 

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (ICAO) OF 

THE UNITED NATIONS 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member 

Costello. Thanks to the members of the subcommittee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The simple fact is the Global Positioning System (GPS) applications are vital to transportation safety and efficiency. Tens of millions of drivers across America use GPS to navigate every day. In 

the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration, we estimate that by 2013, 60,000 aircraft will be equipped 

with GPS to navigate the skies over America. This is what we refer 

to collectively as NextGen. 

On the ground, Positive Train Control, which is an improved 

safety application for rail transportation, relies on GPS, as well. 

The Intelligent Transportation Systems will depend on GPS as a 

key technology for vehicle collision warning and crash avoidance 

systems. 

What’s more, GPS is essential for the operations of first responders, search and rescue, resource management, weather tracking 

and prediction, earthquake monitoring, and other critical national 

security functions. From there, the list goes on and on. 

Now, as you know, the LightSquared Corporation has proposed 

to create a wireless broadband network. In the Obama administration, we believe deeply in what LightSquared is attempting to do, 

which is to make the Internet more accessible to more people all 

across the country. This is an urgent national priority. But after 

comprehensive testing, we have concluded that the current plan to 

provide such services adversely affect GPS signals. And I will be 

happy to delve into the details during our conversation, as I have 

in my written testimony. 

In short, both LightSquared’s original and revised plans generate 

considerable harmful interference with GPS. Our researchers could 

find no obvious practical mitigations to solve the interference 

issues. 

I would also point out that substantial Federal resources, including over $2 million from the FAA, has been diverted from other 

programs in testing and analyzing LightSquared’s proposals. 

Even if these interference issues were somehow resolved, 

LightSquared would still have to design fixes for known interference with high-precision GPS receivers that are vital for agriculture, science, and surveying. And LightSquared’s operating plan 

still leaves open the possibility of broadcasting on both bands. Its 

4 

FCC filings propose only a ‘‘standstill’’ on broadband use of the 

upper 10 MHz band. 

Considering all these factors, the Executive Committee (EXCOM) 

of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing 

group have now unanimously concluded that LightSquared’s proposal is fundamentally incompatible with GPS use, and that no additional testing or analysis is warranted at this time. 

Going forward, the EXCOM agencies continue to strongly support 

President Obama’s directive to make available a total of over 500 

MHz of spectrum over the next 10 years suitable for broadband 

use. 

We recognize that we all have to do our part in spectrum use, 

making it as efficient as possible. We propose to work with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the 

Department of Commerce to draft new GPS spectrum interference 

standards. 

These standards, which would inform future potential commercial operators, would let them know in advance which uses in adjacent bands would or would not be compatible with GPS, and will 

ensure that this national policy protection for GPS evolves through 

clear communications with stakeholders, and that it is implemented without affecting existing and emerging uses of spacebased positioning, navigation, and timing services that are vital to 

economic, public safety, scientific, and national security needs. 

In summary, our GPS system is one of the more vital, if less visible, parts of our national infrastructure. With that, I will be happy 

to answer any questions. And again, thank you for permitting me 

to testify. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Galotti? 

Mr. GALOTTI. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, and subcommittee members. It is an honor to be 

able to testify before this subcommittee, and I would like to thank 

you for the opportunity. My testimony today will focus on the importance of what we call the global navigation satellite systems to 

international civil aviation. 

And there are a few other global systems. Russia has its 

GLONASS, which has had some reliability and maintenance problems over the years, although that government is now committed 

to a Next General system. There is the European Galileo, not yet 

operational, and of course China is in the process of launching its 

Compass system. 

Because of the reliability and continued upgrading of the GPS 

and the commitment of the United States Government, GPS has 

evolved into the most fundamental and important piece of supporting infrastructure for the global aviation system. 

And just at the beginning I would like to mention that the 

United States is one of the primary contributors to ICAO in terms 

of technical expertise and knowledge, and in support of consensusbuilding and excellence in international standards and policy development, for which we are grateful. Most of the technical work that 

we do is accomplished by groups of experts nominated by the member States. The FAA has been the major contributor to ICAO in 

5 

this respect, and I believe it has served the U.S. interests extremely well. 

ICAO’s close involvement with satellite navigation systems goes 

back to the work of the ICAO Committee on Future Air Navigation 

Systems, more commonly known as the FANS Committee. The U.S. 

was a major contributor and participant of that committee. In 

adopting the outcomes of the FANS Committee at the 10th Air 

Navigation Conference in 1991, a conclusion was reached that the 

exploitation of satellite technology appears to be the only valuable 

solution to overcoming the shortcomings of the present system, and 

also fulfill the global needs and requirements of the foreseeable future, and that satellite-based systems will be the key to worldwide 

improvements. 

In recognition of this turning point and acknowledgment by the 

world community of the importance of GNSS, which was highly dependent—and is—on the U.S. GPS, President Clinton formally offered the GPS standard positioning service, SPS, to the global aviation community through ICAO to support international civil aviation. This commitment was reaffirmed in 2007 under President 

Bush, as follows: ‘‘The U.S. Government maintains its commitment 

to provide GPS SPS signals on a continuous worldwide basis, free 

of direct user fees, enabling worldwide civil space-based navigation 

services, and to provide open, free access to information necessary 

to develop and build equipment to use these services.’’ 

Even before the work of the FANS Committee and the offers of 

both Presidents Clinton and Bush, the availability of GPS to civil 

aviation first came about, as I am sure you are aware of, when 

President Reagan authorized its use for international civil aviation 

after the shootdown of Korean 007. 

Following the initial U.S. offer, ICAO developed international 

standards to satellite navigation systems. With the availability of 

the GPS system, it became globally recognized by the international 

civil aviation community as the central element of GNSS. ICAO 

and the entire international civil aviation community are now completely reliant on the longstanding U.S. Government policy and its 

commitment as a key enabler to international aviation. 

And I just want to go over a few of the important ways that GPS 

supports international aviation. There are many areas in the world 

where the conventional terrestrial navigation and infrastructure is 

inadequate. And GNSS is often the only reliable source of navigation information. 

Before GNSS, navigation in high-seas airspace was crude and inaccurate. Separate distance between aircraft used by air traffic control were as much as 100 miles laterally and 15 to 20 minutes. The 

superior accuracy of GNSS, especially when integrated with sophisticated flight management systems, has enabled a number of substantial navigation improvements, which are the foundation of the 

concept of performance-based navigation, or PBN. 

In PBN, airspace separation between aircraft is significantly reduced, thereby increasing capacity while bringing safety, efficiency, 

and environmental benefits. The United States provides air traffic 

control services over vast expanses of high-seas airspace. 

In the North Atlantic there are over 2,000 crossings a day. The 

transpacific passenger traffic is expected to grow by 4.2 percent beVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
6 

tween 2009 and 2030. Intra-Asia-Pacific traffic during that period 

is expected to grow by 5.1 percent. And right now there are approximately 8,000 flights per year that operate on cross-polar 

routes, and they are totally reliant on GPS. 

Until very recently, all final approaches to land at major airports 

were accomplished by means of instrument landing systems. This 

is OK in States that are able to maintain these, and that have the 

infrastructure to support that. In many parts of the world, maintaining such systems is prohibitive because of the cost and expertise. Using PBN approach procedures based on GPS, more and 

more approaches to land are accomplished by means of the equipment in the aircraft only, with little or no reliance on ground 

equipment, bringing enormous safety benefits. And airports that 

previously had no instrument approaches now have PBN. 

Today, when U.S. airlines fly into Lagos, Nigeria; Almaty, 

Kazakhstan; Ulan Bator, Mongolia; Dakar, Senegal; Quito, Ecuador; and Georgetown, Guyana, to name but a few out of hundreds, 

they are more assured of safe operations because of GPS. 

GNSS is important for Next Generation aircraft surveillance, and 

I am sure you are all aware of automatic dependent surveillance 

broadcast. But over oceanic airspace, automatic dependent surveillance contracts allows air traffic control to have surveillance, where 

this was impossible. 

And finally, two of the most significant near-term air traffic management improvements that have recently become available are 

continuous descent operations and continuous climb operations. 

