U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

91–293 PDF 2016

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ISSUES IN MODERNIZING AND OPERATING THE NATION’S AIRSPACE 

(113–83) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 

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 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, inspector general, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 11 

Hon. John Engler, president, Business Roundtable, and former Governor 

of Michigan ........................................................................................................... 11 

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

Mark Baker, president and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ........ 11 

Nicholas E. Calio, president and CEO, Airlines for America ............................... 11 

Paul Rinaldi, president, National Air Traffic Controllers Association ................ 11 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III ........................................................................................ 50 

Hon. John Engler ..................................................................................................... 77 

Captain Lee Moak ................................................................................................... 83 

Mark Baker .............................................................................................................. 94 

Nicholas E. Calio ..................................................................................................... 107 

Paul Rinaldi ............................................................................................................. 115 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, request to submit a letter from Hon. Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, regarding LaGuardia Airport, November 17, 2014 ..................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, inspector general, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions for the record issued by the following Representatives: 

Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois .......................................................................... 65 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty of Connecticut ........................................................... 66 

Hon. Richard L. Hanna of New York .............................................................. 67 

Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania .................................................................. 71 

Mark Baker, president and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 

responses to questions for the record issued by Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut ........................... 106 

Written statement of December 2, 2014, from Charles T. ‘‘Skip’’ Miller, executive director, Louisville Regional Airport Authority ......................................... 125 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 91293.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 91293.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 91293.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 91293.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 91293.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 91293.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 91293.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 91293.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 91293.009
(1) 

FAA REAUTHORIZATION: ISSUES IN 

MODERNIZING AND OPERATING THE 

NATION’S AIRSPACE 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster (Chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning, I wanted to thank everybody for being here. We 

have a packed room, a topic of great interest, I hope. 

The FAA reauthorization issues in modernizing and operating 

the Nation’s airspace. I believe it is a critical issue, and one that 

I and the members of the committee have been talking about for 

a year now. And as we go into the next Congress, September, we 

are going to have to reauthorize the FAA and so we have been 

working for a year on that. Meeting with folks in this room, members of the committee, stakeholders all across the country, to try 

to better understand what the situation is out there, and today is 

going to shed even more light on that. 

Our 1958 Congress recognized the need to establish a comprehensive aviation regulatory and air traffic control system. This 

system has served our country remarkably well and today we have 

the safest system in the world. However, the world has changed 

since 1958 in numerous ways and it is time to take stock, where 

we are and what we need for decades ahead. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity for us to learn about issues we 

should consider as we plan for the next FAA reauthorization and 

beyond. It will not come as a surprise to any pilot who has waited 

in a long line of planes on the tarmac, or to any passenger who has 

watched the departure board as his or her flight is delayed or cancelled, that our system can be better. 

Since the Federal Aviation Administration was created 56 years 

ago, there have been many attempts to reform it. For instance, numerous advisory committees have been made, reform recommendations based upon input from aviation stakeholders. Both President 

Clinton in the 1990s and President Bush in the 2000s, sought to 

reform the FAA in order to ensure the level of air traffic control 

service that Americans deserve. While each had a varying degree 

of success, neither was able to implement long-lasting transformative reform. 

2 

As air travel continues to grow and our airspace becomes increasingly more complex, we must ensure that the infrastructure, rules, 

process, laws are up to date and able to withstand the test of time. 

To do that we must make sure the FAA is properly structured to 

carry out our modernization efforts and operate as efficiently as 

possible. 

In report after report the inspector general of the Department of 

Transportation and the Government Accountability Office, for that 

matter, has identified costly problems with the FAA’s management 

of air traffic control modernization programs. For example, in 1998 

the IG found that in carrying out one modernization program, the 

FAA had wasted a billion dollars of taxpayers’ moneys. Sadly, the 

IG will testify today that this is not uncommon. He notes that of 

15 major acquisitions that were ongoing as of September 2013, 8 

included acquisition cost increases amounting to $4.9 billion, and 

8 experienced delays. 

This waste is a result of the FAA’s inability to plan effectively, 

to manage programs in a way that delivers responsible, cost-effective, and beneficial outcomes. Congress has an important role in 

modernization efforts. And we will continue to provide the tools 

and the resources necessary while also conducting the oversight to 

ensure taxpayer money is not being wasted. 

Now is the time for us to learn from the past mistakes while at 

the same time taking note of what other nations have accomplished, and how they have done it. What successes can we apply 

to the American system that will help us safely and efficiently 

modernize our airspace? I don’t have all of the answers. So I look 

to the aviation stakeholders and those of you in this room that are 

experts for your input. As we move forward we want to look at all 

options, put all options on the table. However, anything we do in 

the FAA reauthorization needs to be done together to ensure that 

our work helps lay a foundation for the best possible future of the 

U.S. aviation. 

American aviation, we invented it. We have been the leader in 

aviation for the past 80 years. We are now starting to lose our 

edge. Competition coming from foreign carriers, from foreign manufacturers, and one of the big impediments is our own bureaucracy 

here in Washington and around the country that impedes us from 

allowing to compete and move products to market fast and quickly. 

We cannot allow this to happen and we must act now. 

If you just look back at the 23 extensions, the sequestration that 

took place, the Government shutdown, the time is now and I think 

that all the stakeholders are in the room that have had to go 

through those painful experiences know that we really have to take 

a different look and move in a different direction. 

Today we have representatives from a wide cross-section of aviation stakeholders who can offer valuable insight into the issues we 

face. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and thank 

them all for appearing here today. 

Before yielding to Ranking Member Rahall, I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time 

as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions we have 

submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\11-18-~1\91293.TXT JEAN
3 

mation submitted by Members or witnesses be included in the 

record of today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, for opening remarks. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 

It has been my great honor to serve as ranking member of this 

committee for the last 4 years, and on this committee for my entire 

38-year career in the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, your commitment to bipartisanship has proven 

that together we can do great things. We successfully completed 

the Water Resources Reform and Development Act this year, which 

showed the American people that leaders in Congress can come together to pass big bills and improve local economies and our Nation’s infrastructure. 

In September, the committee marked up a bipartisan Amtrak reauthorization that again showed both sides’ willingness to compromise for the good of the traveling public. And I have every confidence, Mr. Chairman, that if you work in that same spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, FAA reauthorization will be short 

and swift. I have seen so many extensions, 23, I think as you mentioned, that it is like watching a child, I guess, come of age and 

then the parent leaves home instead of the child. 

Since I was first elected to Congress, a lot has changed in our 

aviation system. In 1977, we were on the eve of airline deregulation. Our modern air traffic control system had existed for less 

than 20 years at that point. There has been talk recently of potentially changing the structure of air traffic control in the United 

States. 

On that point, I would just say that when Congress enacted the 

Federal Aviation Act of 1958, it recognized that good Government 

is at the core of a safe air traffic control system. However this reform idea takes shape, I would urge my colleagues to ensure that 

labor remains engaged in the conversation, and that aviation programs receive robust, stable funding and to keep air traffic control 

in the realm of good Government, where it belongs. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for today’s hearing. I will 

miss working with you and all of my esteem colleagues from both 

sides of the aisle, but I know that with your leadership, and your 

bipartisanship, and your transparent manner of operating this 

committee, this Nation’s future is in good hands. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I want to thank the gentleman. 

And with that I recognize the subcommittee chairman Mr. 

LoBiondo for an opening statement. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you Chairman Shuster, I especially want 

to thank you for holding this hearing at a full committee level to 

emphasize the importance of it and I would really like to echo the 

chairman’s comments about the critical importance. 

The United States has a great deal to be proud of when it comes 

to aviation and thanks to the men and women in this country who 

day in and day out pilot the aircraft, serve as air traffic controllers, 

care for the passengers, maintain equipment, and numerous other 

important jobs, we have the safest and busiest aviation system in 

the world that keeps our economy ticking and serves as a model 

of American global leadership. 

4 

This industry and these issues are near and dear to my heart. 

As many of you know, I represent the FAA’s flagship technical center in my district, that has and continues to play a vital role in 

making advances in aviation safety, and air traffic control technology. However, I believe there are some things we need to do 

even better, like getting technology programs both done and delivering benefits on time without any further waste of taxpayer’s 

money. Let us look at the long-term challenges our aviation sector 

is facing, and be bold and decisive in addressing these through an 

open exchange of ideas. 

It is my hope today to learn what issues we in Congress need to 

think about as we look forward to the next FAA reauthorization 

and beyond to ensure we continue to have the safest system possible that also secures America’s leadership in this vital global 

economy. 

And Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, there is so much at 

stake, and we have a tremendous opportunity to build on what we 

have done for the last 2 years, so I look forward to the hearing, and 

look forward to the participation and moving forward. 

I yield back, thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 

Aviation, Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for calling today’s 

hearing on our work ahead to reauthorize the Federal aviation programs by October next year, and I look forward to working with 

you and Chairman LoBiondo and all of my colleagues to get a bill 

done on time, one that improves safety and keeps our aviation system the envy of the world. 

I also want to recognize families of the passengers of Colgan 

flight 3407, who are with us today. And we welcome you and want 

to thank you for your tireless efforts to improve aviation safety. 

I want to just recognize that many of the aviation stakeholders, 

including a few testifying here today, are frustrated with funding 

uncertainty and the delays associated with some programs like 

NextGen. But I also want to be clear: the FAA is making progress, 

and good progress thanks to the Subcommittee on Aviation’s strong 

oversight under Chairman LoBiondo’s leadership. 

At this time last year we were uncertain when we would see a 

plan for implementing DataComm, and now in response to a 

tasking by Chairman LoBiondo, the FAA has a plan with industry 

support to implement DataComm. At this time last year, we were 

uncertain about the path forward for performance-based navigation 

procedures, and now again in response to our tasking, the FAA has 

a plan with industry support for accelerating PBN procedure implementation. 

So when I read in some stakeholders’ testimony that the FAA is 

not moving fast enough on several of these programs, I would also 

like to point out that we have progressed significantly from last 

year. And Chairman LoBiondo and I remain laser-focused on making sure the FAA continues to make progress. Moreover, under 

Chairman LoBiondo’s leadership the Subcommittee on Aviation has 

held hearings in the last Congress on FAA’s work to streamline the 

certification process. We heard the FAA has made progress. We 

5 

also held two subcommittee meetings on the FAA’s work to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace and 

will stay focused on progress there as well. 

At the same time we recognize that more has to be done. The 

FAA must have funding certainty and the flexibility to invest. 

When we talk about the FAA’s challenges in running programs 

smoothly, we need to recognize the agency’s problem is not only a 

management problem. I think the agency has a political problem, 

a political problem resting here in Congress. 

Last year’s efforts by some in Congress to force the Federal Government off the fiscal cliff was not only—was a catastrophe for the 

everyday operation of the national airspace. It caused great harm 

to NextGen efforts. Just as the FAA must do better, we have to do 

better here in Congress, and I hope today’s hearing will give us a 

solid path for how we should progress with a strong bipartisan bill. 

I know conversation has been going on about air traffic reform, 

as well; I have had some of those conversations with folks. I just 

want to be sure that reauthorization does not become a science experiment. If we resolve to go big in this bill with significant air 

traffic reforms, we must do so methodically with a clear statement 

of the problem we are trying to solve, and a clear understanding 

of how to solve it without compromising safety in any way. 

This hearing might be a good first step in that regard. Today we 

are asking, what problems should we solve in reauthorization? 

That is an important question. We all need to understand there 

may not be one answer to that. And I look forward to hearing how 

witnesses would answer that. 

In addition to airspace management, we can’t lose sight of the 

work that needs to be done to safely implement and integrate UAS 

in the airspace, improve certification, and streamline FAA facilities. I look forward to tapping those topics in future hearings. 

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the 

full committee and next Congress, and with your continued commitment to bipartisanship, I know we can produce a bill that provides the funding, the stability, and the flexibility that the FAA 

needs to move forward along in the future to continue to make sure 

we have a safe national airspace. 

I thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Larsen. 

Before we get started, I think it is important that we acknowledge there are a number of members of this committee that this 

will be their last hearing. So if you would indulge me. Let’s start 

with the most junior Member, I don’t think he is here, Mr. Daines. 

He has gone off and lost his mind and decided to run for the Senate. I tried to tell him the other day on the floor, I hope he remains 

true to his roots as a House Member, and continues to work hard 

to get things done and not hold things up so—but we wish him well 

in the Senate over there. 

Mr. Michaud, who is—I don’t believe he is here. I am sure he is 

going to go on to bigger and better things. You know, when you 

leave Congress, I look out at the folks out there that they usually 

have bigger smiles than we do, especially at the end of the month 

6 

and when we are out of session. So again, I wish Mike all the best 

in whatever endeavors he goes off to. 

Gary Miller has been a long-time member of this committee. I 

don’t think Gary is here. Gary has really been a champion of developers and building in this country and has always been on the forefront of trying to reduce the burdens the Government puts on us 

as we try to develop and build roadways and develop communities 

around the country. So Gary, we wish you well in your future endeavors. 

Mr. Bishop from New York, who was a great ally and working 

on the WRRDA bill. There were times when we would disagree. 

There were times that we would agree and I would say, I can’t get 

that through my conference, so I can’t even be for it. I mean, I 

want to be, but I can’t. And so I think we had a good understanding of finding a common ground, moving the bill forward, and 

it was a lot of his hard work is the reason we got to that 417 mark 

on final passage, and I appreciate all of the efforts that he has put 

forward. 

I will say I am not going to miss him on third base. I think the 

last game you had seven put outs or something like that; something outrageous for a guy your age. And I think at least one of 

them was me you put out. So you know, but we are going to miss 

you and miss greatly your voice of reason, and of course, you represented your district extremely well over the years and the committee will miss you. 

Mr. Coble, Howard Coble is leaving the committee, the Coastie, 

served over 20 years and has been a great advocate for transportation infrastructure, and certainly been a great protector of the 

Coast Guard and on the other committees he has worked on. So 

Howard, he is not here today. I know he is around here somewhere. 

We wish you well in your future endeavors. 

Shelley Moore Capito, truly West Virginia royalty. Is there such 

a thing? I am from western Pennsylvania, so I can make some 

analogies about being at the top of certain mountains, but I won’t. 

But Shelley, we wish you well in the Senate. We know you are 

going to do a great job over there. And we know you won’t forget 

us. You can talk to us over here. We hope you will continue to do 

that. But congratulations on your victory. And we know you, as I 

said, will do extremely well in the Senate. 

Tom Petri. He was right here. I thought I saw him here. I think 

he thought I was going to talk about him so he left. But here is 

a guy that served on this committee for almost four decades; served 

in every capacity and every subcommittee on the committee, and 

you know, he was here for ISTEA, TEA–21, SAFETEA–LU, MAP– 

21. Here is a guy that has got tremendous institutional knowledge. 

He has decided to go back to Wisconsin and not put up with the 

headaches of Congress. And again, we wish him well in his endeavors. And let’s see, make sure I get everybody. 

Finally, most importantly, my partner, the leader of the Democratic side in the T&I Committee, Nick, you have been a great 

friend, a great ally. I have got a lot of stories about going to 

WRRDA with Nick. My staff told me not to tell the one I really 

want to tell. So I am going to get rolling here, and then you never 

know what is going to come out. 

7 

But truly, when we sat down for the very first time and talked 

about how we could work together, and Nick said, it is about communication. Let me know where you are. I will let you know where 

I am and so we worked very well together on WRRDA. There were 

times when we would go to negotiate with the Senate and Nick was 

with us, and we agreed to be on the same page, and there were 

times we tried to get together before to figure out what maybe 

would happen in the room and sometimes we didn’t. He would 

come in late or I would be there late, so we didn’t get a chance to 

talk. But he truly was a great counter puncher. 

When Barbara would come up with something that we disagreed 

with, I didn’t even have to wink at Nick. He didn’t say anything. 

He was able to counter punch and help me prevail on the issue. 

So again, it was a great honor to work with you. We got a lot 

of stuff done. There is one really, really interesting story that, the 

most important thing was WRRDA was passed, but there was another story that was one of the highlights of the conference that 

caused us to lose our way for about 15 minutes. But I am not going 

to go into it because my staff insists I shouldn’t. But it is a great 

story about Nick and his great history here on Capitol Hill and his 

great friendships he has developed. 

So Nick, again, we are going to miss you greatly. We know that 

wherever you land out there, we know you are going to do well and 

you will always have friends up here on Capitol Hill. 

Mr. RAHALL. May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, sir, are you going to tell the story? 

Mr. RAHALL. No, I am just going to say thank you for your kind 

words and just commend every member of this committee, both 

sides of the aisle, commend the professionalism of the staff, each 

member of this committee brings talents, and background, and a 

wealth of knowledge about transportation and so many issues. 

They also bring a dedication to their constituents, above and beyond anything else. And this committee is where the future of this 

country is at, in my opinion. This committee is about jobs, jobs, and 

jobs. 

And Mr. Chairman, when I look back over the bills that we have 

produced in a bipartisan fashion, you truly have returned that spirit of bipartisanship to this committee, and every Member has a desire to work across party aisles in order to produce for the American people, and this is where the future of the country is, in my 

opinion, is on this committee right here. And I feel very safe that 

that future is in great hands under your leadership. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

With that, I recognize the—do I have to call you Senator yet? 

OK—the gentlelady from West Virginia, the royalty from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will get nowhere, 

anyway. 

I appreciate your leadership on the committee, and I have been 

honored to be on the committee now for 12 years. But I wanted to 

take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Nick Rahall, from 

West Virginia. He served honorably and with long tenure and with 

8 

a lot of distinction over his 38 years in Congress; most notably on 

this committee. 

His legacy in West Virginia will be long and strong. The Rahall 

Institute of Transportation I think shows his passion for all areas 

of transportation and it is a growing, vibrant, economic development driver in our State, and I appreciate that for him. 

One of the things that I have always admired about Nick, is that 

he has a wonderful turn of phrase. If you have ever heard him 

argue a point, or read his press releases, or heard him try to convince you to his way of thinking, he is very, very clever, and very 

humorous at the same time. So I have always enjoyed that Nick 

about your—except when it is aimed at me maybe but—never 

aimed at me, but in any event, I thank you for everything you have 

done for me, and with me, and for our beloved State of West Virginia. You have been a fighter for West Virginia through and 

through and I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. RAHALL. If the gentlelady would yield I appreciate your kind 

comments, Senator-elect, and congratulations to you, and we will 

always be working for the future of our great State and this country. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Any other Members wish to be heard? 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I just very briefly want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for your very kind words, and also thank you for the leadership 

that you have provided to this committee. 

My fondest hope as I leave the Congress is that the way in which 

this committee has conducted its business will come to characterize 

the way the Congress as a whole conducts its business. I fear that 

may be a distant hope, but it is very much my hope. 

I also have greatly enjoyed and benefitted from working with 

Ranking Member Rahall. I have learned a great deal about how to 

do my job from watching how he does his. 

And to all of my colleagues on this committee, to Chairman 

Gibbs with whom we worked very closely on the Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment, I have enjoyed my service. I 

have cherished my time on this committee, and I wish you all the 

very best in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well I have been on this committee my entire tenure in Congress 

and my first term, the chairman of the subcommittee on—I can’t 

even remember—oh, you were then on resources; mines and mining. Nick came into my district for a very interesting hearing. I 

won’t go into the story right now, but I told him the story the day 

after election day and even got him to laugh. I will miss Nick a lot. 

Jim Zoia, who I think has been with Nick almost the whole time, 

if not the entire time, I have good stories about Jim, too, back in 

the days when we used to do earmarks which we need to bring 

back, and how we promoted them with Jim in one bill. 

And Tim, it may not have helped as much in your district, although I know you have got some coasts, but in my district I 

bragged on water the entire election. Did better on the coast than 

9 

I have done in years. That shows transportation investments are 

important to the American people and bipartisan. So thank you for 

that great work. 

And I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, thank 

you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, and to all of our departing Members, 

we wish you well. Just had an incredible run in my short tenure 

as chairman and ranking member. Of course, we all remember 

working with Mr. Transportation, Jim Oberstar, who we did a lot 

of positive things with, first, reauthorization of passenger rail, and 

11 years, the first WRDA, a record number; $24 billion, which we 

actually overwrote President Bush’s veto quietly when Jim went 

into the hospital. 

But with Mr. Rahall, I found out where Beckley, West Virginia, 

was with our first, very first transportation hearing on the reauthorization. Some things couldn’t be accomplished when one party 

had the House, Senate, and the White House. And I know we had 

some rough and tumble, but we did accomplish for the American 

people a record number of pieces of legislation. 

So I thank him for his service, and all of the departing Members 

for their service. We have an important responsibility in building 

a Nation’s infrastructure, and I intend to work with everyone to 

make certain that we keep that obligation. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, we will go on to our panel now. Thank you for indulging us. 

Our panel today consists of the Honorable Calvin Scovel III, inspector general for the Department of Transportation; Governor 

John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable. Captain Lee 

Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International; 

Mr. Mark Baker, president and CEO of the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association; Mr. Nick Calio, president and CEO of Airlines 

for America; and Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association. Thank you all for being here. 

And before I let you start, Mr. Larsen wants to be recognized for 

a UC. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record a letter from Congress Member Yvette 

Clarke regarding issues that she has around LaGuardia. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

10 


Insert offset folio 10 here 91293.010
11 

Mr. SHUSTER. And with that, we will recognize first General 

Scovel 5 minutes for your opening statement. Proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. JOHN 

ENGLER, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE, AND 

FORMER GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN; CAPTAIN LEE MOAK, 

PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; MARK BAKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIRCRAFT 

OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; NICHOLAS E. CALIO, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA; AND PAUL 

RINALDI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on FAA’s 

efforts to modernize the National Airspace System. 

As you know, FAA has undergone considerable change after Congress granted several important reform authorities. FAA is also in 

the midst of a multibillion-dollar effort to improve the efficiency of 

its air traffic system through NextGen. My testimony today will 

highlight several challenges that we have identified through our 

ongoing and recently completed audits faced by FAA as it tries to 

meet its modernization and reform goals. 

First, while FAA has instituted a number of important reforms 

such as establishing the Air Traffic Organization, it has yet to fully 

adopt sound management practices, such as using metrics and 

goals to assess productivity. Without such practices, FAA’s reforms 

will have little effect on slowing cost growth or improving operational efficiency. We determined that between fiscal years 1996 

and 2012, FAA’s total budget, operations budget, and personnel 

compensation and benefits costs nearly doubled in nominal terms 

with inflation accounting for only part of this increase. 

Further, FAA’s workforce remained relatively constant during 

this period, while FAA’s air traffic operations dropped 20 percent 

between fiscal years 1998 and 2012. 

Second, FAA’s acquisition reforms have fallen short in improving 

the delivery of new technologies and capabilities. When FAA implemented a new acquisition management system in 1996, its stated 

goal was to cut acquisition costs by 20 percent and schedules by 50 

percent within 3 years. Yet, between 1996 and the establishment 

of the ATO in 2004, acquisitions averaged 38 percent over budget, 

and 25 percent behind schedule, consistent with FAA’s prior performance. 

Moreover, of the 15 major acquisitions that were ongoing as of 

last year, which totaled $16 billion, 8 included cost increases 

amounting to $4.9 billion, and 8 experienced delays ranging from 

6 months to as much as 15 years. Now, most of these overruns are 

attributable to two problem-plagued programs. But even factoring 

them out, the remaining programs are still $539 million over budget, and behind schedule by an average of 25 months. 

FAA’s cost overruns, delays, and poor performance on these 

major acquisitions are traceable to longstanding management 

weaknesses in identifying requirements, estimating software comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\11-18-~1\91293.TXT JEAN
12 

plexity, leveraging sound contracting practices, and securing reliable cost and schedule estimates. 

For example, during the award phase of its ATCOTS contract, a 

support service contract to improve air traffic controller training, 

FAA found that there was a 60- to 80-percent likelihood that the 

contract would not meet its goals due to the limited staff hours proposed by the successful bidder. However, FAA did not require the 

contractor to address this risk before awarding the contract, leading to a cost increase of 30 percent in the first 2 years of the contract. 

As FAA works to better meet the goals of its reforms and modernization efforts, it faces additional challenges. Key among these 

is FAA’s work to implement four NextGen investment priorities 

identified by a joint industry-agency committee, including performance-based navigation, which our office also has identified as the 

top priority. FAA published its master implementation plan for 

these priorities last month. However, executing the plan and holding all parties accountable could be difficult, especially given FAA’s 

history of schedule slippages and cost overruns with NextGen programs. 

Adding to these complexities, FAA faces the demanding task of 

safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems into U.S. airspace. 

The rapidly accelerating demand for UAS presents important economic and technological opportunities for our Nation. However, before commercial UAS can safely operate in U.S. airspace, FAA 

must first reach consensus with industry on design and safety 

standards, establish necessary rules and regulations, and collect 

and analyze UAS safety data to better understand and mitigate 

risk. 

Finally, recent incidents involving fires at Chicago area air traffic control facilities demonstrate the importance of ensuring that 

FAA has controls in place to mitigate potential security risks and 

viable business continuity plans to maintain operation of the Nation’s extensive air traffic control system. 

Ultimately, FAA’s actions to implement the reform authorities 

Congress granted almost two decades ago have not achieved the results the agency and this committee seek. We remain committed to 

working with FAA to help it succeed in meeting ongoing challenges 

highlighted today. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am 

happy to answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, General. 

And now we before we go to Governor Engler, it is fitting that 

he has a fitting introduction because of the star power that he 

brings to the panel today. 

So with that I yield to Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to thank you for providing the sound effects of the whistle in the room when we are talking about aviation. So you think of everything. We appreciate that. 

But, it is my great honor to introduce Governor John Engler from 

the great State of Michigan. As many of you know, I served as 

Michigan Secretary of State for 8 years before I came to the ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\11-18-~1\91293.TXT JEAN
13 

gress, and I had that honor and privilege of serving with Governor 

Engler at that time. And if I can be a bit parochial, I certainly 

think he was one of my State’s most successful Governors, and I 

think one of the Nation’s successful Governors on all kinds of 

issues. But he really left a legacy in the transportation area as 

well. 

And so very fitting as we are talking about transportation today 

in our aviation system that he is here. We have Detroit Metropolitan Airport, of course, in southeast Michigan, one of our Nation’s, 

one of the world’s busiest airports. And during his tenure his last 

year, I think, as Governor, he put together an authority that really 

cleaned up a lot of things that needed to be cleaned up at our airport. And today, if any of the millions of you go through that airport, you will see what a fantastic facility it is because he recognized how important aviation is as a critical link and component 

of our aviation transportation grid. 

And so, as the president of the Business Roundtable with his vision and commitment taking it to a national level, we certainly appreciate his attendance here today. Governor. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mrs. Miller, and with that, I just remind our panelists, pull that mic close to you because that whistle 

is pretty annoying and it is difficult to hear sometimes. 

So with that, Governor Engler you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGLER. Good morning. 

Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, thank 

you Congresswoman Miller. Thank you for your wonderful comments to the committee. 

I deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify on aviation and air 

traffic control as Congress begins work on reauthorization of the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

And I am certainly pleased to speak on behalf of the Business 

Roundtable that is more than 200 CEOs of major U.S. corporations. 

From Kitty Hawk to the end of the 20th century the United States 

was considered the world’s leader in aviation. Today our air traffic 

system remains the world’s largest and safest. But sadly, as the 

chairman noted in his opening comments, it is no longer the most 

technologically advantaged, and it may no longer be the world’s 

most cost-effective. 

The Business Roundtable recently conducted an analysis that applied Canadian rates for air traffic control services to U.S. flight 

data. Preliminary results suggest that in aggregate, the Canadians 

are delivering services at a lower cost than the FAA. At a minimum, the next FAA authorization should seek to reaffirm and regain U.S. aviation leadership by fostering a more modern, efficient 

system, starting with air traffic control. 

Such a modernized system would produce significant benefits for 

all air travellers including the huge numbers who are traveling on 

business. Advanced technologies and procedures will enable more 

planes to land and take off safely on existing runways, reducing 

delays. More direct routes also equal shorter flights and more efficient operations with notable savings in staffing and fuel. Emissions and noise pollution would fall. 

With the modernized systems overseas sale of technologies developed and deployed in the United States would expand, reasserting 

14 

U.S. aviation leadership. Like many other stakeholders, business 

leaders are concerned about the slow and uncertain pace of the 

modernization effort represented by the FAA’s NextGen program. 

Numerous official reports document costs overruns—we just 

heard some of those from my colleague, General Scovel—delayed 

implementation of systems and led stakeholders to question whether we have the best model, not just for delivering NextGen, but 

also for the ongoing management and modernization of what used 

to be the world’s most advanced air traffic control system. 

A few years ago I convened experts who identified challenges to 

aviation and they found problems start with funding unpredictable, 

unreliable, often inadequate funding streams are doing damage to 

long-term planning investment. Last year’s sequestration with its 

furloughs of controllers and near shutdown of 149 contract towers 

is only the worst example. 