This is a major initiative at ICAO, and GPS allows this extremely 

efficient flight routing to be enabled. 

And now, just a few words about the spectrum major issue that 

has as much to do with the importance of GPS as anything else. 

I am referring to the problem of frequency spectrum. 

Available radio frequency spectrum is the lifeblood of aviation, 

and the protection of spectrum used by aviation radio systems is 

absolutely essential for safety. ICAO has been vehemently supporting the protection of GNSS spectrum for decades, in all international fora, especially the world radio conferences—and there is 

one going on in Geneva right now. 

Against that background I would urge you to consider that any 

decision by the United States that affects frequency spectrum, 

which impacts on GNSS, will have a critical impact on the safety 

record, the investments made in GNSS, the international standards, and the recertification of equipment. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal to you and 

the committee that ICAO and international civil aviation continue 

to benefit from U.S. leadership and cooperation in many ways, including invaluable support through the sharing of technical information and expertise, support of consensus-building and excellence 

in international standard and policy development, and concrete 

projects to assist countries in need of strengthening their aviation 

programs. 

GPS is among the most important ways that the U.S. provides 

technological, humanitarian, and political leadership. ICAO looks 

forward to deepening this relationship and working together. 

7 

Thank you for this opportunity to share ICAO’s views with this 

important subcommittee. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you both. At previous hearings this 

subcommittee has been informed that as we gain momentum in deploying the NextGen technology, it will have enormous return on 

the American Government’s investment in it, reduce fuel use for 

the industry by some 20 or 30 percent, expand the capacity of the 

system without having to build additional runways and so on, improve the safety of the system, shorten the time of flights, and it 

goes on and on and on. To reduce the sound footprint, as planes 

are able to glide down more for many of the airports where that 

has been a problem. A lot of benefits from this new—for using this 

technology in the aviation industry, as other industries have found. 

I do have a couple of questions. First, Mr. Porcari, you mentioned 

that you proposed the Department of Transportation work with the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration to 

draft new GPS spectrum interference standards to strengthen existing national policy protection of adjacent band spectrum. Could 

you elaborate on what that all means? 

Mr. PORCARI. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. One thing that 

recent events has shown us is that GPS is not only a national infrastructure asset, but that protecting that asset, we are going to 

have to be much more sophisticated in the future on how we do 

that. 

In layman’s terms, on both sides of the existing GPS frequency 

there were mobile satellite-type applications that were also quiet, 

as it were, that did not interfere with GPS’s ability to hear what 

is a very weak signal from space, basically 50 watts, 22,000 miles 

up. 

The spectrum interference standards—and we would take a 

whole-of-government approach to this, working through our Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Executive Committee—the idea 

would be to identify before anyone puts capital at risk or major 

project at risk, what are compatible uses to GPS. 

In general terms, the more precise the GPS receiver—for example, the avionics in an aircraft—the more precise they are, the 

more that they are likely to have a wideband receiver that, in fact, 

needs to be able to listen beyond the GPS frequency. Acknowledging that, and building a policy around that, would be, we think, 

a very good use of staff time and, from a policy perspective, critical 

to protecting GPS as an asset. 

Mr. PETRI. Proposing to set interference standards—how is the 

proposal to set interference standards different from setting receiver standards? 

Mr. PORCARI. There are currently no receiver standards. The idea 

of spectrum interference standards would be to give everyone involved, the industry and others, confidence in the long term that, 

as they build more and more precise GPS devices—and I know our 

focus is on aviation, where GPS is absolutely critical to operations 

today, but will be even more so in the future—but other applications: precision farming, construction, and others. Spectrum interference standards would be clear guidelines for all users, both within the GPS spectrum and adjacent spectrums. 

8 

We think, if we can build the kind of consistency and predictability for both the GPS users and adjacent spectrum users, that 

that will serve everyone’s interests well. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes, I understand there is some sort of a curfunkle 

about the adjacent—who is interfering on whose turf in this particular area, and that, in fact, it was allowed for a little broader 

use of spectrum, because it didn’t interfere with adjacent use. And 

then, when the type of use was changed somewhat at the staff 

level, that has created a problem. Is that what you are trying to 

avoid? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly it. GPS, by its 

very nature, is a very weak space-based signal that is very faint 

when it is received by GPS receivers in the atmosphere, or in terrestrial applications. 

I think of it in zoning terms, because that is probably the way 

to think about compatibility of uses. GPS was—the spectrum was 

originally put in a quiet neighborhood, because it needed a quiet 

neighborhood with quiet neighbors to be able to have accuracy in 

receivers. The adjacent pieces of spectrum were for mobile satellite 

service, which was another quiet use. 

What has happened with this specific proposal is essentially you 

went from a mobile satellite service proposal with limited ground 

augmentation to a ground-based service with limited satellite augmentation. And that really changed the fundamental nature of signals, and how they would be received. But it is, I think, really important to point out that GPS was put in a quiet piece of the spectrum on purpose because, fundamentally, it has to have quiet 

neighbors. 

Mr. PETRI. So this was well known at the technical level at the 

time this strategy was put in place? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, I believe that the physics and the technical 

parts of it have been well-known all along. 

I would also point out that, as Mr. Galotti had, from an international perspective, harmonizing that use of the frequency internationally was important as well, so that the same kind of safety 

of flight avionics that we are using today, and as we build a larger 

NextGen system of systems, can be used around the world. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Galotti, in your testimony you referred to the 

GPS spectrum use being under some threat, and it being discussed 

at past world radio conferences and I think some current or upcoming conferences as well. Could you elaborate on that, and what role 

you, as representing the global aviation industry, play in those conferences, and how you have been able to work out resolutions in 

the past? 

Mr. GALOTTI. The international telecommunication holds a world 

radio conference every 3 years. And it is a huge event, it lasts for 

4 weeks. The States go with very powerful representation. And also 

industry goes with incredible force. Telecommunication providers 

are—as you can imagine, have the most to gain, and they put a lot 

of pressure, and they work around the clock, virtually, on—getting 

emails from my people at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning. 

ICAO is an observer. But during the 3 years in between we meet 

with all of our member States and we develop—we prepare an 

ICAO position that at least the member States agree to, so we get 

9 

just about unanimous decision on the ICAO position for radio frequency spectrum. It doesn’t always pan out that way at the event 

itself because, again, there is a lot of lobbying, there is a lot of 

pressure, a lot of jobs at stake. But as observers there, we do have 

a lot of close contacts with the States and with friends in the aviation industry. And we have been very successful in working with 

the member States. And the United States has been a strong supporter of protecting the GPS spectrum from other uses. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. To Deputy Secretary 

Porcari, to follow up on the chairman’s question, he asked the same 

question that, actually, I was going to ask. But I would like to have 

you clarify a point. 

My understanding is that you are proposing that DOT work with 

other agencies to develop a policy. Does that mean for radio transmission standards in the spectrum? Is the interference now between the agencies—are we talking about transmission standards? 

Or what are we talking about? 

Mr. PORCARI. What we are really talking about is, more generically and more broadly, spectrum interference standards, where we 

could establish, by consensus and with input from everyone who 

has an equity in this, industry, interested observers and others, the 

kind of standards that would protect the GPS spectrum, both today 

and in the future. 

If you look at the evolution of GPS, just in the last 10 or 15 

years, for example, the GPS uses, especially in aviation, have gotten more and more precise, and they are now safety of flight issues, 

which requires spectrum interference protection. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We are talking primarily about transmission 

standards. 

Mr. PORCARI. We are talking about primarily the requirement for 

precise navigation devices that use GPS to be able to utilize as 

broad a band as possible, which they have been to date, and which 

was acknowledged in the original approval of mobile satellite services on either end of that spectrum. 

So, I say this because, in fairness to all the potential users outside of the GPS band, establishing those standards would give 

them a good sense of what kind of uses would be compatible, and 

which would not. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You also mention in your testimony that the 

Obama administration—that their goal is to free up federally 

owned spectrum and make it available for mobile broadband, especially providing access to underserved rural communities. I certainly support that goal, and I think many members of the committee would, as well, especially for underserved communities for 

wireless service, and where consumers would benefit from competition between service providers. 