The second underlying problem, governance, the Air Traffic Organization answers to way too many disparate interests, agencies, 

and administrators. 

The third underlying problem is organizational culture. The culture needs to embrace innovation so modernization occurs continuously as technology advances. For an example of culture of innovation that works, look at AT&T. It happens to be the company 

chaired by my boss at the Business Roundtable, Randall Stephenson. The years we have been talking about NextGen, AT&T has 

gone through at least two generations of cellular technology, from 

powering your basic flip phone to 4G streaming video in today’s 

modern iPhones that most of us have in our pocket. 

The last two decades have seen other countries restructure the 

way air traffic control is funded and governed. Australia, Canada, 

Germany, the United Kingdom have been among the early movers. 

These Governors determined that an air traffic control is a hightech service business that can be funded directly by aviation users, 

in effect, the customers. More than 50 countries have separated 

their air traffic control systems from their transport ministries, 

leading to arm’s length regulations of air safety. In the U.S. the 

FAA’s own management advisory council recently studied the same 

issues. Their final report in January of 2014 made three unanimous recommendations. 

First, remove all air traffic control funding from the Federal 

budget so that aviation users would pay directly for air traffic control services and allow that revenue stream to be bonded. 

Second, create a governing board of aviation stakeholders, not 

just to advise on technology decisions, but to actually set the priorities for management and modernization. 

Third, separate the operation of the air traffic control systems 

from the FAA safety regulator. This will establish independent 

arms-length safety regulation, the kind that currently applies to all 

the other actors in U.S. aviation. 

These three unanimous recommendations were made by experts 

like Paul Rinaldi, who you will hear from in a moment, and they 

are an excellent starting point for FAA reauthorization. 

Finally, it is important that the financial and business model for 

any new structure be sound, fully discussed, and broadly supported; hence, the appreciation for today’s hearing. Next year’s 

15 

FAA reauthorization offers a critically important opportunity to advance NextGen, to restore our leadership in aviation, and to put 

management in the national airspace on a path to continuous modernization. 

Business Roundtable looks forward to working with you to 

achieve these important goals. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a more complete statement for submission 

to the record and appreciate the opportunity to do that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much for that. 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And next Captain Lee Moak, the president of the 

Air Line Pilots Association, International. Captain Moak, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MOAK. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and 

members of the committee, I am Captain Lee Moak, president of 

the Air Line Pilots Association, International. Thank you for the 

opportunity to represent ALPA’s 51,000 members who fly for 30 

passenger and all cargo airlines in the United States and Canada, 

before the committee today. 

When it comes to issues of modernizing the airspace in the 

United States, contrary to what you are hearing previously, I am 

very happy to report that we are on the verge of becoming a success story and one that you can help us write. We have made considerable progress during very turbulent times, in spite of dealing 

with issues like sequestration and operating under 23 short-term 

extensions. 

NextGen is a collaborative initiative involving industry, Government, and key users, including airline pilots and controllers, and 

technicians. The various system components they save time, fuel, 

emissions, and money while increasing safety, and I want to underscore that, while increasing safety. 

There is no question that our Nation’s airspace needs an overhaul to prepare for the influx of passengers projected to arrive in 

our terminals and the continued growth of the cargo industry. And 

there is no question there is room for growth in our aviation industry. I would say that we agree on 95 percent of how to achieve that 

growth, but the 5 percent we disagree on lies in how to pay for it, 

and who pays for it. That is the real issue, a lack of commitment 

when it comes to dedicated Federal resources now to a problem we 

know is only going to get worse. 

We need leadership to set us on a path for continued infrastructure expansion, and airspace modernization so that we can better 

serve our customers, and maintain our position as the world leader 

in aviation. 

Continuing the recent tradition of kicking the can down the road 

will result in failure and like many of you in this room, I hate failure. ALPA believes that this committee can fill that leadership 

role, ensuring that FAA can count on the sustainable, long-term 

funding needed to get the job done right. 

However, for the aviation industry to succeed, this funding must 

come from a source that is separated from the constant jeopardy 

inherent in the reauthorization process. We simply cannot put the 

future of our Nation’s airspace in the cross hairs of DC politics. 

After all, we are updating the largest, most complex, and safest air 

16 

transportation system in the world, and that requires everyone to 

be all in. 

And up until this point, that hasn’t been the case. Several years ago airlines invested approximately $100,000 per aircraft to install 

Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications Equipment, CPDLC, 

only for the FAA to cut funding for the program because the Congress couldn’t support it. That put our airlines out millions of dollars and left them with useless equipment on aircraft. In fact, some 

of that—some of those airplanes are now getting parked in the 

desert with equipment that was never used. If our airlines invest 

in new equipment on our airliners, they have to see a return on 

investment; not a different plan from a different administration. 

Aviation industry stakeholders want to see that return on investment to pilots, controllers, airlines. We all want to operate in the 

21st century; not the 1950s infrastructure we are trying to replace. 

While the current air traffic control system isn’t perfect, performance-wise it is still one of the best in the world and it is consistently pumping out 97 percent capacity through the system. And in 

fact, I would caution that the current operational performance and 

costs of the U.S. system may not warrant an immediate need for 

a complete overhaul; namely, creating a standalone air traffic service provider similar to the NAV CANADA model which I have up 

here showing you a scale of that model. Pilots will continue to operate safely under any ATC structure. 

Again, I would, however, respectfully offer the NAV CANADA 

model needs a thorough investigation before anyone jumps to the 

conclusion that it is the answer here in the United States. 

And as I mentioned earlier, the U.S. national airspace is by far 

the largest, most complex airspace system in the world. The NAV 

CANADA model might not translate well to the U.S. system because it only covers roughly a quarter of the airspace and flights 

we manage. That is our east coast alone. 

And so if you see the issue here, what has worked well and 

seems completely manageable in Canada, might not even scale to 

our system’s needs. We all know that our system has room to improve, but structural changes to the governance of the Air Traffic 

Organization will not serve the fundamental problems facing our 

industry. We first need to debate about reliable funding. 

Mr. Chairman, I have heard you say many times before, America 

invented aviation. We are the global leader. If we want to hold this 

position, we cannot allow Government policies, either through laws, 

regulations, or taxes, to put us at a competitive disadvantage to the 

rest of the world. We already pay 17 unique taxes, the most of any 

industry. I know you understand that, Mr. Chairman, because you 

introduced and passed legislation to make those 17 taxes more 

transparent to the traveling public. 

We thank you for that, but we all know that there is more work 

to do out of those 17 taxes. Some don’t even go back to aviation. 

I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues here that are sitting 

on the panel when we say that we are fed up for the aviation industry being the piggy bank for Government programs that have 

nothing to do with aviation. 

And finally, that is why I am asking you to invest in the U.S. 

aviation industry. I am here to underscore that the Air Line Pilots 

17 

Association is committed to working together to make the tough 

choices necessary to ensure our aviation system remains the best, 

the safest system on the planet, and with your leadership, sir, stable funding can be held and we will move forward. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Captain Moak and all I can 

say is amen. 

With that, Mr. Baker, the president and CEO of the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association. 

Mr. Baker, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BAKER. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, committee members, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My 

name is Mark Baker and I am the president and CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and AOPA represents our 

members as aircraft owners and private pilots concerning the economy, safety, utility, and popularity of flight in general aviation aircraft. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Will pull your mic up closer to you? 

Mr. BAKER. This one here? This one is not working. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Captain Moak, can you shift over there. 

Mr. MOAK. Happy to work together. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BAKER. The general aviation industry is under stress and 

needs the FAA to enact policies and procedures that will support 

GA growth. Over the past decade, the number of private pilots has 

fallen by more than 6,000 each year. In addition, today’s GA fleet 

is on average more than 40 years old. The number of single-engine 

piston-powered aircraft being produced in the U.S. has fallen dramatically, from more than 14,000 produced in 1978 to just 674 in 

2013. Many of the stressors on the industry are compounded by 

outdated FAA processes that are costly and cumbersome. 

A long-term reform-minded FAA reauthorization measure is 

needed. As the committee develops a multiyear FAA reauthorization, we encourage the inclusion of provisions that will give the 

FAA the direction and the tools needed to improve its internal 

processes. The regulatory and certification processes used today 

may have been needed 30 or 40 years ago, but they simply cannot 

keep pace with today’s rapid changes and improvements in technology. Changing these processes in ways that lower costs, reduce 

bureaucracy, and improve safety will help general aviation grow. 

These should be our collective goals. 

I would like to provide three examples of areas that we believe 

require a different approach from the FAA: medical reform, aircraft 

certification and retrofit, and the FAA’s ADS–B 2020 mandates. 

The third-class medical reform is long overdue. Nearly 3 years 

ago, AOPA and others filed a petition requesting an expansion of 

the sport pilot medical standard, a standard that the FAA had put 

in place more than a decade ago. This standard allows sport pilots 

to fly without obtaining a third-class medical exam, which is a cursory medical check that is less comprehensive than an annual 

physical. 

The sport pilot typically flies small, light general aviation aircraft that are limited to two seats. The FAA’s decision to eliminate 

the third-class medical for these pilots was the correct one. Over 

18 

the past decade, it has not had a discernible impact on safety and 

has helped grow the sport pilot segment of general aviation. A conservative estimate indicates that expanding this standard would 

save private pilots in excess of $24 million a year to each one of 

these pilot groups. 

Today, other than sport pilots, all general aviation pilots under 

the age of 40 must take a medical exam every 5 years. Pilots over 

the age of 40 need an exam every 2 years. In between exams, pilots 

self-certify their own fitness to fly. In addition, every 2 years pilots 

are required to undergo a flight review with an FAA certified flight 

instructor who must determine a pilot’s cognitive ability to fly. 

Again, we believe the 10 years of experience we have with the 

sport pilot standard demonstrates that it should be expanded to a 

larger segment of general aviation pilots. 

The FAA and the Department of Transportation are currently reviewing a proposed rule. In addition, legislation has been introduced by both the House and the Senate. The bills combined have 

nearly 180 bipartisan cosponsors, many of whom serve on this 

panel. We thank you for your vigorous support. Expanding this 

standard to more pilots is a top priority for AOPA. We look forward 

to working with this committee in the next Congress on this issue. 

Certification and regulatory reform are also urgently needed. 

Since 2008, the aviation industry and FAA have been working to 

streamline and simplify part 23 certification standards for the 

manufacture and modification of new aircraft. To that end, this 

committee shepherded the Small Airplane Revitalization Act 

through Congress, and the bill was signed into law last year. 

To fully realize the benefits of increased safety and reduced certification costs, the regulations, orders, and policies for retrofitting 

existing aircraft with new equipment must also be streamlined and 

transformed. These realities are highlighted by the fact that the 

general aviation fleet averages more than 40 years old and most 

aircraft rely on decades-old technology. Widespread availability of 

modern equipment can make flying much easier, safer, less expensive, and give the industry a much needed boost at every level. 

While the FAA’s desire to create a ‘‘gold standard’’ for safety is 

admirable, in practice, this approach has the opposite effect. Allowing products that offer incremental safety improvements to reach 

the market more quickly would lower costs, simplify flying, and ultimately improve the safety for folks flying today and into the future. 

The FAA’s ADS–B mandate is too expensive. The FAA has set 

a standard of January 1, 2020, for aircraft to have ADS–B Out 

equipment in order to keep flying in airspace near large cities and 

airports. However, the mandate standards were designed for commercial airliners and the resulting equipment is just too costly for 

GA owners. 

More than 81,000 of the 188,000 certified piston-powered aircraft 

on the FAA registry are worth $40,000 or less, and those aircraft 

have a weighted average value of about $25,800. That puts the 

$5,000 to $6,000 minimum cost to install ADS–B Out beyond the 

reach of many owners. 

Without changes, we will see these airplanes parked in fields or 

reduced to limited flying, further accelerating general aviation 

19 

losses and seriously damaging the thousands of small aviation 

businesses nationwide. 

We believe that technological advances in portable, noncertified 

equipment could point to a strategy that would lower the cost of 

compliance with the FAA’s mandate. We look forward to working 

closely with the FAA and industry to make low-cost solutions available so all segments of general aviation can participate in a modernized air traffic system. 

In conclusion, we believe the future of general aviation depends 

on bold and transformational reforms in the certification and regulatory processes at both the FAA and DOT. We do not believe the 

FAA has a funding problem. In fact, this committee and Congress 

have funded the FAA generously, increasing the FAA’s budget by 

more than 500 percent since 1980, even though the number of 

agency employees has decreased. 

The system of funding the FAA through excise taxes collected on 

fuel, rather than a user-fee system, has proven both efficient and 

effective. And the FAA’s nearly $16 billion budget gives the agency 

sufficient resources to make needed changes in the way it oversees 

general aviation. The challenge facing the FAA is to use those resources to meet the needs of stakeholders and improve efficiencies. 

We need the FAA to embrace a system that can keep up with 

rapidly changing technology; that is comfortable with timely, economical, and incremental safety improvements; and that will actually work to reduce risk today for hundreds of thousands of general 

aviation pilots. When pilots, industry, and the FAA work together, 

we see positive results for general aviation. 

On behalf of AOPA’s members, we appreciate your leadership on 

these important issues. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Baker. 

And now I will turn to Mr. Nicholas Calio, president and CEO 

of Airlines for America. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CALIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Airlines for American 

and its members appreciate the opportunity to participate in this 

hearing on the operation and modernization of our Nation’s airspace system. 

The issues surrounding modernizing and operating our system, 

are critical of the future of U.S. aviation, and the future growth of 

our economy. At stake are whether you and your constituents can 

get to your destinations faster, smarter, and in a more environmentally friendly way. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Nick, can you get closer to the mic, I am sorry. 

Mr. CALIO. I am already standing up, Mr. Chairman. 

At stake is whether you and your constituents can get to destinations faster, smarter, and more efficiently. Aviation is 5 percent of 

our gross domestic product. The question before this committee is 

really pretty simple. Can we move people and products in a more 

efficient manner with a more modern system? There seems to be 

a little disagreement that we can do so. Three Federal commissions 

and reams and reams of testimony, congressional testimony, as 

well as multiple speeches by multiple stakeholders over a year all 

agree to the point. 

20 

So the question becomes: How do we get that system and what 

does it look like? Here, the clarity of the goal starts to get complicated. Its achievement starts to get complicated. While Chairman Shuster, you have called for transformational change, and we 

agree with it, different stakeholders have differing interests. And 

my guess is that this committee is going to have significant resistance to any kind of significant potential changes. 