Let me ask. If the mobile satellite service band is not compatible 

with the high-speed wireless transmissions, then what can the administration do to provide greater access to high-speed service? 

Mr. PORCARI. The administration, the Department of Transportation and every part of the administration, is again committed to 

identifying those 500 MHz of additional spectrum over the next 10 

years. 

10 

We strongly support what you have underlined, which is the 

need for rural broadband and broadband competition. There are 

some features of the recent proposal that are very valuable, from 

that perspective. But we think that working across the Government 

with our Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Executive Committee, with NTIA, will ultimately be helpful. 

Obviously, we would not presume to know what actions the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency, would 

take. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Porcari, are there immunity standards for military GPS receivers that protect them from transmissions from outside the GPS 

band? 

Mr. PORCARI. Congressman, my understanding—and I believe 

General Shelton testified before the House Armed Services Committee—is that there are not. And I do know that, at least in some 

cases, the Department of Defense aircraft are using commercial, 

off-the-shelf avionics that are FAA-certified for commercial use, as 

opposed to military. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. Well, let me ask you another question, Mr. Porcari. What standards are currently in place to make 

sure that the receivers and equipment purchased pick up only signals used in the GPS frequency band? 

Mr. PORCARI. There are no current standards in place. That is 

part of the reason for the discussion. Again, we think, going forward, having the consistency and predictability of spectrum interference standards will help all parties involved. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Galotti—I will put this question 

to each of you. 

What impact might protections for GPS have on the marketplace 

for radio spectrum, A? And then, B, how does this bear on the 

question as to whether or not GPS warrants protections? 

[No response.] 

Mr. COBLE. Either of you is fine. Mr. Galotti? Want to start with 

you? 

Mr. GALOTTI. Thank you, Congressman. I guess there are various 

figures that exist as to the number of jobs, and the value of spectrum. And, as I have said earlier, there is tremendous pressure 

from the telecommunication providers who have significant figures 

on jobs. 

But on the other hand, aviation globally, I believe the number that is out there is worth about $3 trillion to the global economy 

a year, when you consider the economics, the tourism, the aviation 

industry itself, the business, carriage of goods and other things. 

So, probably a good case could be made that, economically, aviation is critical. But there will be more and more pressure from particularly the telecommunication providers. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Particularly from who? 

Mr. GALOTTI. The telecommunication providers. Sorry, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Right. I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. GALOTTI. Thank you, sir. 

11 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Porcari, you want to weigh in? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, Congressman. I don’t know the values of the 

spectrum in itself. 

I would point out that the national investment we have made in 

GPS, first from a military-only perspective and now from a combined military-civil perspective, has been enormous. It is one of the 

more precious and important pieces of national infrastructure we 

have, even if you can’t see it and feel it. It is also a U.S. national 

leadership issue. 

I would point out in the aviation context, I would argue that one 

of the single best safety advances we have made in the last 20 

years, which is the terrain avoidance warning system—20 years 

ago, controlled flight into terrain, for both commercial and recreational aircraft, was a leading cause of accidents. The terrain 

avoidance warning systems that are GPS-enabled have taken controlled flight into terrain from a leading cause of accidents into 

something that is way down on the list. 

Another example is, as of today, part of our NextGen system, 

ADSB, is operational in the Gulf of Mexico, where we have had no 

radar coverage. And we have thousands of flight operations a day, 

for example, serving offshore petroleum rigs via helicopter that had 

no radar coverage before that, are now served by ADSB. 

So, it is important to make sure that we understand the value 

on both sides of the equation, including the enormous national investment that has been made in GPS, which has gone far beyond 

military uses, has gone far beyond aviation uses, and for precision 

farming, construction, safety of our train systems, those are not 

possible today without GPS. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my red light is about 

to illuminate, so I will yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is my 

first real involvement with this, so there is much of it that I don’t 

really understand. 

But, Mr. Secretary, I have read this statement from this assessment. It says by the deputy secretaries of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense, and I assume that is 

from you? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And it is a very strong statement that you put out 

about 31⁄2 weeks ago. And you say there that—you mention that 

LightSquared had an original proposal and then they modified it. 

Can you explain to me, in layman’s terms, how much of a change 

they made in their original plan? 

And it also tells us in our briefing papers that they are disputing 

your findings, or your assessment. 

Mr. PORCARI. I will be happy to, Congressman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. 

Mr. PORCARI. And layman’s terms is all I am capable of here. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. 

Mr. PORCARI. So I will try to do it in that sense. The original 

LightSquared proposal of roughly a year ago, January of 2011, proposed up to 40,000 ground-based transmitters that would effectively blank out the GPS signal in large stretches of the U.S. and 

12 

in some very critical areas. There was some early testing done, 

both by the Department of Defense and the FAA. It was clear from 

that testing that there was an interference issue. 

The forum for this is a relatively obscure group, the Positioning, 

Navigation, and Timing Executive Committee, which the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense and I co-chair, Deputy Secretary Carter representing the military users, and myself representing all the civil 

users. Through that committee, which includes all the executivebranch agencies, which includes others, including the Federal Communications Commission, as an observer, it was clear that additional testing of a different proposal was in order. 

We worked with LightSquared. They were part of developing the 

testing protocols. They were part of the testing itself. And the results, I think, are very clear-cut. I would point out that the testing 

results from both the NPEF work and separate Federal Aviation 

Administration work are currently with NTIA and will be transmitted to FCC shortly. 

But those results were independently verified by both the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratories and then the Lincoln Laboratories at MIT. And from my layman’s perspective, the result, especially with the precision safety of flight avionics that we use in aircraft, the results were unacceptable. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this. I said it was a very 

strong assessment. And what I am talking about, it says, ‘‘Based 

upon this testing and analysis, there appears to be no practical solutions or mitigations that will permit the LightSquared broadband 

service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months or years 

without significantly interfering with GPS.’’ 

I understand the dangers or the concerns or the problems. But 

it is a fascinating thing to me that you could say that there is nothing that they could even do within the next few years. It does tell 

us—and I have no connection whatsoever with LightSquared, I 

have never even talked to these people. But it says they dispute 

these findings. How do they dispute them, do you know? Or could 

you tell us something? 

Mr. PORCARI. First, I believe the LightSquared representatives 

can and should better explain how they dispute the findings. I 

would point out that the statement, Congressman, is strong. I believe it is warranted, given the circumstances. 

When we talk about in the next few months or years, remember 

there is a very large installed base of GPS receivers. Just focusing 

on aviation for a moment, there is about 60,000 GPS receivers out 

there that are used for safety of flight things like terrain avoidance 

warning systems. Each of those is about $40,000. If you look at the 

life cycle of aircraft and avionics, they serve for decades. 

And the reason for that part of the statement is to point out that 

there is no easy retrofit or filter or any other kind of retrofit that 

would, from a safety of flight perspective, make the proposal, as 

currently proposed by LightSquared, compatible with aviation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I am not saying it wasn’t warranted. I just 

was saying it is a fascinating thing that there would be a statement that nothing could be done even in the next few years, when 

technology advances as fast as it does. So it was kind of an interesting thing. Thank you very much. 

13 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. LoBiondo? You—Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

your testimony today. I can truly tell you, as a pilot, there was a 

palpable difference in the cockpit when you have terrain avoidance 

systems using GPS. When you are flying that approach coming in 

from the east going in to Salt Lake City, and you know you are 

skirting the top of those mountains, it was really a comforting feeling to have that GPS in the cockpit. 

But LightSquared is—has agreed to a standstill, as I understand 

it, on the use of the upper portion of the spectrum, and it is the 

portion that is actually closest to the GPS signal. And 

LightSquared has stated that it would like to work with the GPS 

community to develop ‘‘mitigating strategies,’’ as they put it, in 

order to initiate commercial operations in the upper spectrum within 2 and 3 years. 

Is—in your opinion—I understand in your testimony you said 

there is no mitigating conclusion here, and that—do you really 

think 2 or 3 years to be able to find some type of strategy is in that 

window? 

And two, from what we know, even though we really can’t identify a mitigating strategy, the cost to general aviation to implement 

that strategy, as well? So—— 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Congressman. First I would point out 

I am not sure what a standstill means on the upper 10 MHz. There 

are no time limits to that, and no technical triggers, that I am 

aware of, on that. 

There is a fundamental incompatibility between the 

LightSquared proposal, as proposed, and the continued use of GPS 

as a precision air navigation use. And again, I would point out that 

this has been built over decades now, where more and more we are 

dependent on GPS for a much higher standard of safety than we 

are able to achieve with the old instrument landing systems, without the terrain avoidance warning systems, without wide area augmentation systems. All of those are very significant safety advances. 

I can’t speculate on the cost, because I am not sure anyone can 

quantify the cost, even if it could be done, of retrofits, if they were 

technically viable, to existing avionics uses. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So, just to be clear then, there is no plans at this 

time to retrofit or reconfigure any systems to work LightSquared 

into this bracket, is that correct? 

Mr. PORCARI. That is correct, Congressman. I would say, in contrast, mobile satellite service uses on the adjacent frequencies, 

which is what they were originally zoned for, if you will, have been 

and will be compatible. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Super. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Fleischmann? Mr. Ribble? Mr. 

Farenthold? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. And I am troubled that 

a terrestrial base system like LightSquared has the potential for 

interfering with GPS. I am afraid it points out the actual delicate 

nature of the GPS system, and its potential vulnerability to be— 

for nothing else, an attack. You hear reports of a truck driver with 

a jamming device degrading the system near Newark Airport. SupVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
14 

pose someone not friendly to this country were to intentionally put 

up some high-powered jamming stuff. We would be in trouble. 

Historically, LORAN has been considered a backup to GPS. But 

that is currently being dismantled. I am concerned that we have 

all of this reliance on GPS from everything from my car to my cell 

phone to landing a 777 aircraft in the future. It seems to me that 

we are creating a vulnerable system with no backups. Can you all 

comment on that? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, Congressman. First, you have brought up a 

very important point. There are—by its very nature, there are 

vulnerabilities for the GPS. You pointed out one specific incident 

where a commercially bought, over-the-Internet $99 jammer caused 

real issues at one of our major airports in the country. 

One of the things that we have done is a national positioning, 

navigation, and timing architecture study of the overall system architecture. Following on that, the Federal Aviation Administration 

has committed to an alternate PNT research program where, just 

as today, with our terrestrial radar-based air navigation system we 

have vulnerabilities, and you basically build defense in depth with 

backup systems, we know, as we move with the implementation of 

NextGen, as we move forward with that, it will be more and more 

important to have backups to the GPS-based system. 

They will only be short-term backup systems. And it is important 

to point out that we are moving aggressively—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Could you define ‘‘short-term backup’’? I 

don’t—— 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, I mean for short duration. In other words, if 

we were denied the use of GPS systems for air navigation today for 

an extended period of time, it would have severe impacts on the national airspace system. If it were for 10 minutes, it would be a little 

bit different. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. OK. 

Mr. PORCARI. But—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So minutes, as opposed to days. 

Mr. PORCARI. Minutes, as opposed to days. But again, you have 

put your finger on a vulnerability in the system that—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And it seems a vulnerability easy to exploit. 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, it can be. Part of this is the architecture and 

design going forward of how we design the system of systems that 

is NextGen. We are very focused on this. Also, I would point out 

there is an important enforcement side. There is no legitimate commercial use for a GPS jammer. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And just for my information, I have 

seen press reports about other countries developing their own GPS 

satellite arrays. Do we know where that is going? 

Mr. GALOTTI. Thank you, Congressman. The Russian Federation 

had established their system in the 1990s. And when the Soviet 

Union disintegrated, it was not maintained. But I understand as 

of December of 2011, now they have a full constellation and they 

have committed to GLONASS–K, which is similar to GPS III, and 

they hope to have that in place by 2014. 

The Europeans have Galileo, which—two satellites are up. And 

I think the total constellation is, I believe, 18. 

15 

And China is putting in place what they call Compass. They 

have 2 satellites in place, and they plan to launch 6 in 2012, and 

the full complement by 2020. And that will initially be for East 

Asia and China, parts of the—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And if you will allow me just to geek out for 

a second, we have got a massive array of radio transmitters in the 

form of our cell tower network that can contain longitude and latitude information in the cell tower. Is any research going into tapping into those to create some sort of system as a fallback to GPS? 

Mr. PORCARI. I don’t know. What I would be happy to do is actually research that and get back to the committee. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Yes, just curious. It seems like there is—— 

Mr. PORCARI. It is a good question. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD [continuing]. An infrastructure in place. You 

might be able to develop a fallback system. 

Mr. PORCARI. I appreciate the question, and I will find out for 

you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. OK. And my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, I am sure we all have a lot of other questions, 

but I will leave it there for the purpose of this hearing at this 

point. Thank you very much. It has been very, very informative. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALOTTI. Thank you. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Members. 

Mr. PETRI. The second panel consists of Mr. Thomas L. Hendricks, who is senior vice president of safety, security and operations, Airlines for America; Captain Sean Cassidy, first vice president, Air Line Pilots Association, International; Craig Fuller, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; John M. Foley, 

director, aviation GNSS technology, of Garmin International, Inc., 

and Dr. Scott Pace, who is the director of the Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University. 

I thank you for making—all of you—for making the time to be 

with us today on this very—somewhat technical but very important 

subject for sectors of our economy and our safety and competitiveness, as a country. And we will begin with Captain Cassidy, waiting for Mr. Hendricks. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN SEAN P. CASSIDY, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; 

THOMAS L. HENDRICKS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF SAFETY, SECURITY AND OPERATIONS, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA; 

CRAIG FULLER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; JOHN M. FOLEY, DIRECTOR, AVIATION 

GNSS TECHNOLOGY, GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AND 

SCOTT PACE, PH.D., DIRECTOR, SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE, 

ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Captain CASSIDY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and the members of the subcommittee. I am Captain Sean Cassidy, first vice 

president of the Air Line Pilots Association International, and I 

represent more than 53,000 professional pilots based in the United 

States and Canada. It is an honor to appear before the subVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
16 

committee to underscore the tremendous contribution that the satellite-based navigation system makes to ensuring efficient and safe 

operations in the United States and around the globe. 

Given the vital importance of the Global Positioning System as 

a key component of this country’s transportation infrastructure, it 

is appropriate, and indeed essential, for the House Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee and this Aviation Subcommittee to 

be fully engaged in protecting that system. 

As the members of the subcommittee know, over more than two 

decades the invaluable navigation information available through 

GPS has enabled air transportation to make tremendous gains in 

safety and efficiency. 

Since 1983, when GPS became available to the public at no cost, 

the system has evolved to become a vital tool for aircraft navigation, all-weather approaches and landings, surveillance, maintaining required separation between aircraft, and pilot situational 

awareness. 

GPS allows pilots to fly aircraft using the safest and most efficient routes, which benefits every flight operation, but particularly 

those over the Atlantic and Pacific, or on transport on long-range 

routes, where diversion options are very limited. The enhanced accuracy of GPS also allows aircraft on parallel runways to operate 

independently, safely increasing arrival rates. 

In major metropolitan areas that are served by several airports, 

GPS allows us to analyze the entire airspace and operate flights 

based on a regional strategy, rather than airport-by-airport. These 

opportunities to improve flight operations, possible only through 

GPS, reduce fuel burn, decrease noise, and cut CO2 and other 

greenhouse gas emissions, while making our industry safer, more 

efficient, and better positioned to meet future demand. 

Let me give you one example from my own flying experience. The 

airport at Juneau, Alaska, the State capital, is situated on a base 

surrounded by high terrain. Before GPS, we pilots only had two 

choices for approaching landing at Juneau, and they are both very 

challenging. The approach from the east and the one from the west 

both required fairly high cloud ceilings and a tight turn at low altitude to line up for landing. Without GPS, the terrain and weather 

conditions forced many flight cancellations. 