An undeniable record of missteps, cost overruns and equipage investments gone bad exists, and has been detailed before this committee. It has been detailed by GAO reports, by the inspector general and others. Some of that record as well as some particular airline disappointments are detailed in our written testimony, and I 

commend that testimony to you. 

So the record begs a series of questions that need to be asked in 

light of the historic opportunity that this reauthorization bill presents. Does the United States have the best governance and funding structure in place to deliver the most efficient, modern air traffic control system? Have the ATC models used by other countries 

enhanced safety and efficiency, and if so, can their best attributes 

be applied to our system here without it adversely impacting safety? 

If yes, would the adoption actually improve our system which is 

a key question, obviously, and if so, at what cost and to whom? 

Asking these questions is not a criticism of the current FAA leadership. They have been advancing the ball. However, it is simply a 

need to ask and examine these questions given the checkered history of progress and, frankly, the stakes were simply maintaining 

the status quo. 

A4A has an open mind on these questions. To that end, we have 

engaged independent aviation experts to create a fact base and see 

if the facts lead us to any kind of conclusions. Our study is 

benchmarked in the financial, operational, and governance performance of USATC system against models used by other countries. 

It is evaluating the risks and opportunities for specific elements of 

reform on the U.S. system and developing USATC options, highlighting the benefits economically and implications for NextGen, as 

well as potential governments’ impact of reform. The work is incomplete, but some basic observations are emerging. 

First, the difficulties U.S. modernization efforts have encountered in the past seem to consistently come back to Government 

structure and funding questions. 

Next, the commercialized ATC model present three alternatives 

to consider represented by, for example, the United Kingdom which 

has a public-private partnership, and NAV CANADA already spoken to, which is a completely independent commercial corporation, 

and then Germany, which is an independent, Government-owned 

corporation. 

All three models engage airspace users in a—in decisionmaking 

to a greater and more structured degree than we do here. All three 

models have improved safety and efficiency. And all three systems—all three models have implemented long-term modernization 

programs pretty smoothly. 

The bottom line, we have a good aviation system. We have the 

best pilots. We have the best air traffic controllers. Frankly, we can 

21 

do better. It is clear that we don’t need another Federal Commission On this issue. What we do need is for the Congress and all 

major stakeholders to keep an open mind and take a clinical, factbased approach to looking at possible solutions, including the models in other countries. 

If we determine that significant reforms are not necessary or, 

frankly, are not politically achievable, then we still need to examine what we can do about the bottlenecks and difficulties and obstacles in the current system and admit that we might just find 

some answers outside the U.S. and apply them here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. And, now, we will turn to Mr. Paul 

Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. You’re recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Rinaldi. 

Mr. RINALDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify in front of the committee today is truly an honor. We all 

have a stake in the National Airspace System. It is an economic 

engine. It contributes $1.5 trillion to our gross domestic product 

every year and provides 12 million American jobs. NATCA appreciates the committee for its outreach in the industry in order to 

better understand the issues/problems in which—in the National 

Airspace System. 

This committee is doing it the right way. Identify the problems 

and then collectively, we can develop the right solution. But we 

must make something clear. Any change we make needs to be accomplished with the precision-like approach so that we don’t interrupt the day-to-day operation of the National Airspace System. 

Currently, we run the largest, safest, most efficient, most complex, most diverse airspace system in the world. Our system is incomparable, unequaled, and unrivaled by any country in the world. 

The United States airspace system and the FAA is considered the 

gold standard in the world aviation industry. And, yet, we come to 

a reality, we need to change. 

The globalization and innovation are driving dramatic changes in 

the aviation industry. Our current system has served us well to 

this point. However, we face many challenges in responding to the 

problems of an unstable budget, the inability to finance long-term 

projects, competing stakeholders’ interest, the inability to grow the 

National Airspace System for new users, and legislative priorities. 

Every stakeholder in the National Airspace System should work together to ensure that the United States continues to be the world 

leader. 

Without change, we face continued funding uncertainty. We all 

remember the disruptions that we experienced in 2013 with sequester. In March, the FAA scaled down all modernization projects. 

They looked at closing 238 air traffic control towers, and they tried 

to close 149 of them. They tried to reduce services across many airports in this country. They stopped ATC hiring for the full year, 

which is still causing a rippling problem today. They furloughed air 

traffic controllers, causing rippling delays through our system. 

They went to a fix-on-fail maintenance philosophy and stopped 

stockpiling critical parts for essential equipment, all to meet the 

budget restrictions of sequester. 

22 

Currently, the FAA is working on what reductions they need to 

do, starting in October of next year as sequester comes back into 

effect. This just can’t happen again. This is no way to treat this 

economic engine and no way to treat our National Airspace System. 

You see, without change, we will continue to struggle to develop, 

train, implement the NextGen initiatives. Currently, NATCA and 

the FAA are working collaboratively, along with other stakeholders 

on the NextGen Advisory Committee. We are implementing and 

modernizing projects and deploying new equipment procedure 

across the country. In order to keep pace with these initiatives, we 

need to be properly funded, and the FAA needs to be adequately 

staffed, which can only happen with a stable, predictable funding 

system. We will continue to struggle to maintain—without a 

change, we will continue to struggle to maintain proper resources 

and staffing for our air traffic control facilities. 

The air traffic controllers are the backbone to the National Airspace System. We should never short-staff our facilities. The air 

traffic controllers maintain a safe, orderly flow of aircraft across 

this country. 

In addition to that, they are the subject matter experts that help 

us develop, implement, and train the NextGen initiatives. And they 

train on-the-job training for every new hire that comes into the system. This requires us to be appropriately staffed. An understaffed 

facility can barely keep all the positions open to run the day-to-day 

operations safely and efficiently. Nevertheless, they are going to 

have to train our controllers on new NextGen technology and 

equipment. Understaffing our facilities will delay modernization 

projects, and we will be responsible for the overcost runs. 

Mr. Chairman, our National Airspace System is an American 

treasure. We cannot treat it like we did in 2013. Aviation is 

uniquely an American tradition. We need to make changes to secure a stable funding system, a proper governance so that we can 

continue to be the world leader, which will allow us to grow the 

aviation system and not shrink it. It will allow us to integrate new 

users, such as the UAV community and commercial airspace programs properly. And it will give us the competitive edge to continue to be the world leader in aviation. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in front 

of you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have or the committee may have. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Rinaldi. Thank all of 

you for being here today. 

We have a number of Members that are in the queue for questions. Our practice, on the Republican side, whenever the gavel 

goes down, if you are here when the gavel goes down, you get first 

in the queue. Because there are so many Members, I am going to 

forego my questioning until the end and I will, first of all, yield 5 

minutes to Mr. LoBiondo, and I will be brutal with the gavel in the 

5-minute rule. Because if everybody shows up, we are going to be 

here for a long, long time. 

So, Mr. LoBiondo, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want you to 

be brutal with me. Thank the panel for being here. 

23 

I think most of you know that Rick Larsen and myself have really focused in on NextGen and the implementation and how this is 

all coming together. So what I would like to know, starting with 

you Mr. Scovel, we tasked the FAA with creating a joint industry 

and FAA implementation plan to begin delivering short-term 

NextGen benefits to our airspace and its users. In October, we received a copy of that plan. Can you tell us what you think of the 

NAC priorities for NextGen and the FAA’s implementation plan to 

address this? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. Certainly, we are aware 

of the NAC’s recommendations to FAA and FAA’s plan in October. 

And as you may remember, this committee has tasked my office to 

review FAA’s plans for moving NextGen forward, especially in the 

near term. So FAA’s commitment to the NAC recommendations has 

been vitally important, and we are greatly encouraged by those. As 

the committee knows, from reading the NAC report and FAA’s response, the NAC recommended a greater commitment to performance-based navigation, which our office has endorsed for a long 

time now; a commitment to surface operations so that aircraft on 

the ground can move around the airport surface in a more efficient 

and effective manner; as well as DataComm, which FAA anticipates to implement in 2019. So those are the three main recommendations from the NAC which FAA has endorsed and has 

begun to move out on. 

We would put an asterisk for the committee’s consideration next 

to performance-based navigation. This has been a priority for the 

airline industry for a long time. It is one that will allow them to 

move their aircraft in an efficient way and will provide fuel savings 

as well. But FAA has had problems in developing those procedures 

and getting them certified. So if those problems with delays in the 

past were to continue in the future, the objectives for near-term 

success, according to the NAC’s priorities, may not be realized. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Calio, same question. 

Mr. CALIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the—I would 

agree, performance-based navigation has been one of our key priorities. We helped develop the priorities that the NAC suggested. We 

think they are critical. The whole point of them is to move to some 

near-term benefits so that the stakeholders can see some benefit 

from investments that have to be made. Some of it is going painfully slowly, despite best efforts. 

PBN is a key there. We have moved very slowly. We are going 

basically city by city, metroplex by metroplex, with not a lot of— 

showing for it. A lot has to do with the procedures being developed. 

We have—you know, we have the equipment on the aircraft to do 

it. But the process—or the procedures to get those planes to use it 

is not really happening very quickly. And there is a whole variety 

of reasons, some of which are detailed in our written testimony. It 

is a matter of us being able to fly, a matter of the controllers being 

able to use them in different places. 

So if we are going to do it, it has got to be more scalable across 

the country, otherwise we are just going to take years and years 

to get it to work. Meanwhile, we have got other technologies that 

are being mandated that are not harmonized with others for which 

24 

the cost benefit has not been reviewed. So PBN would be the 

quickest way to get quick results. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Rinaldi, sorry you only have a minute, but 

I would like your take on this one, too. 

Mr. RINALDI. We were part of the NAC initiatives. We—we agree 

with the initiatives. I will tell you, you know, changing major airspace and flows in and out of metroplex is not an easy task. It is 

not something we can just develop in the—in a, you know, sterile 

room and roll it out. It has to be tested and developed and continued tested with pilots and then tweaked. You know, once we implement it, we have to go back and retest it and making sure we are 

capturing the efficiencies we want to do. It is not an easy thing to 

do. It sounds like an easy thing to do but certainly not. 

The one thing that will slow us down is the unstable funding. 

You know, the second we have to fall back and we don’t have the 

funding to continue these initiatives, we stop all modernization 

projects and we just focus on running the day-to-day operation, the 

safe and efficient flow of airplanes. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. And Chairman Shuster is going to 

make sure we have stable funding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is correct. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. With your help, Mr. LoBiondo. With that, I recognize Ranking Member Larsen for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rinaldi, you discussed some of the—you have discussed some 

of the discussion about ATO reform and so on. What reservations 

would the air traffic controllers have regarding a change in the Air 

Traffic Organization? 

Mr. RINALDI. Obviously, any time you make any change to a system that is as large as this and is as efficient as we are at this 

point, we don’t want to disrupt the day-to-day operation. And we 

can’t lose focus that currently we are running the world’s safest, 

largest, most complex, most diverse system in the world. 

So the changes that—if we were going to make changes, we have 

to be very precision-like, do it very methodically to ensure that we 

do not interrupt the safe and orderly flow of airplanes in the 

United States. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, Captain Moak, a similar question. You laid 

out some broad principles about your concerns. What specific 

thing—do you have specific items you would like to help us understand with regard to separating air traffic functions out from the 

FAA? 

Mr. MOAK. Just a couple of things. First off, you know, we are 

having a—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Get closer to the mic. 

Mr. MOAK. We—you know, this is kind of a high-class problem 

in the United States. If you read the papers and you catch the 

news, you know they are having accidents all over the world. But 

in the United States, we have the safest airspace in the world. But 

we don’t stop there. We want to improve that. We want it to be 

more efficient. We want to save fuel. And there is other things we 

want to do, but we are doing that with the idea that we have the 

25 

safest airspace in the world with what was said earlier, best controllers, best pilots, best procedures. 

So the idea that we are just going to go to another system, OK, 

I think we should take pause there and think through it. Now, the 

current system is performing quite well operationally. Our airlines 

have been through consolidation over the last few years. They are 

performing quite well. And so it gives us the ability to step back, 

look at it, modernize it. That is important, very important. And all 

you have to do is look at the DOT Bureau of Transportation statistics. And now when they report out of different metrics for the airline industry, they are much improved. 

On the issues of PBN, we can do better. The controllers are 

trained. The pilots are trained. The airlines that Nick represents 

are equipped, and we have just got to keep at it. And it is—it is 

difficult to bring each one online, but when it is brought online, it 

is truly remarkable. 

So I would say proceed cautiously with throwing everything out. 

And, again, I want to underscore the whole thing about stable 

funding going forward. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. Thanks. 

Mr. Calio, you are doing a report. Mr. Engler—Governor Engler 

mentioned a report. MITRE is doing a report. You mentioned all 

the reports that have been done, a lot of reports. It seems to me 

that the timing of these, if we are going to be moving forward in 

any way, shape, or form, whether it is a larger reform or even management reforms or individual reforms, things have to come to a 

head pretty quickly if we are going to be moving forward here by 

the end of—by September 2015. 

So I am hearing a tapping. That is not you, Mr. Chairman? 

Thank you very much. You are just inpatient. It got—generally. 

Have you thought through the timing for us? 

Mr. CALIO. Yes. Yes, we have. We will be done shortly and we 

will be in to brief you. We know that you need the material. And 

we—from our perspective, in order to develop a position, we need 

to know what the facts are. And again, we are trying to do it in 

a dispassionate fashion so that we can take a look at our system. 

We are not suggesting going ahead with major changes. What we 

are trying to do is see if they would be worthwhile, whether they 

can be made and if they can, what the impact would be. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. OK. Thanks. 

And, Governor Engler, have you all, in the BRT, thought through 

that flip-the-switch moment, that is, when you move from one 

model to the next model as you are thinking through the ideas that 

you are presenting here? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, I think that is part of the—part of the conversation. And, clearly, even under congressional mandate, there 

have been changes in the—you know, in the creation of a chief operating officer responsibility of the ATO itself. There have been 

iterations coming along. So I certainly would echo the comments 

made, the safest, largest, don’t—don’t mess with the way it works. 

But you do have a challenge, I think, inside FAA that we have 

heard a lot about—from other stakeholders, about you sort of got 

this technical buildout proposition. And I mentioned the idea of, 

you know, our focus on funding. That is very important. And the 

26 

key decisions to be made, even the role—one of the weaknesses we 

have known in the Federal budget for a long time, the lack of a 

capital budgeting process. And so the—the attractiveness may be 

being able to bond this, get this, fund it, and get it built out without financial interruption. Let that happen. 