In 1996, Alaska Airlines pioneered a GPS-based instrument approach to Juneau, Alaska. The pinpoint accuracy of the GPS approach allows me to fly directly over the center of the Gastineau 

Channel, as depicted in the photo up on the screen, and stay clear 

of the high terrain surrounding the channel and the airport. The 

result enhances safety and reduces delays and cancellations. 

Since then, the Alaska Airlines has expanded the GPS-based approach to other airports in the country. In 2011, the airport completed more than 1,500 flights that would likely have been canceled 

or diverted, and the net result was $19 million worth of saved revenue, and over 210,000 gallons worth of fuel that was not burned. 

Across the United States the FAA has published more than 

11,000 GPS approaches to thousands of airports, including our own 

backyard here at Reagan National, where highly accurate GPSbased approaches reduce flight delays, diversions, and cancellations. 

17 

GPS signals are low power by design to allow them to be based 

on satellites. However, this low-energy environment also makes 

them susceptible to interference from other radio transmissions. 

For this reason, only low-powered satellite-based signals have historically been permitted in the radio frequencies that are closest to 

the GPS bandwidth. 

One recent proposal to deploy 40,000 high-powered ground-based 

transmitters and the radio frequency spectrum that is directly adjacent to GPS bandwidth raised alarm as a result of the risk it 

posed to the safety of air transportation, as well as to emergency 

services such as first responders. 

Rigorous industry and Government testing demonstrated that if 

LightSquared’s proposal had been allowed to go forward, GPS 

would be inaccessible over large regions of the U.S. at normal operational altitudes for airliners. Were this proposal or anything like 

it to be allowed to proceed, pilots will lose a tremendous navigational tool that is especially important in mountainous terrain, remote areas, and bad weather, and that supports a safe and efficient 

air transportation system that helps drive the U.S. economy and 

secure tens of thousands of jobs. 

Looking to the future, GPS is critical to our efforts to modernize 

the U.S. air traffic control system through NextGen. ALPA is a 

staunch advocate for Next Gen, because of its enormous potential 

to enhance safety, increase capacity and efficiency, and protect the 

environment. As part of the NextGen initiative, the FAA has already invested more than $1 billion in GPS-based technology that 

is designed to replace radar-based surveillance of aircraft. As 

NextGen continues to mature, GPS will become more important. 

The pilots of ALPA commend the U.S. Aviation Subcommittee for 

holding this hearing, and allow us to underscore the unmatched 

benefit that GPS provides to air transportation, both now and in 

the future. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Hendricks? 

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

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to appear 

at this timely and important hearing. And I do apologize for my 

slight delay in my pushback for my testimony this morning. It is 

good to speak with you again. 

The continued integrity of the Global Positioning System is critically important to the millions of customers who we fly every day, 

as well as to the tens of millions of other people in our country who 

rely on it. GPS will be the backbone of air navigation, both domestically and internationally, in the coming years. Interference with 

this accessibility and reliability would be catastrophic for civil aviation and the communities that depend on air transportation. We 

deeply appreciate the subcommittee’s recognition in the FAA reauthorization bill of the importance of this technology, and particularly your support for the continued advancement of NextGen. 

With respect to the LightSquared proposal, the incontestable fact 

is that it will create widespread GPS interference, which will have 

ruinous effects on aviation. Experts have repeatedly reached that 

conclusion. LightSquared’s proposal, therefore, should be withdrawn. This matter needs to be put to rest, once and for all. 

18 

To be clear, we do not oppose the expansion of wireless 

broadband services. But any expansion cannot be permitted to 

interfere with existing or anticipated aviation GPS use, many of 

which will significantly enhance safety. We are dependent on that 

technology; there is no substitute for it. 

One obvious lesson of the convoluted experience with the 

LightSquared application is the need for a governmentwide policy 

that protects the aviation GPS spectrum. Without such an authoritative policy, spectrum encroachment will remain a threat. 

As the subcommittee knows all too well, we have historically relied on a ground-based air navigation system. It is a system that 

has become increasingly defined by its limitations. Users of the system have, for the most part, had to fly from one ground navigation 

aid to the next, often resulting in circuitous routings. This inefficiency wastes time and fuel. It also restricts the number of routings 

that aircraft can use, which in turn constricts capacity growth. 

GPS is at the heart of the ongoing multibillion-dollar NextGen 

program that will shift air navigation from that outmoded terrestrial system to a modern satellite-based system. This is a transformational change. All who are involved in it—Congress, the Federal Aviation Administration, airlines, general aviation, and the 

Department of Defense—recognize the need for that transformation. This massive effort will result in more precise navigation, safer operations, far more direct aircraft routings, better airspace utilization and airspace capacity growth. Because of these 

operational improvements, there will be substantial reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

One existing application of GPS has produced a breakthrough in 

the safety of airline operations. It has been referred to earlier here: 

the elimination of controlled flight into terrain accidents for large 

jet aircraft in the United States. Enhanced ground proximity warning systems aboard aircraft combine GPS information with onboard 

terrain databases to provide flight deck crews with look-ahead 

warnings of dangerous terrain. This has made air travel far safer 

than it was only recently, and illustrates the remarkable benefits 

that leveraging GPS with other technologies can achieve. 

The introduction in the coming decades of NextGen capabilities 

will be the real game-changer. Its integration of GPS with other 

technological innovations will create the satellite-based system of 

air traffic management that we all realize is necessary. GPS is the 

indispensable element of this long-needed overhaul. 

Given the essential role of GPS, the Federal Government must 

develop comprehensive safeguards for aviation’s use of it. The 

stakes are too high for the passengers and shippers that rely on air 

transportation, the communities and businesses that depend on air 

service, and the airlines and their employees, to leave to chance 

our continued ability to utilize GPS to the greatest advantage. Consequently, we need a governmentwide policy that guides Federal 

agencies’ responses when potential interference issues emerge. 

That policy must make clear that interference in the aviation spectrum is prohibited, and that other users cannot be permitted to encroach into the aviation spectrum. 

Domestically, the most obvious place to begin to strengthen governmental policy against GPS interference is the National ExecuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
19 

tive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing, the PNT. The PNT is a Government organization established 

by Presidential directive to advise and coordinate Federal departments and agencies on matters concerning GPS. 

The PNT is chaired jointly by the Secretaries of Defense and 

Transportation, and includes equivalent-level officials from the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Interior, Agriculture, and 

Commerce. The Federal Communications Commission chairman 

participates in the PNT as a liaison. At the very least, the FCC 

should be required to consult with the PNT before taking action on 

any application to operate a terrestrial-based communications network that may affect the L-band spectrum, which is the band that 

GPS uses. 

On the international front, U.S. Government positions expressed 

at international conferences at which spectrum issues are considered, such as the world radio communications conference that is 

currently being held in Geneva, must reflect the importance of protecting the GPS spectrum throughout the world. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in this vital issue. We 

are prepared to assist you in any way we can. And I would be 

happy to take any questions you might have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Fuller? 

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

Costello. Craig Fuller, president and CEO of the Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association. It is always a pleasure to be before the committee. 

I am going to start with a statement I don’t always get to make, 

and that is that we are in absolute full agreement with the Obama 

administration on the question before you today. I thought the 

statements by the deputy secretary of transportation were right to 

the point. We agree with every point that was made there. 

Indeed, the other members of the administration, other departments and agencies that have looked at this, are of the same view. 

There is only one somewhat reluctant regulator out there that 

seems not to have gotten this message. But perhaps today’s hearing will help, although I know that is a topic maybe for another 

day. 

I have a statement I have filed for the record. It makes many of 

the points that have been made. I thought I would give just a couple of comments—a little different perspective. 

You know we all say GPS is extremely important. We certainly 

believe that. But in a way, GPS is pretty simple. I took off yesterday from Frederick, Maryland, in an aircraft. As soon as it was airborne—in fact, even before it was airborne—a small box in the 

plane received multiple signals from GPS transmitters in space. All 

that box did initially was identify those signals and determine precisely where it was. That is GPS. 

The genius of GPS is what it enables. The fact that GPS has 

been around for a long time as a technology that can determine 

precisely where something is in space doesn’t mean that this is 

somehow old and not exciting, because the excitement in GPS is 

what it enables. The fact that that box, as I traveled, kept determining exactly where that airplane was in space—you now have 

20 

two points—the box calculated my air speed. The box calculated my 

heading. The box calculated that there are towers on hills near 

Frederick, Maryland, that I was within 500 feet of. If I had an 

emergency of some kind, the box would tell me exactly where the 

nearest airport was, what the route was to it, and how long it 

would take me to get there, simply because it could receive this 

very small signal from space, from the GPS transmitter. 

I guess I would submit that while some may say, well, it is time 

to look to new technology for greater benefits, we have just begun 

to tap this genius of GPS and what it can enable. As you have 

heard today, it is absolutely at the center of NextGen technology. 

We have 5,200 public-use airports in this country. We couldn’t possibly afford to put instrument landing systems in all those airports 

with equipment on the ground. And yet every one of those airports 

can have a precision approach to every runway on the field, using 

GPS capabilities. That is what it enables. And it enables emergency helicopters to go precisely to the scene of a crime, to a mountain climber that needs to be rescued, and know exactly what the 

closest landing site is for the helicopter. All these things are enabled by this GPS signal. 

So, I guess, from where we sit, my 400,000 members who are flying general aviation airplanes see this as absolutely essential. By 

the way, you have heard from two very respected members of the 

industry who fly large airplanes. The airplane I was in was a twoseater Aviat Husky, and it has this same GPS capability that airliners have. 

I think when we talked about this issue before I said it is—there 

is nothing wrong with a Government agency looking forward and 

seeing an opportunity and letting it be explored. And indeed, the 

Food and Drug Administration does that all the time with miracle 

cures in medicines. But sometimes they don’t work. And I think 

what the agencies of the Federal Government have said is, ‘‘We 

embrace the concept that is being considered, but the approach 

simply doesn’t work,’’ and it puts at risk all that GPS enables, 

which is not only what we have experienced for the last 20 years 

we have been using it, but the promise that it holds for the future. 

So, we very much appreciate the committee’s interest in this. We 

certainly embrace, as I said, the statements made by the administration. We strongly urge that the Federal Communications Commission rescind waivers that keep this cloud over us on this important topic until further research can be done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Foley? 

Mr. FOLEY. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in 

this important hearing. I am John Foley, director of aviation GNSS 

technology at Garmin. The 9,200 people at Garmin are devoted to 

designing and building GPS devices for millions of users worldwide, 

improving their lives and safety. 

The GPS industry in this country alone accounts for over 130,000 

direct jobs. What was once a government-only technology is now 

fully woven into the fabric of our infrastructure. That did not happen overnight. It has taken two decades of hard work to mature it 

from a fledgling technology into a reliable force for safety and effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
21 

ciency. Yet, unbelievably, what we have built together is now 

threatened. 

Today, virtually all types of aircraft utilize GPS for navigation 

and approaches. Loss of even a fraction of GPS reliability would 

pose significant danger to aviation safety. Four areas are particularly worrisome: loss of GPS while on approach would unsafely increase pilot workload during a critical phase of flight; loss of GPS 

would deny coverage at hundreds of airports and heliports lacking 

ground-based navigation aids; without GPS, the terrain awareness 

and warning system, or TAWS, would not work; loss of GPS means 

a loss of situational awareness for cockpit displays of traffic and 

weather information, including on the ground, to prevent runway 

incursions. Last, but not least, reliable GPS is essential for the 

FAA’s proposed NextGen system. 

We can sum up the last year in four words: grant first, test later. 

Grant first, test later seems to stand the process of public decisionmaking on its head. This approach placed a severe burden on everyone’s time, attention, and resources, a burden that should have 

been placed on those seeking something from the FCC. Everyone 

concerned about GPS reliability had to devote 6 months last spring 

and millions of dollars to testing the effects of constantly changing 

proposals. The tests revealed extensive interference. Anyone aware 

of the tremendous difference in signal strength between GPS and 

a high-powered terrestrial network could have predicted this result. 

Yet, despite all this, another round of extensive Government testing occurred last fall. The PNT EXCOM again concluded in a recent letter to the NTIA that various plans for a high-powered terrestrial broadband network would cause harmful interference to 

many GPS receivers. The letter noted that the FAA’s separate 

analysis similarly concluded that such proposals are not compatible 

with several GPS-dependent aircraft safety systems, and that no 

practical solutions exist to prevent significant interference to GPS. 

The EXCOM stated that no further testing was necessary. 

Garmin has found many developments over the last year to be 

troubling. Why did the FCC make a far-reaching decision without 

conducting its own tests or spending time to evaluate Garmin’s 

first test results? Shouldn’t an applicant have the burden of demonstrating market readiness? 

Why were objections from the Departments of Transportation 

and Defense ignored? 

We hope you are asking these same questions, too. 

Well, where do we go now? We believe that the PNT has the 

right structure, the right stakeholders, including a liaison role for 

the FCC, and on paper should be effective. However, future coordination must be improved. The FCC should obtain PNT EXCOM 

sign-off when proposals before it potentially interfere with GPS reliability, the level of reliability that our customers have come to expect. 

Going forward, if the PNT believes that the creation of a post— 

of something akin to a national chief GPS officer would help ensure 

that coordination, we could support that. We think such an officer 

should alternately come from the Departments of Defense and 

Transportation. 

22 

In their recent letter to NTIA, the EXCOM said that they proposed to draft new GPS spectrum interference standards. In response, we simply note that in the last year parts of our Government seemed unaware that, at least for certified aviation GPS devices, the FAA and Department of Defense standards already address interference. Any analysis in the future should recognize and 

build upon that work. 

In short, Garmin and other manufacturers have had their businesses greatly disrupted by the failure of Government to effectively 

coordinate. It has cost us millions of dollars and thousands of person hours that could have been better spent improving GPS products. If anything, for businesses, consumers, and the Nation, this 

year has in essence been a trial run. We have learned a lot, but 

the threat is still there, and we need your continued vigilance to 

help. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Dr. Pace? 

Mr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to this committee for an opportunity to discuss this topic. As you have heard, 

GPS is a global utility that is critically important to all modes of 

our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

What I would like to do is provide a little historical or policy perspective, because some of these issues of threats to GPS are actually not new. There have been and continue to be many policy and 

legal risks for GPS, from funding constraints, the transition to 

modernized signals, international trade barriers, and domestic regulations. The most serious threats, however, are not to the GPS 

itself, but to the spectrum environment upon which it depends. If 

you will, the foundation on which all these applications reside. 

Every type of threat, from band sharing, segmentation, out of 

band emissions, noise floor increases, and reallocation of adjacent 

bands, have been attempted over the past 15 years. To date, all 

such threats have been removed or mitigated through governmentindustry cooperation and through bipartisan support from multiple 

Congresses and administrations who sought to protect the spectrum in which GPS operates. 

Four Presidents, two Republican, two Democratic, have issued 

policy statements regarding GPS. These statements have recognized the dual-use nature of GPS as more than a military system, 

crucial to a broad range of U.S. interests. Similarly, Congress has 

passed numerous bills related to the protection of GPS, and Federal statutes can be found under both Title 10, Armed Services, 

and Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs. 

Regulatory processes for rulemaking are well-defined in the Administrative Procedures Act. I would say that the United States 

has sufficient law and policy on the books to protect GPS. What 

has been missing at times has been a willingness to enforce those 

laws and procedures, and follow the basics of good Government. 

Given the high stakes involved in preventing risk to GPS, it is attempting to look for a special policy fence that would automatically 

prevent problems from arising. Given the FCC is an independent 

regulatory commission, however, that does not report to the PresiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
23 

dent, any special policy for GPS will require congressional action 

in a very complex area. 

Receiver standards have been mentioned as a possible way of allowing higher power emissions in bands adjacent to the GPS spectrum, or at least creating a more predictable regulatory environment for new entrants. I do not believe this will be a useful approach, and would suggest instead focusing on defining GPS spectrum protection criteria. It is a subtle difference, but an important 

one. 