At the same time, there is a tremendous amount of work inside 

the FAA in the modernization of procedures and practices and the 

kind of training and vetting that has been discussed here today. So 

it seems to me there is plenty of work for everyone. That flip-theswitch moment, I think, is not so much a disruptive thing. I think 

it is a transition that takes place. So I think that takes time, and 

I don’t think it is anything abrupt and certainly can’t be anything 

that disrupts the functioning of what has worked well. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. 

With that, I recognize Mr. Massie for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baker, from your written and spoken testimony, it is my understanding that you are saying that the FAA’s approval process 

could be making general aviation more risky or less safe. And can 

you explain how that is? I mean what needs to change about the 

approval process? Is it taking too long to get technological improvements integrated into general aviation industry? 

Mr. BAKER. Yeah. That is exactly right. 

The idea that you have an aircraft that is 40 years old is the 

equivalent of having your car with an AM radio. The certification 

process to put an FM radio in there could take years, millions and 

millions of dollars. And the industry is saying it costs too much, it 

takes too long, and is not willing to put those upgraded products 

in these aircraft. 

Situational awareness in the aircraft is still the number one 

issue that leads to accidents. Today, the iPad has added more value 

to situational awareness than almost anything else. But if you 

were to try and install that type of equipment on an aircraft today, 

it would take millions and millions of dollars to try and do that for 

the industry, and it would take years to get it done. So there 

should be an expedited process, because we have experimental aircraft today—they have great autopilots, great gas gauges, great situational awareness, and it is done at a very low cost. So the systems have moved very quickly, and the FAA has not moved in that 

process yet. For example, in the new aircraft today, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, but you can get it done. 

Mr. MASSIE. So they need to be moving quicker. Is there anything in this FAA reauthorization that we could do in Congress to 

encourage that? 

Mr. BAKER. Yeah. We think that there could be an opportunity 

to put some of these older aircraft into a legacy program or classic 

program to try and get some of these things expedited, these safety 

items, not changing the power plant and not changing the wing, 

but putting a good panel in some of these older aircraft, make it 

safer, make it easier for people to access the airspace. It could be 

done. 

Mr. MASSIE. So while we are on the topic of technological improvements, the ADS–B adoption in general aviation, what does it 

27 

cost? What is the least costly entry point for somebody in general 

aviation to become compliant with the 2020 standard? 

Mr. BAKER. So for the ADS–B Out, which gives the pilot in the 

cockpit no information—it doesn’t give you any traffic or weather 

information, it just pings out, is about $5,000 to $6,000 is what we 

hear, installed today, on the aircraft that many are worth less than 

$25,000. 

Mr. MASSIE. So it is over 20 percent of the cost—— 

Mr. BAKER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MASSIE [continuing]. Of the aircraft as represented. 

Mr. BAKER. You get no advantage. 

Mr. MASSIE. So is it reasonable to expect some of these are going 

to be parked in hangars or boneyards and pilots who are pilots now 

aren’t going to be flying because of this? 

Mr. BAKER. That is the risk. 

Mr. MASSIE. So there needs to be a lower cost solution. What is 

your organization doing to promote this lower cost solution? 

Mr. BAKER. We are currently working with GAMA, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, and the FAA to say, is there some 

other type of portable device that could be recognized? Now, remember, the iPad wasn’t even invented when ADS–B came out. Is 

there some type of portable, lower cost device that could be like our 

cell phone that is pinging out at an adequate level for these small 

general aviation airplanes? Remember, the ADS–B certification 

calls for 9 feet of accuracy—do we really need that for a little twopassenger airplane? 

Mr. MASSIE. Got you. 

General Scovel, while we are on the subject of technology here, 

the FAA seems to be behind on issuing rulings on drones and integrating, I mean, UAS, UAV whatever we want to call them, integrating them into the airspace. How far behind are they right now? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you. They are behind, and they are behind 

the mandates established by Congress in the last reauthorization 

from 2012. 

Mr. MASSIE. So when we write this authorization, we should say 

‘‘We really mean it this time.’’ 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, yes. Absolutely. And it would certainly help 

everybody if the agency listened. 

FAA was slow in designating its test sites. Six of them were finally designated, pursuant to the congressional mandate. But we 

have found that the agency’s plans to develop data and to learn 

from the results that accrue from operations at these test sites 

have not been prepared to the agency’s satisfaction and certainly 

not to the needs of the burgeoning industry. This also includes 

gathering safety data from UAS users currently in the system and 

from the Department of Defense. FAA has a lot to learn, a long 

way to go yet. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, I wish they were here today to defend themselves or to give me an answer to the next question. But in your 

estimation, when do you think they will give us some rules? I had 

a constituent—on behalf of a constituent, I sent a letter to the FAA 

3 months ago just asking them to point me to the rules or what 

rules exist, and I still don’t have a response to that letter. But 

28 

when do you think they might come up with some rules? They are 

spending the money, I understand. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes. The so-called small UAS rule has been promised by the end of this year. I am not sure what kind of UAS your 

constituent may be interested in operating. But if it is a small 

UAS, I would say stay tuned, see what FAA can produce by the 

end of this year. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, it sounds like—Mr. Baker kind of hinted at an 

idea that could help us with drones. The accuracy, maybe we could 

relax some of the rules for accuracy. 

Yes, Captain Moak, would you like to speak on that point? 

Mr. MOAK. Yeah. There is one—one point, I think, that is being 

missed here. OK. In commercial aviation, OK, to keep it safe and 

keep our customers, our passengers safe, we need to know where 

all the planes are. 

I am confident, working with Mark and AOPA, that we are going 

to be able to achieve that. But on the points that are made down 

here, I think, I couldn’t disagree more with the analysis coming up. 

We have to be using the same principles, a certification of the 

aircraft, the remote piloted aircraft, the drone, the operator, and 

the people that are operating them as we do for airlines so that we 

have the same safety. 

Mr. MASSIE. My time has expired. But let me—let me agree with 

you. 

Mr. MOAK. All right. We have to follow the same. 

Mr. MASSIE. Look, I—having no rules doesn’t benefit the air traffic—— 

Mr. MOAK. Exactly. 

Mr. MASSIE [continuing]. Controllers, the commercial pilots, the 

general aviation pilots. Everybody is put at risk when there are no 

rules because the rest of the world is leaving us behind and you 

have commercial entities who are being encouraged or they encourage themselves to break the rules that don’t exist. And you hear 

anecdotal stories of near collisions and whatnot. So I think it is incumbent upon us to get these rules so that everybody benefits. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Massie. 

And with that, I recognize Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Perhaps a few observations I would like the panel to think about: 

First off, you know, the biggest problem relates to budgets, money 

sequestration, all of that. This year, 83 percent of all FAA operating and acquisitions is being paid for out of the trust fund. So 

you could look at it and say, well, we have got a 17-percent problem. If the trust fund can cover 100 percent, we make it mandatory 

spending, then, we are going to have these stupid issues with shutdowns and sequestration and all those sorts of things in the future. 

That would help a great deal. 

Secondly, I really want people to recommend improvements to 

FAA procurement. They are worse than the Pentagon. Now, how 

do we fix that? You know, it is always a moving target. We never 

get them to end up at a point with something that is going to work, 

too many change orders. I would like people to think about that. 

29 

We have a dispute over ADS–B In and Out schedules. We have 

a ground system, we have a mandate. Europe has a mandate. They 

have no ground system. Why can’t we harmonize those things two 

things and say Europe and the United States ought to move together. We have already worked on harmonizing the electronics. 

Why can’t we harmonize the schedule for adoption so that there 

will be real benefits to people, both in Europe and the United 

States of America? I don’t know why. I would love to hear more— 

more about that. 

And then, you know, on air traffic control, I—granted, a lot of my 

information is somewhat dated, but I went through a vigorous debate when I was ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation 

with Mr. Mica in 2006 on this issue, and I didn’t find that there 

was a safer system in the world. In fact, just before we had that 

debate, we had a mid-air collision which killed people in Europe because they were understaffed, and the one person on duty was off 

somewhere doing something. You know, that is—that is an issue. 

Secondly, when I looked at the productivity issues, we are virtually identical with Canada. And, you know, so, again, I think 

making major changes there is a steep slope. And we—but I am 

willing to have a thoughtful discussion about that. 

And, now, I will actually get to a question, which will be directed 

principally to Mr. Rinaldi. You know we have got to staff up. We 

are going to have a lot of retirements. Other policies are forcing 

even more people to consider early outs. And I read in your testimony—and, again, this is a question, what is with the FAA? Why 

do you take people who have just graduated from the Academy and 

send them to the highest level facilities and, basically, engender a 

high failure rate? And what is the—what could the rationale or advantage be? And do you think really we could have more retention 

and better trained controllers if we change that? 

Mr. RINALDI. Great question. And the simple answer is yes. We 

could have a better system and retain controllers if we—can you 

hear me? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It cut off. 

Mr. RINALDI. How about now? Can you hear me now? 

How is this? No. All mics. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I don’t have any power? Do I have power? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I have power. I got power. Do you know? Good. All 

right. 

Mr. RINALDI. Hello. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. There you go. All right. 

Mr. RINALDI. OK. It is a great question. And, yes, we could retain 

more controllers if we sent them to the lower level facilities and let 

them develop and hone their skills, than to send them to the large, 

busy, complex TRACONs that we have. Our busy TRACONs are 

struggling with staffing right now, because it has been an FAA way 

to take it somebody freshly new out of the academy and then send 

them to an Atlanta, a New York, or a Chicago and, you know, within, you know, 6 to 8 months, they are unsuccessful and they send 

them to lower level facilities. 

We have tried working with the agency for about 2 years now to 

develop a real process to develop to move the controllers at a lower 

level facilities where they are honing and developing their skills so 

30 

they can maintain the ability to do it at a high level, like, a New 

York or Atlanta or Chicago. 

We are not there yet. It is—you know, we call it ‘‘FAA speed’’ 

sometimes. We should have been done with this about a year ago 

because the new hires that are coming out of the academy—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What—what is so hard about it? 

Mr. RINALDI. Well, you are going to have to ask them what is so 

hard about it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. All right. 

Mr. RINALDI. We have some ideas. It was a drawn-out process. 

And we thought that—well, we thought we had a good plan and 

it is just—it is taking a very long time to implement it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. RINALDI. But I—You know, when you—when you take somebody straight out of academy and you send them to a busy 

TRACON, they are not—they don’t have the training program to 

teach them from—from zero—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. No. I have sat there. I have watched those 

screens. I couldn’t do it. I mean, I wouldn’t even begin to think I 

could do it. 

Mr. Calio, do you want to respond to the idea about why not 

have harmonization in terms of the schedule with Europe on ADS– 

B? Would that eliminate some of the concerns of the airlines? 

Mr. CALIO. It would not eliminate all of our concerns. This is a 

classic case of the FAA embracing the standard before they have 

reviewed the cost benefits of it and made the business case for it. 

As I said during my earlier testimony, we have made a lot of investments. We have equipment on the airplanes we can’t use now. 

Now it is mandated that we get more equipment; and we don’t 

know how it will work, whether the standards will change, whether 

the equipment will change. So harmonization is one part of it, but 

actually making it work and making sure there is a business case 

to be made for it is critical. And if you go back through all the cost 

overruns and all the failures and hiccups here, that is pretty consistently one of the problems. So it has got to be part of the process 

of how you get to where you are, where you’re just going to say, 

‘‘OK. Use this equipment and I will use this equipment.’’ 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Back to the procurement issue. 

And, Mr. Rinaldi, I mean, as I understand ADS–B, we are going 

to get—do you think it is really critical that we have updates in 

real-time, as opposed to every 7 or 8 seconds? Is this going to 

make—which is what I understand. Because you already have 

transponders. 

Mr. RINALDI. Well, the information—more accurate information 

and more timely information, especially in the interim environment 

where you can get, you know, constant en route update of airplanes 

moving at a very high speed is very, very valuable. At the lower 

level activity, as Mr. Baker was talking about, I am not sure that 

there really is a bang for our buck there, so to speak. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Graves is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

31 

And the first question is for Inspector General Scovel. In your recent ADS–B audit report, how many commercial and general aviation aircraft are going to be affected by the—you know, with the 

update? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thanks, Mr. Graves. By our account—and it is an 

estimate—220,000 general aviation aircraft are subject to the mandate. About 18,000 commercial aircraft as well. 

Mr. GRAVES. Does that include the entire existing—existing 

fleet? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Virtually. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. Is the number changed or do you anticipate them 

changing any? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Oh, certainly. They will move up and down. But we 

believe that, between now and 2020, those numbers will hold generally firm. And that is the problem, which some of my fellow witnesses have spoken to. It is the ability of the manufacturing industry to produce the equipment. It is the ability of FAA to get the 

equipment certified. It is simply time and space for aircraft owners 

to get their planes into repair facilities and repair stations so that 

those avionics boxes can be installed on the aircraft. It is a tough 

row to hoe between now and 2020. 

Mr. GRAVES. My next question is probably for Mr. Rinaldi, and 

I also want to hear from the airlines, too. But we have a situation—you know, one of the things that NextGen has always promised us was lower costs and it is going to save us money in the long 

run and we can eliminate the outdated system, which is obviously, 

you know, passing radar or radar overall. But we all know, too, 

that if—with ADS–B—— 

[Inaudible.] 

Mr. GRAVES. There we are. You can go invisible if you want to, 

if you pull that circuit breaker, with ADS–B and you have no way 

of tracking that plane. And then you hear the argument, too, well, 

we will just make the system permanent so it can never be shut 

off. But we know, in an airplane, you don’t want to have a system 

that cannot be disabled if you have—obviously, have an electrical 

failure or whatever the case may be. 

What worries me in this whole situation is, ultimately, we are 

going to be operating two systems. So we are never going to 

achieve any cost savings. And I would be very curious, you know, 

what you think, Captain, and probably, Nick, you can weigh in on 

that, too. And I would also like, Mr. Baker, if you could, too, but 

go ahead. 

Mr. MOAK. So, look, we—we have a problem here and we are 

going to be able to work through it on ADS–B implementation and 

mandates. But let’s be clear, ADS–B is revolutionary. It is what we 

need. We probably needed it 5 years ago. You have less separation. 

You can fly curved approaches. At 600 miles an hour, you go a long 

way in 7 seconds. This is where we should be going, and it is going 

to—it is going to help aviation tremendously, OK. 