The creation of government-driven design standards outside of 

those necessary for national security and public safety can stifle innovation. Receiver standards can also be a subtle regulatory means 

of sacrificing some categories of users and their applications in rapidly evolving markets. On the other hand, transparent protection 

for the GPS spectrum environment can provide better predictability 

for new entrants, while not constraining GPS applications. 

Finally, I would like to mention two areas of risk not related to 

spectrum. In today’s fiscal environment, it may be tempting to slow 

or cancel the acquisition of GPS III satellites, or hope to rely on 

foreign systems to fill the gaps. This is a very dangerous idea, 

given our Nation’s reliance on GPS and the lack of demonstrated 

reliability of foreign systems. 

A second risk area would be disruptions to existing GPS users 

as an unintended result of modernization. There is a need to explicitly confirm that changes to GPS are backwards compatible with 

the installed base. If not, there needs to be a transition plan developed with the relevant stakeholders in Government, industry, and 

even nongovernment organizations, such as advisory committees 

and scientific societies. We have a precious resource in that installed base that needs to be protected. 

Finally, the spectrum neighborhood in which GPS resides should 

be preserved, as you have heard from other witnesses. As GPS 

modernization proceeds, the U.S. Government should ensure that 

the installed base suffers no disruptions, as new GPS capabilities 

come online. And for the aviation community, it is not an overstatement to say that eternal vigilance is, in fact, the price of safety. 

I thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

Mr. PETRI. We thank you, and we thank the entire panel for your 

contribution. 

Craig Fuller talked about this simple technology with 1,000 and 

more, many more, permutations and advantages—I was thinking 

in my own area we have a boat manufacturer now that has a boat 

hook, it is a GPS. You push a button and the boat will stay perfectly still without an anchor in the ocean. 

And of course, John Deere and these people now can do—apply 

fertilizers to fields based on the characteristics at that spot on the 

field, and it has a huge return for the additional investment—make 

agricultural more productive, less wasteful, and all the rest. And 

it is all GPS. And this is only the beginning of how we can refine 

the application of technology for changes in circumstances on practically a 6- by 6-inch basis across our country. 

You have heard the testimony of the previous panel. And I really 

wonder if, in particular, Mr. Foley and Mr. Pace would care to comVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:07 Jun 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\2-8-12~1\72812.TXT JEAN
24 

ment on it. You have in your prepared remarks—but we found ourselves in a rather peculiar situation in that I—I am sure goodmeaning people who see a business opportunity spent some billions 

of dollars to help achieve a national objective, which is a good one, 

of making broadband more available, high-speed broadband across 

our country, and yet we had a GPS system set up and elaborate 

for a number of years, that needed to be in a quiet area, as was 

testified before. And it was well known, evidently, the price of that 

spectrum reflected that to some extent. 

And yet, that spectrum was acquired and the previous purpose 

was broadened at the staff level at the FCC, evidently leading people to think they could do something. And it is going to ruin a lot 

of savings of people who have invested in all this technology. 

So is this a staff failure? Or are people leading someone down 

the primrose path, or—I mean how—or do we need clearer fences 

here, explain to people why this—evidently the spectrum price reflected some knowledge at the investor level, as to what was going 

on. 

But was it a failure of the technical advisors of these investors 

to—or do you have any—I guess it is speculation, but maybe looking forward, how can we avoid this waste of resources in the future, or rescue the situation that we find ourselves in? 

Either of you have any ideas? 

Mr. FOLEY. Well, thank you. I think the main thing—and I think 

we have all kind of highlighted on that—is that we need to make 

sure that we protect the spectrum that we have. And looking kind 

of backwards, I think, at least from my perspective as a GPS receiver manufacturer, there are some standards for interference that 

have been in place for quite some time, back to 1996, I believe. So 

it was a bit of a surprise for us to see that when this new proposed 

system came up, it was actually putting out signals far in excess 

of those receiver—or interference protection limits. 

So, any future plans would want to—we would want to build on 

those existing limits. And I think that is what the PNT has said, 

and DOT has said. So, to the extent that we do that, I think that 

is the best way to move forward. 

And, just more generally, as I stated in my testimony, improved 

coordination between the PNT and the FCC and the rest of Government, to make sure that all the stakeholders get represented when 

new policy decisions are made. 

Mr. PACE. I think, Mr. Chairman—I think looking back at it, I 

think the fundamental error was in not really applying the intent 

or the past practices of the Administrative Procedures Act, and notices of proposed rulemakings that involve reallocation of spectrum. 

The argument was made that this was not a reallocation from 

mobile satellite services to a high-powered broadband terrestrial 

mobile service, that this was, in fact, simply a relaxation of some— 

maybe some outdated constraints and some waivers could be applied, and maybe some new efficiencies could be found. 

I think, in retrospect, that was too clever by half, that it was a 

reallocation, that a notice of proposed rulemaking should have been 

done, the notice of proposed rulemaking would have generated the 

technical data necessary to understand what was involved, and 

that one would have fairly quickly seen that this was a non-starter. 

25 

When this originally started back in about 2003, the idea of an 

ancillary terrestrial component to mobile satellite service was considered a kind of a fill-in, a gap-filler, a relatively low-power system. No one was talking about 40,000 high-powered cell towers 

blanketing the country. Nobody was talking about having an independent terrestrial service separate from the satellite services. The 

FCC was very clear over the years that they would not allow a separate, standalone service, that, in fact, it always had to be tied to 

the satellite service, and no interference with the satellite service 

would occur. 

Terrestrial broadband systems would not interfere with mobile 

satellite services in their own band, what they call co-channel interference, which is a really big sin. 

So, I think that the position of people at the time was to try to 

find some way to make these ancillary systems work. I think there 

was good faith technical effort. There was really no technical data 

available then. And then people gradually, gradually got into trying 

to change it into something else, a reallocation. And they did not 

do a notice of proposed rulemaking. And hence, I think people were 

surprised when they found out that when they actually got data, 

that it was a much different situation than what they had intended. 

So, I don’t know how you prevent people from making bad decisions. I don’t know if that is really possible. I do think we have 

rules and procedures that, if followed, would have protected us. 

Mr. PETRI. Any other comments? 

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick comment. One 

of the reasons, seriously, for my enthusiasm about the clarity of the 

Obama administration statement today is that it should send a 

very clear signal to any agency, even an independent agency. And 

we really don’t have to speculate. There are plenty of people who 

have issued press releases. There are plenty of representatives 

making cases. But no one has done the hard work of testing that 

has come to any other conclusion than this won’t work. 

And so, I would hope that the administration, who had to clear 

the testimony today at OMB at the Executive Office of the President, I would hope the administration would provide an equally 

clear message to its appointees and an independent agency to say, 

‘‘If you have some special knowledge that none of us have been able 

to uncover, then bring it forward. Bring it to the Congress. Bring 

it to the industry.’’ 

So far, literally—we have had press releases, but we have had 

not nearly the kind of certainty that experts, technical experts in 

this field, have. And I think the process that led to the testimony 

today is sound and solid and represents the best clear thinking in 

this administration that the project should not go forward as proposed. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

great testimony. There is so much information that you have just 

given us, I really appreciate it. 

One of the things you have said, Mr. Fuller—I don’t want to— 

I want to make sure that the committee understands it. With the 

GPS system, there needs to be no terrestrial navigational systems 

26 

at an airport. So you could be flying, and if you have an emergency, 

just as you alluded to, you could create an approach to go into an 

airport to fly into it that would not have any other navigational devices to it. 

So, if you could expand upon that, that would be very helpful. 

And also talk about the minimums that you could bring this aircraft down to if you needed to. 

Mr. FULLER. Getting into dangerous ground, because I can talk 

about flying all afternoon. 

The interesting thing is that—and they will speak for themselves, but I think this is a topic on which we are in absolute 

agreement throughout the aviation community. The general aviation community has equipped with GPS avionics for years. The 

commercial aircraft industry has equipped with this technology for 

years, and is equipping more with the prospect of the NextGen 

technology being more fully utilized. All of it gives the ability, 

whether I am in the two-seater Aviat Husky or the Citation jet, or 

these gentlemen flying a commercial airline, that we have the technology to take us from the altitude—our en route altitude down to 

a couple of hundred feet above the center line of the runway using 

nothing but the satellite-based technology above the earth, and the 

GPS box and the related computers in the aircraft. 

Furthermore, it allows them to know where I am at and me to 

know where they are at, so it provides separation of aircraft. That 

is going to be an increasingly important feature with this technology. It makes it possible to do this whether you are flying to 

your destination airport that you go to all the time, or you have 

an emergency and you have to suddenly find a suitable runway 

nearby. 

So, as I said, this basic principle of being able to define precisely 

where you are in space continuously over time provides all kinds 

of enhancements. 

Mr. Chairman, I also have a sailboat, and, believe it or not, it 

also helps us. In case the anchor is slipping, an alarm goes off because it shows the boat is moving. So there are all kinds of possibilities. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you. And Captain Cassidy, as a pilot, can 

you tell me in regards to NextGen and what—some of the interference—what is your nightmare scenario? What do you see that 

the effects of you flying your commercial aircraft with 

LightSquared that could affect you, as a pilot, navigating down 

that gulf there? 

Captain CASSIDY. Well, I suppose the nightmare scenario would 

be that I anticipated that I was putting myself back up in Juneau, 

flying down the Gastineau Channel, that I had a very highly reliable, highly effective navigation system, and suddenly somebody 

flipped the switch on it and then I had to go back to the old procedures. It would make me much more concerned about the safe conduct of flight, because now I would be—have a lot less of ability 

to have a very good estimate at what my arrival fuel would need 

to be at my missed approach point in order to get to my divert. 

And that kind of tails on to what Mr. Fuller just said. I think 

that one of the big safety aspects of GPS technology is it allows you 

to be more proactive and anticipate contingency situations further 

27 

down the road. In this case, I would—based upon what the arrival 

weather would be, I would estimate what a safe arrival fuel would 

be that would allow me then to divert and go to an alternate, and 

also have the coordinates of that alternate, and also, on top of that, 

have the approaches built into that alternate in my flight management system so it is all there and I have a one-stop-shop. And that 

is an incredible safety benefit that is clearly purely the benefit of 

satellite-based navigation. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Captain. Mr. Chairman, can I have 

indulgence, just a little more time? Thank you. 

Mr. Foley, in regards to LightSquared, obviously they are trying 

to get in the lower end of the spectrum. That is their initial business plan. They are going to try to get into—I see them trying to 

start working into the higher end of the spectrum, as well. 

Is their current proposal any different than past proposal? And 

if they do try to get into the higher spectrum, what does that mean 

to you, as your business model? 

Mr. FOLEY. Well, let me say I think the LightSquared proposals 

have changed numerous times over the past year or so. But primarily, operating on that upper 10 MHz frequency closest to GPS, 

all of the testing that has been done so far, all of the analysis has 

shown that would be just catastrophic. You will have widespread 

outages of GPS. The majority of the receivers that we tested just 

did not work at those types of power levels that close. 

Moving to the lower 10 helps somewhat, but all of the analysis 

we have done so far says that doesn’t get a clean bill of health, either. There are still significant problems with that proposal, as 

well, you know, specifically, the terrain awareness and warning 

systems. We talked about ADSB operations at low altitude. It poses 

a lot of problems for aviation. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. And with that, I will yield back. 

Thanks for your chair’s indulgence. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you all for the effort 

that went into your prepared testimony, and for your being here, 

and your enlightening testimony today. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

28 


Insert offset folio 9 here 72812.009
29 


Insert offset folio 10 here 72812.010
30 


Insert offset folio 11 here 72812.011
31 


Insert offset folio 12 here 72812.012
32 


Insert offset folio 13 here 72812.013
33 


Insert offset folio 14 here 72812.014
34 


Insert offset folio 15 here 72812.015
35 


Insert offset folio 16 here 72812.016
36 


Insert offset folio 17 here 72812.017
37 


Insert offset folio 18 here 72812.018
38 


Insert offset folio 19 here 72812.019
39 


Insert offset folio 20 here 72812.020
40 


Insert offset folio 21 here 72812.021
41 


Insert offset folio 22 here 72812.022
42 


Insert offset folio 23 here 72812.023
43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 72812.024
44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 72812.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 72812.026
46 


Insert offset folio 27 here 72812.027
47 


Insert offset folio 28 here 72812.028
48 


Insert offset folio 29 here 72812.029
49 


Insert offset folio 30 here 72812.030
50 


Insert offset folio 31 here 72812.031
51 


Insert offset folio 32 here 72812.032
52 


Insert offset folio 33 here 72812.033
53 


Insert offset folio 34 here 72812.034
54 


Insert offset folio 35 here 72812.035
55 


Insert offset folio 36 here 72812.036
56 


Insert offset folio 37 here 72812.037
57 


Insert offset folio 38 here 72812.038
58 


Insert offset folio 39 here 72812.039
59 


Insert offset folio 40 here 72812.040
60 


Insert offset folio 41 here 72812.041
61 


Insert offset folio 42 here 72812.042
62 


Insert offset folio 43 here 72812.043
63 


Insert offset folio 44 here 72812.044
64 


Insert offset folio 45 here 72812.045
65 


Insert offset folio 46 here 72812.046
66 


Insert offset folio 47 here 72812.047
67 


Insert offset folio 48 here 72812.048
68 


Insert offset folio 49 here 72812.049
69 


Insert offset folio 50 here 72812.050
70 


Insert offset folio 51 here 72812.051
71 


Insert offset folio 52 here 72812.052
72 


Insert offset folio 53 here 72812.053
73 


Insert offset folio 54 here 72812.054
74 


Insert offset folio 55 here 72812.055
75 


Insert offset folio 56 here 72812.056
76 


Insert offset folio 57 here 72812.057
77 


Insert offset folio 58 here 72812.058
78 


Insert offset folio 59 here 72812.059
79 


Insert offset folio 60 here 72812.060
80 


Insert offset folio 61 here 72812.061
81 


Insert offset folio 62 here 72812.062
82 


Insert offset folio 63 here 72812.063
83 


Insert offset folio 64 here 72812.064
84 


Insert offset folio 65 here 72812.065
85 


Insert offset folio 66 here 72812.066
86 


Insert offset folio 67 here 72812.067
87 


Insert offset folio 68 here 72812.068
88 


Insert offset folio 69 here 72812.069
89 


Insert offset folio 70 here 72812.070
90 


Insert offset folio 71 here 72812.071
91 


Insert offset folio 72 here 72812.072
92 


Insert offset folio 73 here 72812.073
93 


Insert offset folio 74 here 72812.074
94 


Insert offset folio 75 here 72812.075
95 


Insert offset folio 76 here 72812.076
96 


Insert offset folio 77 here 72812.077
97 


Insert offset folio 78 here 72812.078
98 


Insert offset folio 79 here 72812.079
99 


Insert offset folio 80 here 72812.080
100 


Insert offset folio 81 here 72812.081
101 


Insert offset folio 82 here 72812.082
102 


Insert offset folio 83 here 72812.083
103 


Insert offset folio 84 here 72812.084
104 


Insert offset folio 85 here 72812.085
105 


Insert offset folio 86 here 72812.086
106 


Insert offset folio 87 here 72812.087
107 


Insert offset folio 88 here 72812.088
108 


Insert offset folio 89 here 72812.089
109 


Insert offset folio 90 here 72812.090
110 


Insert offset folio 91 here 72812.091
111 


Insert offset folio 92 here 72812.092
112 


Insert offset folio 93 here 72812.093
113 


Insert offset folio 94 here 72812.094
114 


Insert offset folio 95 here 72812.095
115 


Insert offset folio 96 here 72812.096
116 


Insert offset folio 97 here 72812.097
117 


Insert offset folio 98 here 72812.098
118 


Insert offset folio 99 here 72812.099
119 


Insert offset folio 100 here 72812.100
120 


Insert offset folio 101 here 72812.101
121 


Insert offset folio 102 here 72812.102
122 


Insert offset folio 103 here 72812.103
123 


Insert offset folio 104 here 72812.104
124 


Insert offset folio 105 here 72812.105
125 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 106 here 72812.106