So the—the few things we disagree on, what we need to do to is 

be working together to address them. Cost is one of them, we get 

it. But ADS–B is good for the airlines, it is good for the air traffic 

controllers, it is good for our customers, it is good all the way 

32 

around. We just have to work through the hiccups, not let those 

hiccups define the problem—— 

Mr. GRAVES. And I would like to address—— 

Mr. MOAK [continuing]. Define the situation. 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. The safety aspects of it, though, further. Again, are we going to operate two systems? Are we going to 

have to operate two systems? 

Mr. MOAK. We—we do—we always do that. It is a transition 

phase. From the NDB, which you have flown, sir—from the NDB 

to the VOR to the tack end of the VOR for the military folks, we 

normally have two systems. It is rarely you can ever have a light 

switch on this. 

And, again, that is part of—that is part of this transformative 

issue. It is not in 1 day. It is over a little piece of time, so—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. 

Mr. MOAK. And you will have cost savings when you are fully implemented. 

Mr. GRAVES. I will go ahead and hear from Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. You know the concern that we have, with general 

aviation airplanes, is the cost related to the benefit. And this is just 

to get ADS–B Out. ADS–B In, which we think can be advantageous 

to have some better weather in the cockpit when using some other 

type of tablet device or some other device, would be a benefit. And 

having traffic inside the cockpit, we see as a long-term benefit. It 

is simply how long will it take to get the benefit? 

And I do think you are right, Mr. Graves, that we are going to 

be operating two systems for a long time. And that was a big part 

of the initiative to save money here. So part of the cost-benefit for 

the Government, I think, is probably not accurate today. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Calio. 

Mr. CALIO. You know, I should have stated early on that we believe that ADS–B is the cornerstone of NextGen. There are issues 

that I have laid out and that Captain Moak addressed that we 

need to work through with the FAA. The call-to-action meeting 

they had earlier—I guess it was last month now—was a good start, 

but there are still those issues that have to be resolved in order 

to achieve any cost savings, increased safety down the line. 

And in terms of two systems, yes. As Captain Moak said, we always do. But once we get past all that, we will have a much better 

system, assuming we can work out the problems. 

Mr. GRAVES. And, Mr. Rinaldi. I know my time has expired, but 

I would like to hear from you on this. 

Mr. RINALDI. I think that you are always going to have two systems. To think that we are going to shut down a radar system in 

this country after the tragic events of 9/11 and that somebody will 

be able to shut off their ADS–B transponder and that we won’t be 

able to track airplanes. And I think that, you know, ADS–B is— 

shows tremendous amount of value. But we can—we have to have 

necessary redundancy of our radar system, also. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Mr. Capuano is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

33 

Gentlemen, I am about to get on a plane for the fifth time in 9 

days. I just want to make sure it is safe, right? We are good? 

Mr. RINALDI. Yes. And thank you. 

Mr. MOAK. Yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Yeah. We are paying for it. I have been listening 

to this. I don’t think I have heard almost anything I disagree with, 

as far as where we want to go. You know, we have a good system. 

We have to make it better. That is natural. That is American. That 

is good. That is a good progress. 

I get a little problem, though. Everything I know that I want to 

make better about myself and my family and everything, costs 

money. Somebody has to pay for it. And we—I think I heard everybody in agreement that we are short on funds. But I am not sure 

that I heard anybody say where we should get those funds. So does 

anybody have any suggestions, because I would like to hear them? 

Yes, Captain. 

Mr. MOAK. I have one thing I want to say. We do need to give 

the FAA, or encourage the FAA, or structure the FAA to be able 

to use private enterprise business principles when they are putting 

in an infrastructure program like this. 

You know, to have them doing what they are doing with one 

armed tied behind their back and criticizing them—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. I hear—I understand that, and I appreciate that, 

Captain. 

Mr. MOAK. But that saves—that save money and that reduces 

the funding gap which—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, I need a little more explanation than that. 

I love those generic terms that business can do everything better 

than anybody else. And they sound good, and they really fit on a 

bumper sticker, and they are good on political commercials. I am 

not sure what you mean by that. 

What are the political—I mean, I read, you know, Mr. Engler— 

Governor Engler’s testimony, and I agree with him. AT&T has, in 

his example, rightfully improved their business model. It cost them 

a fortune to do it. It costs a lot of money to go from middle tape 

system to a new 4G system. Somebody had to pay for it. In AT&T’s 

case, it was some shareholders, but mostly expanding their business footprint and charging me more, which is fine. That is America and that is the way it works. 

How are we going to expand our footprint with more people flying and how are we going to charge them more and keep them flying? Because if we don’t do that, even private businesses have to 

make money? It is all well and good. If you are telling me there 

is that much waste in the FAA, I would love to hear where. And 

I am not saying there isn’t. But show me the numbers. 

Mr. MOAK. No. But—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Generic statements are fine, but I need numbers. 

Mr. MOAK. Congressman, we are happy to provide it for you from 

the Air Line Pilots Association, working with A4A and BRT. OK. 

But stabilized funding, in a funding shortfall, it is a little different. You can’t be working up and then, all of a sudden, have all 

funds shut down on an—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Captain, I agree with you. I voted against the sequester. 

34 

Mr. MOAK. All right. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So you are talking to the wrong guy. I think there 

are some other people here you got to talk to. 

Mr. MOAK. All right. Well, I didn’t mean it like that. But I also 

want to point out that occasionally some of these cell phones, not 

to name any names, still drop calls, despite the infrastructure improvements they put in. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, they are trying to improve, too. But as they 

improve—— 

Mr. MOAK. Right. 

Mr. CAPUANO [continuing]. It is costing them money. All I am 

saying is, we want to get NextGen and all the other things we are 

talking—somebody has to pay for it. It is either going to be taxpayers directly, or it is going to be people who use airplanes, the 

customer. Who else? Who else is going to do? 

And if it is the customer, let’s not pretend that by us, the Government, saying that we are going to expend money and simply 

have somebody else charge you for it, that that is not a tax. It is. 

I am not against that, but I don’t want to kid myself. If Government takes action and costs somebody money, that is either a direct or an indirect tax. Call it whatever you want. And that includes, if you raise the cost of my airplane ticket because a private 

company is now running it, it is no longer a tax. Now, it is just 

business cost. Well, that is kind of what we do. 

So who is going to pay for this? And I am all for it. And, by the 

way, I guess it is pretty appropriate that I am on the far left of 

this panel. I am not afraid of that. But for me, honesty is more important than anything else. If we are going to keep up and improve, someone has to pay for it. 

Are any of you willing to say that someone should pay for it? And 

I am particularly interested, are you willing to say somebody other 

than somebody else should pay for it? 

Mr. MOAK. Well, I will say—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Are you willing to help pay for it? 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, in fact, let me take a shot at it, Mr. Chairman. A little bit of clarity on this from the perspective maybe of 

some of our CEOs. One, just—just in doing the buildout, if—I believe the Federal Government ought to have a captain budget process, so I—and that is something pretty much every State has. I 

worked for that as a Governor in Michigan. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I am in. I am in. 

Mr. ENGLER. Companies have that. And the way you do a big 

CAPEX project, which is what NextGen is, at least in terms of 

technology, you would go out and say, what is the—so there is— 

we are going to use this system for a lot of years. So you—you do 

a bond issue. You would get the money there and, then, you would 

go out and carefully invest that money, and in—in your—you 

wouldn’t try and go—and Captain Moak just touched on that—you 

can’t stop and start. That is expensive. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Governor, I am a former mayor. I am all for capital—— 

Mr. ENGLER. So I have got some money because I am going to 

do a better job more efficiently of spending, my money on the 

project. We heard the testimony from General Scovel about overVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\11-18-~1\91293.TXT JEAN
35 

runs, and Mr. DeFazio talked about acquisition. We can do that 

better. There is more money to be saved there. But, bottom line, 

there is also, as you heard, an array of multiple different taxes that 

are being collected. 

We are suggesting that there is a way, among the stakeholders, 

to look at that, look at what other nations have done. Are there 

ways to make that an equitable outcome? Of course you have to 

pay for it. And we, as the flying public, Members of Congress who 

fly more than most in the public, you pay every time you fly. 

And what we are saying is, can we economize the dollar you are 

paying to make it go and get a dollar’s worth of value, not 85 cents. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I am all for that. But in the final analysis, we are 

going to need more money to keep it up—to catch up now. 

Mr. ENGLER. Yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And if it is a capital bond, fine. But when we are 

finished with NextGen, there will be something else. 

Drones are the next thing coming. I know, at some point, drones 

are going to be, you know, delivering my Chinese food. I know that. 

But I also know another thing, I know Captain Moak and his people need to see those drones and we are going to have to come up 

with a system that will allow you to do it and that is going to cost 

money, too. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for indulging me. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

With that, I recognize Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding 

this important hearing on reauthorization, having been through 

several of them. 

Probably one of my main concerns is our lack of progress on 

NextGen. First bill we—that I helped author, we worked on it—in 

the last bill, we worked on it. And, unfortunately, I think NextGen 

is either in the stall or reverse, and that is not acceptable. 

Inspector General Scovel, is the lack of funding, has that been 

the major problem in not moving forward with NextGen? 

Mr. SCOVEL. From our work, Mr. Mica, we don’t think a lack of 

funding has been a problem. Certainly, the timing perhaps of that 

funding, the steady stream of funding. But I think that is different 

from a lack of funding. 

In fact, in the past, the Congress has been generous even exceeding the administration’s request specifically for NextGen. 

Mr. MICA. And I think that is the case. Well, somehow FAA is 

not getting it together. 

And the other thing, too, is, in order for NextGen to be implemented, everybody here has to have some benefit by—the airlines 

have to have a benefit; right? Mr. Calio? 

Mr. CALIO. Yes. Clearly. It is a point we have made over and 

over. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Baker? 

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Need a benefit. We don’t see it today. 

Mr. MICA. And the pilots? Mr. Moak? 

Mr. MOAK. NextGen is the future. We need to keep moving forward. 

36 

Mr. MICA. Governor, do you know anything in business that—or 

business aviation that doesn’t look for some benefit to—to a new 

system or expenditures they are called on to make? 

Mr. ENGLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. ENGLER. We want to get rid of those holes. 

Mr. MICA. Somehow there is a disconnect. I don’t—I don’t think 

we are headed in the right direction. We have got to turn this 

around. And, actually, everybody who is at the table—I didn’t get 

to you, Paul, or Mr. Rinaldi. Air traffic controllers who use the system, it has to benefit them, too; right? 

Mr. RINALDI. Absolutely. 

Mr. MICA. Right. Right. I saw my late and the great staff director, Mr. Coon, sitting back there texting, which I have told him not 

to do during the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

But he and I—I remember leaving aviation. We both sort of 

wiped our forehead when I chaired that one. When I left as chairman, we sort of wiped our forehead. And it was a sigh of relief that 

there had been no major aircraft—passenger aircraft—this is in 

large aircraft that we had had a disaster, like the one we had in, 

was it, November of 2001 after 9/11. 

Now, we did have small commuter and regional aircraft. Mr.— 

the late Mr. Oberstar and I and others, we worked—Mr. DeFazio 

isn’t here—to do commuter safety, and we have done good there. 

But I am telling you guys, the clock is ticking. It is going to happen. It can be an air traffic controller. It can be a pilot error. There 

is no reason the United States should not have the most advanced 

air traffic control system in the world, and we do not have it. 

Mr. Rinaldi, have you been to Canada? 

Mr. RINALDI. I have. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Canada is about one-tenth our size, but they— 

they have a system. They are already placing themselves—they 

will have satellite capacity. We should be ahead of the game on 

this thing. But maybe it is going to take a disaster to wake people 

up to this. We cannot backslide on NextGen. So that is just one 

point. 

In the mean—did you want to comment? 

Mr. MOAK. Yes, sir. Congressman Mica, I also represent the pilots of Canada. And although NAV CANADA is a system we should 

be looking at, I just want to point out that I have also had to represent pilots that have had major aircraft accidents up there. And 

in this pay-to-play mode, we have to be mindful that some of their 

airports in the northern part, they don’t—under that system, they 

don’t have the most advanced systems. So—— 

Mr. MICA. But they are adopting to that faster than we are and 

will still soon have that if they have that capability. And it is 

placed from a satellite rather than a radar-based system. So that 

is my point, is we have got to—we have got to stay ahead of that 

game. 

You don’t want to pick anything that is outmoded as a technology. What you want to have in place is the technology that— 

that gives us the best coverage. And we will probably—as was tesVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\11-18-~1\91293.TXT JEAN
37 

tified, we will probably always have to have the backup systems because we have had and we want to maintain the safest. 

But I am telling you, don’t—we all need to gather again together—maybe not Mr. Scovel—but this group here can make it 

happen. We have got to pay for it, and some of it—it has been 

mostly about an 80–20 proposition. I would like to see that more 

self-paying. And I don’t think there should be a war between the 

airlines and the airports. We need the facilities. Our airports need 

to be expanded across this country to be able to accommodate the 

aircraft that we have coming into play. 

So one last thing: Do you all find out who are representatives to 

ICAO? Who is the Ambassador to ICAO? 

Mr. MOAK. Senator Lawson. 

Mr. MICA. OK. OK. There should never be an air—ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization up in Montreal controls all the 

rules, the international rules. There should be—never be a passenger aircraft that takes off in the United States or anywhere in 

the world—this sets the world standards—that we don’t know 

where that is. What happened with Malaysia Air 370 should never 

happen. We should know where every aircraft is. 

It is the United States responsibility to take the lead in the 

international organization. I want all of you to write the Ambassador and say, ‘‘We need to pass in ICAO a rule that no passenger 

aircraft should ever be lost.’’ OK. So that is one of the larger pictures. This should never happen again. 

Am I out of time? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yup. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, I have been out of time for some time. Thank 

you. I will submit—just—just to be nice and not embarrass anyone, 

I will submit the rest of the questions later. I did want Mr. Baker 

to address the falling number of single-engine piston-powered aircraft and number of pilots in the United States. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I believe he did that in his testimony. 

Mr. BAKER. Yes, I did. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So we have got that in the record. 

With that, Ms. Norton is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

I have a cold. 

I agree with Mr. Mica. In the present environment, it may take 

a catastrophe to move this along. It is a good thing this wasn’t— 

this hearing wasn’t called ‘‘Progress on NextGen’’ because you have 

had nothing but setbacks. And it is time you were candid with the 

public and with this committee. It is murder flying today. It is 

murder. Because more people are trying to fly and you are having 

to be more and more cautious. That is what we need to tell the 

American people. 

I had high hopes for NextGen because of the economic effects in 

our own country and because of what it means for our place in the 

world. But you have operated within an environment where— 

where you—you had to stop major NextGen programs where, you 

know, the environment of 20,000-plus furloughs, half a billion dollar cuts in operation, hiring freezes. You know—you know, somebody needs to be candid here and—and tell the public what I think 

the gravamen of your testimony is here. 

38 

Now, Captain Moak said, ‘‘Proceed cautiously.’’ God, I wish we 

were proceeding at all. ‘‘Proceed cautiously to a new system.’’ This 

2020 date that was set some time ago is a fiction. And what we 

need to tell the public, don’t we, is that they are going to have— 

we are going to be living with the present system for the foreseeable future. 

Mr. Scovel, you are an inspector general. You are—you are supposed to tell the truth here. I mean, isn’t that, in effect, what the 

testimony amounts to today and what the present lack of progress 

has meant? 

Mr. SCOVEL. There are some very tight wickets to be run between now and 2020. 

Ms. NORTON. Some very what? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Tight wickets, in other words, for industry and for 

FAA to get—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about on the public side. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I am sorry. I misunderstood. 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about on the public side. The public 

side has to be a partner to whatever wickets the private side is trying to run. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes. And by public, if you mean the FAA and what 

it must do in order to provide these enhanced air traffic control 

services to our national airspace, absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. So this is a system you got and what I am asking 

you to do is to make the system we have got as safe as you can. 

Because you really can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me 

and tell the American public that the way we are going to get out 

of this is we are going to move to a new system, you know, the system which has high hopes, less delays, less environmental impacts, 

because we are not going to do that any time soon. 

Yes, sir, Captain Moak. 

Mr. MOAK. Just in case I—I gave the wrong impression: Our system for our customers and for our pilots, for our crewmembers is 

the safest system in the world. 

Ms. NORTON. OK. I am not questioning your safety. 

Mr. MOAK. It’s very safe. 

Ms. NORTON. I am telling you this—look, I don’t even have to fly 

the way my colleagues do it. But when I do fly, I see what is happening. I can’t imagine what they see. 

Mr. MOAK. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. It is murder, because more and more people want 

to fly in more and more crowded skies. I believe we have a safe system. I know it, because you slow things down to make it safe. 

Mr. MOAK. And the—the other thing I wanted to add on the safe 

system is many of—NextGen is not defined by the 2020 mandate. 

It is not defined by ADS–B. NextGen is a work in progress, and 

many of the benefits of NextGen have already come online. And I 

think that is getting missed there. In fact, in my—— 

Ms. NORTON. Captain Moak, the FAA and nobody here is even 

willing to give us a target date for when the—we could say we have 

now made the transition and we have moved to NextGen. 

Mr. MOAK. Well, many here—— 

Ms. NORTON. Isn’t that the case? 

Mr. MOAK. Well, I would say—— 

39 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, for most programs—for most programs in 

our country, we at least have a target date. And if you don’t have 

a target date, then it does seem to me your goal should be to keep 

the system we have because that is a system we are going to have 

for some time—Mr. Scovel didn’t object to that characterization, 

and to keep it as safe as it can with whatever slow down, telling 

the public, ‘‘Yes, there will be slowdowns. But you have to understand that these slowdowns are to keep you safe.’’ It is better to 

have that kind of candor than to have people being angry at the 

airports when you tell them that they can’t get someplace when— 

when we were supposed to get someplace. 

Now, I am not chastising the private sector. I know who is to 

blame here. But I am saying, now that we know what the atmosphere is like, be candid with the public so that the public does not 

expect anything but slowdowns for the foreseeable future. 

If anybody objects to that, speak now or forever hold your peace. 

Mr. MOAK. I—I can’t let that stand like that, because, you know, 

the on-time records, the improvements, the safety, that is not a 

characteristic of our U.S. aviation system. We are working. It is 

never going to be a finite date that everything is done because it 

will be constantly improving all along. 

The nuance problems we are working through here as a team, we 

will always work through them. So I would say it was a 

mischaracterization of the U.S. airline industry. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. The lady’s time has expired. 

I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask a question. 

I think it is pretty apparent that the process doesn’t work like 

it should. We obviously have the safest airspace in the world—the 

biggest, largest airspace in the world. But when you look at Mr. 

Engler’s example of AT&T and you can look at i—or Apple, in the 

last 7 years, they have had eight phones, eight iterations. We are now, at the FAA, spending $115 million on an—on an information system, flight information system, that they are projecting to be done in 2025. There will be probably 10 more iPhones 

out before the FAA gets there. And those are the kind of things 

that is it is just apparent the process is broken, when you look 

back over the last 3 decades in the 10, 11 different pieces of legislation and Executive orders that said, ‘‘Let’s get this done.’’ And I am 

sure that—you know, as Michael Huerta, who I think has done 

some good over at the FAA. But if you look back, I am sure you 

are going to find every FAA Administrator saying, ‘‘We are moving 

in the right direction.’’ But, you know, they are moving at a snail’s 

pace. 

And so to Mr. Mica’s point of view, we have got to get these 

things up and running. And the process doesn’t work. And we all— 

I think, it is apparent that the money starting and stopping is a 

huge problem. 

So, Governor Engler, coming from—you all represent businesses. 

But as a user, as somebody that looks at this and needs this airspace, that needs this system to work efficiently and with the benefit of how your company is operating in a technology world, a new 

governance model, how do you envision that working, not only from 

the process, but also from the funding side? And I know you have 

talked about it a little bit—— 

40 

Mr. ENGLER. Sure. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. But I won’t interrupt you and I will 

let you lay it all out. 

Mr. ENGLER. Well, at least some of the thinking is to examine 

these stakeholders, and many of us are at the table here today. 

Others are not, but would—would want to be included. And—and 

it really is a question of stakeholders coming together. 

And nobody has made any decisions on exactly how—what a 

funding model would look like. That has always been a sticking 

point in the past. I mean, that is when it gets hard, when you start 

putting money. And that has been referenced here. 

But, you know, one of the other Members was pressing us on 

money. There is a lot of money in the system, and so—and there 

is a recognition there still are airport needs out there. And that— 

so this separating this out, that is one of the reasons some of the 

work we have been doing is really trying to understand what funding models might look like, what options might be there, but not 

trying to get into that conversation. Because that really is—my 

sense has been, given the size of the committee, the complexity of 

the issue, if you can’t get all the stakeholders together, we are not 

going to be able to show up here and be very successful. So that 

is going to be really, really important. 

On the governance side, the same thing is true. The people who 

are putting up the funds who have an interest in this working, be 

they pilots, be they the controllers, be they certainly the commercial airlines themselves, general aviation, all will want a seat— 

need a seat at the table for that. There is sort of a model that was 

used up in Canada in terms of bringing the stakeholders together. 

Now, that—that really is only on sort of building out the system, 

the things, the technologies. 

The other very key part of this never leaves the FAA, it is the 

whole—the safety regulations there. And I made reference to, you 

sort of have today the regulator, the decisionmaker on the technologies designed to enhance safety also being the decisionmaker 

on safety itself. 

And so there is an inherent kind of conflict that exists, if you 

will. And what works well, I think, is some separation. The agency 

still has got all of the safety responsibility, plus they have got all 

of the operational responsibilities which are—I mean, these captains they have challenging jobs, because they have got these 

manuals of technical specifications. You have to comply with how 

you fly. 

And the reason we are the safest in the world, if they find, I 

don’t know if there is a different way to deal with wind shear, I 

mean, an edict goes out and pilots are almost retrained instantly 

on that in the commercial space. Controllers have a lot of technical 

things they are in charge of, and the agency is way behind on some 

of this stuff. And, frankly, an agency that was really focused laserlike on getting caught up there, so that as new technology was 

available and could be deployed, it would be an agency that would 

be really working well. 

So I actually think, in this case, kind of realigning these responsibilities a little bit, so that everybody is doing what they are best 

41 

at doing, and picking up the pace, we get to a better place for the 

Nation’s air traffic system. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Governor. And I think you made a 

good point there, which is maybe we need to be looking at all of 

these other different systems around the world and how they do 

things. The one number from NAV CAN that just actually jumped 

off the page at me was that we are nine times the size of the Canadian airspace. We spend 20 times as much in CAPEX as they do. 

And from what I have seen, and Chairman Mica has been up there, 

and their technology has advanced ours, and they are spending a 

lot less money getting technology and getting it out there quicker. 

So I think that is something that, you know, we need to put up 

there and pay attention to. 

With that, I will yield 5 minutes to Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a new member of 

the committee, I have to say, this is one of the rare areas when 

I came on the committee 2 years ago, when I said oh, my God, this 

is a triple win. If we get NextGen right, we are helping with safety, 

we won’t lose planes—which I was told we don’t lose planes, but 

now we know we do. It has happened, it is better for the environment, and it is beer for communities. We don’t need to expand our 

runways as much. 

We need to find a way to get this done. So it seems to me there 

are two different issues: One is the funding and one is the timing. 

The benefits don’t really accrue until we have a critical mass who 

have the equipment in place. So I think we need to be looking at, 

Mr. Chairman, a carrot-and-stick model. When we have the cost of 

borrowing near zero, we absolutely need to find a way right now 

to do this with American technology that sets the standard for the 

world. 

And one way to do that is set a date certain by which all equipment must be retrofitted, and there are heavy penalties beyond 

that, and then you set together a funding corpus that you borrow 

from. But anybody who wants to be the late one to the table, to 

be the free rider, they are going to pay heavily. And that seems to 

me a way to help engage the market and engage Wall Street in setting out that money. The Federal Government ought to partner, 

but we need to set a realistic timeframe and a very heavy incentive 

to comply by that timeframe. 

That will bring the cost of the technology down, and we would 

get it done before 2025. This is ridiculous; we should not have to 

wait that long. And clearly, we are going to need more iterations. 

But we risk the real opportunity right now that not only are we 

behind, but that other countries are going to develop and sell the 

technology to the world and the standard. And that is foolish. We 

should not do that. 

Our citizens deserve the safety. Our communities deserve to have 

cleaner air. It is better for the environment. We deserve to not be 

chewing up land we do not need to, and we should get this done 

faster. So if anyone would care to opine on whether we think what 

kind of timeframe is realistic. If we could get the money together 

to borrow from over time, what is the time period by which realistically we could say, you have to retrofit or have new equipment to 

meet this model? 

42 

Mr. CALIO. Congresswoman, if you are suggesting that it is—are 

you talking about the airline’s need to retrofit? 

Ms. ESTY. Yes. 

Mr. CALIO. Well, I think here it is a very complicated question, 

or more complicated question. We have deadlines. We have had 

deadlines in the past. We have met the deadlines. We have invested money. There is $6 billion in the trust fund right now that 

is unallocated. We have the money, really. The problem lies in the 

processes, and making sure that the equipment works, and making 

sure that there is a return on the investment for the equipment. 

It is far more than that. I mean, just setting a deadline I don’t 

believe, with all due respect, is going to do anything. We have a 

deadline for 2020 on ADS–B, and yet, we are not harmonized with 

the world. The case hasn’t been made that there is going to be a 

return on investment for the people who are being forced to invest 

in it. Meanwhile we are flying around on aircraft, we have aircraft 

in our fleets that has equipment on it that we can’t use because 

the procedures are not in place to use it. It is a very frustrating 

situation. 

Ms. ESTY. Well, then, one of those pieces that we could—to realize the benefits—obviously, we are talking about sort of these unrealized or unrecognized benefits. How do we incorporate that into 

the system so that, in fact, they are realized, or the incentive is 

there such that they do get realized by those who currently find it 

not to be in their interest? 

Mr. MOAK. So, Congresswoman, we are making progress. You 

know, it doesn’t lend itself in the time that we have here, but if 

you go out to greener strides in Seattle, for example, they concentrated on that. They brought it on line. It saves emissions. It 

saves fuel. It is a safe operation. And they are trying to replicate 

that all over the United States. The Houston metroplex, they 

brought that on line. Great job there. 

And again, I want to stress what I said earlier: The airlines have 

trained the pilots; the controllers are trained; we are working 

through procedures with the controllers; the airlines have invested; 

and the FAA continues to work, but again, private enterprise management principles applied in the public sector with the FAA; stabilized and consistent funding; all of those things allows them to 

do a better job. Right now they are working with their hand tied 

behind their back, I believe. 

Mr. ENGLER. I think that your summation is excellent. I mean, 

you say how do you kind of make these pieces and sequence them 

to get them all to work. But there is a point in there that you really touched on that deserves to be picked up a little bit more, and 

that is on these procedures that Captain Moak just referred, that 

Nick Calio just referred to, that one of the recommendations of the 

Management Advisory Committee, and this was unanimous recommendation, is give these stakeholders more of a role in helping 

to prioritize what procedures need to come when so that we can get 

those done, because some are high value, high payoff, pretty quick 

return. Others have a little bit longer tail. And I think that kind 

of—this is what I think General Scovel will tell you about in terms 

of performance management. I mean, normally all of us would in 

our offices or in our enterprises, do it by order of priority. 

43 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

Mr. Meadows is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Scovel, let me come to you because sitting in your exact seat, 

we have had people before this committee with the FAA, and both 

the Administrator, and the person in charge of making sure that 

NextGen gets implemented. And when we asked for deadlines, we 

asked for timeframes, I see sweat pop out on their brow, and really, 

the plan to get it implemented, there is not an answer. And you 

said it was a very tight wicket. I made the analogy it is like getting 

a bowling ball through a wicket. 

And what degree of confidence on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 

being most confident, do you have in the FAA’s ability to implement most of this thing and meet the target deadlines that have 

been reestablished? I might add, these are not the first deadlines. 

These are multiple deadlines. On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident 

are you, and would you place your job based on that rating? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, that is a tall order, sir. And when I mentioned 

tight wickets, I was referring specifically to the time between now 

and the mandate in 2020 for airspace users to equip. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. ADS–B Out equipage. What happens after that is 

anyone’s guess. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we are going to invest billions of dollars on 

anyone’s game or guess? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, but I do agree with Captain Moak that it is essential, it is necessary, and it is achievable. It is a question of 

enough time and proper procedures. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, it is achievable that I can run a marathon, 

but it is not real likely that it is going to happen in the near future, too. I mean, so from a timeframe standpoint, when do the 

stakeholders start to get counting on our timeframe so that they 

can make the proper investments? As a business guy, it concerns 

me greatly that we are spending millions and billions of dollars to 

have equipment and training ready, and yet, we are not doing our 

part on the Federal Government side. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, let me just take the January 2020 mandate. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Realizing everything that needs to be done there in 

terms of automation platform renewal and modernization, ERAM 

is supposed to be completed—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL [continuing]. In 2015, right? STARS is supposed to 

be completed several years after that, DataComm is supposed to be 

coming on in 2019, the need to develop procedures and training for 

all of the controllers, the need for enough of the fleet that is going 

to use the system to equip so that we can have end-to-end testing. 

Without the end-to-end testing, we can’t be sure that it is going to 

operate as intended. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. And all of that by 2020? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I am less than 5. And I would say, probably, we 

don’t have until 4.5 years from now in order to judge. We may have 

44 

a year and a half, 2 years, because by the time the whole thing 

comes out of service to equip, we won’t have time to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That is right. So let me shift to Europe then, because they are in the middle of an ATC modification as well, and 

they are taking a different approach, which is saying make sure 

that all of the stakeholders have all of the stuff, and yet they are 

not going to make their deadlines either. So would you say that our 

approach is better than their approach? It is a softball. 

Mr. SCOVEL. In terms of? 

Mr. MEADOWS. In terms of ultimately getting what the airline industry, and what air travellers need, is it a better approach to 

make sure the stakeholders are equipped first, or is it better that 

we do what we need to be doing on the part of ground installation, 

et cetera? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Well, the ground installation is done. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Which one is better? 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is about one-third of the equation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. We still have a long way to go. 

Mr. MEADOWS. In the training and other implementation. 

Mr. SCOVEL. And the stakeholder—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So is our process or Europe’s process better? I 

need you on the record to tell me which one is better. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Oh, let’s see. We are going to make ours work, and 

it is going to be done right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So is ours better? 

Mr. SCOVEL. For now, for us. We have to take into account our 

stakeholders. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It sounds like you are running for office. That is 

a political answer. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I am trying to avoid any kind of policy input because I know that is the committee’s—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am asking you that. I am asking you a direct 

question. Would it be better that we get rid of the process we are 

having and adopt theirs? OK. 

Mr. SCOVEL. By process, are you referring specifically to the—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, their emphasis is more on the stakeholders. 

I would assume that your answer is no. 

Mr. SCOVEL. No. We have to have an emphasis on stakeholders. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. 

And with that, Mr. Lipinski is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

I wanted to first ask Mr. Calio and Mr. Baker, we were talking 

already about the issue with ADS–B Out and incentives for installation of those. Let me ask specifically two things: Would financial 

incentives be enough? And/or should there be a greater use of best 

equipped, best served policy that the FAA uses? What are your 

thoughts on those? 

Mr. CALIO. From our perspective, the airlines for America, the 

best incentive would be to provide equipment and a process by 

which we can employ the equipment and see a return on investment that the cost would not outweigh any benefits. 

45 

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Nothing more specific than that, OK. 

Mr. Baker. 

I understand that. 

Mr. CALIO. We don’t need a loan guarantee to invest in equipment if we know the equipment is going to work, and that we can 

use it and get our passengers to their destinations faster and more 

efficiently and safely than we do right now. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. For the general aviation marketplace, we are open 

to anything that helps lower the cost for installation. The general 

aviation marketplace has been under siege for years and years, and 

we are driving, on average, 40-year-old aircraft. So if there is a way 

to look at, you know, what are the other choices between either a 

portable device, some type of financial setup, anything that helps 

lower the cost for general aviation, we would want to consider it. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Rinaldi, what are NATCA’s thoughts on the 

current best equipped, best served policy? 

Mr. RINALDI. Well, the FAA is not doing the best equipped, best 

served. We are still on the first-come-first-serve, but obviously, we 

are not going to you know, put a Cessna that is flying at 110 knots 

in front of an Airbus 380 that is doing 170 on approach. We are 

going to move that Cessna out of the way because it is safe and 

orderly. Best equipped, best served would work. The problem really 

comes, Congressman, when it is mixed equipage, and if we don’t 

have a high number of aircraft equipped, then we can have the 

greatest procedures in the world, but we are going to have to reduce it to the lowest common denominator to continue to run a safe 

and efficient flow. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. I want to move on to another issue. As 

many of you know, Midway Airport is in my district and suffered 

from thousands of canceled flights after the fire at the Aurora in 

or out center. 

Mr. Rinaldi, I would like to express my appreciation for your 

hard work at NATCA, and also my appreciation for what PASS did, 

and the work you put into keeping our system running and to get 

Aurora facility back in line. I know it was a 24/7 operation and 

years of work were completed in less than a month, and I commend 

the collaborative, innovative, and diligent effort that was undertaken to manage and remedy that situation. 

Mr. Rinaldi, I understand that NATCA, PASS, and the FAA 

work collaboratively in a working group to identify recommendations to keep systems on line, but there is still a fix-or-fail strategy 

in place. I am interested to learn about the status of these collaborative efforts, what recommendations have been made, and whether you believe that the recommendations will be adopted, and will 

finalizing NextGen mitigate the effects of emergencies that may 

occur in the future? 

Mr. RINALDI. Well, we were excited to participate with the panel 

with the FAA and PASS and other stakeholders. It is still in its 

infancy stage. We did put it all together, and it is in the process 

of the review to go through the Department of Transportation at 

this time. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And, additionally, looking specifically at the—I 

know that the IG is still examining the security protocols at the 

46 

Chicago area facilities, but I am interested in learning more about 

what we need to do for the system as a whole. For instance, the 

fire suppression system at Aurora used water to put out the fire. 

And while that did work to put out the fire, I am wondering whether there is a need to look in all alternative suppression systems 

that could effectively handle fires to save lives without compromising the equipment? Are there other fixes that can be made, Mr. 

Rinaldi, or Mr. Scovel, if you have any answer on that one? 

Mr. RINALDI. Yeah, I believe the security panel in which we also 

participated is looking at all options, and they are making their 

recommendations and phoning them up. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Lipinski, we will be looking at what the agency’s current plans are and also what they intend to proceed with. 

So I can’t at this point give you a definitive answer to your question. But it clearly is a significant concern for the agency going forward, and along with the safe integration of UAS into the airspace, 

this will have huge ramifications for the FAA. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

I think all our Members have questioned. I just want to thank 

the—oops. I always forget you, Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. You know—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Davis, I will give you 6 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. Thank you. You sit in the chair, you 

give the guy a break, and I said I wasn’t going to give it back up 

but you see who actually gets the chair back, and then he forgets 

me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I have just used 

my extra minute too, Nick. 

But I do want to start with Mr. Calio, and also give Mr. Baker 

and Mr. Rinaldi a chance to answer this. I know you touched on 

the edges of the $5 billion to $6 billion NextGen investment that 

the GAO reported, but there is little confidence, as I think we have 

seen and heard through testimony in this hearing, among the 

stakeholders and FAA’s ability to implement NextGen. Where is 

that disconnect, and what return on investment is the taxpayer 

seeing from that process? And Mr. Calio, if you could just even expand a little bit more on what you have already talked about on 

that issue, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. CALIO. Thank you. Congressman Davis, there are, as Captain Moak pointed out, there are benefits that already being realized. In certain areas we have put in place procedures where 

planes can get in quicker and take off faster. More clearly needs 

to be done though, the return on investment will come, I think 

when the—or we think when the procedures or the business processes as Captain Moak has referenced and Governor Engler addressed are put in place. 

Our problem is, the system as it is currently structured and operated does not have, if you—the question came from, I can’t remember which Member—if you were making a capital expenditure as 

a business, you would look at your return on investment, your return on capital. You would have your process laid out over long 

term. You know, you would approach it probably incrementally, 

which has not always happened with the FAA. You need those kind 

of business-like, private-sector decisions. It is not a general knock 

47 

on Government; it is just that we have not been doing that. And 

we have seen the embrace of technologies often that weren’t ready, 

the standards set the wrong ways, and with very little input with 

the stakeholders most affected. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Calio. 

Mr. Rinaldi. 

Mr. RINALDI. I think we have to look at some of the successes 

we do have, and although the FAA, and maybe even Congress 

doesn’t even want to talk about transforming our platforms, our en 

route modernization platforms and our terminal platforms. The 

first things, they are the chassis in which we are going to attach 

a lot of the NextGen technology to, we are making progress with 

that. And we should be done with the en route, what we would call 

ERAM, in 2015, and the terminal automation, and STARS replacement by 2018. 

Now, you have those on and then you can actually start attaching the technology and the ADS–B, and the SWIM, the information 

systems and start bringing them on line. You know, my frustration 

is that we are still the safest and most efficient, and we are working very hard and very collaboratively to modernize the system, 

and we are doing it piece by piece. We have revamped the whole 

State of Texas airspace, basically. We did what we call OAPM, optimizing the airspace in Houston. It is a huge success. The airlines 

are seeing benefits from it. You know, optimization of departures 

and arrivals. We now have rolled it out in north Texas also. Texas 

is a big State. It is big airspace. A lot of airplanes. So we did that. 

So now we have a playbook to move forward. It is not a flip of the 

switch or a snap of the fingers. We still have to continue the legacy 

system and run it as safe and efficiently as possible while we are 

doing this. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right, Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, when we think about general aviation aircraft, 

if it makes sense, people will adapt. 

We think there is probably close to 80 or 90 percent of the people 

today using some type of a GPS to move around and navigate with, 

whether it be portable or panel-mounted. People are starting to use 

a tablet, namely the iPad, in very significant ways to get weather 

and traffic in the cockpit at low altitudes. When there is a value, 

when people can see that you are getting something significantly 

better with which to fly the aircraft, people adapt. 

We are just asking for this to be considered: what is the lowest 

possible cost to do that so that we get that adaptation across the 

system? 

We are in favor of ADS–B where it makes sense. If we can get 

weather and traffic in the cockpit, we will be better off. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony, you raise 

the issue of safely integrating UAS into our airspace. Many advanced economies from Australia to Canada, to even France, have 

successfully integrated small UAVs into their airspace. Canada has 

issued over 1,500 commercial approvals compared to the FAA’s 7. 

I mean, I think that shows that the risk-based small UAS rules, 

that actually, we need to unlock what I think would be rapid job 

creation. And the FAA partners with its counterpart foreign agencies in countless ways. Has the FAA reviewed other country’s acVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Jan 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\11-18-~1\91293.TXT JEAN
48 

tions on small UAS and leveraged those best practices in preparing 

the small UAS rules? 

Mr. SCOVEL. My office has done work, sir, on FAA’s efforts to 

safely integrate UAS into our airspace. I don’t know whether we 

have looked at FAA’s review of other nations’ procedures and practices. I would be happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would you please do that? I mean, in my district it 

is a very rural district. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. We need to make sure we have some idea of what 

type of possible commercial expansion in UAS technology we can 

utilize here in this country, and I think when you look at a 1,500 

commercial approvals in Canada versus seven here, there might be 

something to be learned in what they have seen, and how they 

have integrated that into our airspace, or their airspace. So with 

that, I thank you for your questions—or thank you for your responses, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman and my apologies for overlooking him. I will never do that again. 

Well, I want to thank everybody, especially our panelists for 

being here today. The final word is, let me start off by saying that 

I believe Administrator Huerta has done some positive things down 

at the FAA, but as I mentioned earlier, I think if you go back 30 

years and every Administrator, you are going to say, well, that person did some positive things, and that person did some positive 

things. But as I look around these five chairmen on these walls 

here, all for the last 25 years worked to pass legislation to reform, 

to change the FAA, and you look back to 1992, Governor Baliles, 

who wrote a report, 25 years ago, if you read that report, we are 

talking about the same stuff. 

And so I think we have an opportunity here to do something different. The process doesn’t work the way it should, and I know we 

get a little bit here and a little bit there. The funding is not there. 

And if you think Congress in this environment that we are in today 

with the deficits, and the debt that we have is going to be able to 

fix this, we are not going to be able to. 

So we need to look at something different, not only from the 

process standpoint, but from the funding standpoint, a new way 

forward. And we have to do it together. And right here is the core 

group of folks that you represent that we have got to sit down and 

we have got to figure out together. It is not going to be Peter 

DeFazio and I saying this is what we are going to do. I think if 

you looked over the last 1990s, and 2000s, President Clinton and 

President Bush both pretty much hatched it in the back room and 

then got slaughtered when they took it to the floor of the Senate 

or the House because they didn’t bring the stakeholders to the 

table. 

And I really do believe there is a way forward for us, and not 

everybody is going to get everything they want, but I think we can 

get something that is going to improve the system significantly, 

that is going to give us—today we have the safest. We need the 

most efficient. Because if we don’t, I really truly believe, if we don’t 

do something now, and I think there is an opportunity for us, we 

are going to continue to lose our lead in the world, and when it 

49 

comes to aviation, and you look back through history, and strewn 

with when America didn’t step up and do what is right to get out 

of the way of business, we lost many, many industries. 

So again, on my watch, I don’t want that to happen. And I am 

going to continue to work with Mr. DeFazio, and Members on both 

sides of the aisle, and you, of course, the stakeholders, to be able 

to craft something. And September is the due date, so we need to 

strap on our helmet, and go to work and figure out how to do this. 

So again, I thank everybody for being here. It was a great hearing 

today. I appreciate it greatly. Thank you. 

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

50 


Insert offset folio 11 here 91293.011
51 


Insert offset folio 12 here 91293.012
52 


Insert offset folio 13 here 91293.013
53 


Insert offset folio 14 here 91293.014
54 


Insert offset folio 15 here 91293.015
55 


Insert offset folio 16 here 91293.016
56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 91293.017
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 91293.018
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 91293.019
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 91293.020
60 


Insert offset folio 21 here 91293.021
61 


Insert offset folio 22 here 91293.022
62 


Insert offset folio 23 here 91293.023
63 


Insert offset folio 24 here 91293.024
64 


Insert offset folio 25 here 91293.025
65 


Insert offset folio 26 here 91293.026
66 


Insert offset folio 27 here 91293.027
67 


Insert offset folio 28 here 91293.028
68 


Insert offset folio 29 here 91293.029
69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 91293.030
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 91293.031
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 91293.032
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 91293.033
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 91293.034
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 91293.035
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 91293.036
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 91293.037
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 91293.038
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 91293.039
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 91293.040
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 91293.041
81 


Insert offset folio 42 here 91293.042
82 


Insert offset folio 43 here 91293.043
83 


Insert offset folio 44 here 91293.044
84 


Insert offset folio 45 here 91293.045
85 


Insert offset folio 46 here 91293.046
86 


Insert offset folio 47 here 91293.047
87 


Insert offset folio 48 here 91293.048
88 


Insert offset folio 49 here 91293.049
89 


Insert offset folio 50 here 91293.050
90 


Insert offset folio 51 here 91293.051
91 


Insert offset folio 52 here 91293.052
92 


Insert offset folio 53 here 91293.053
93 


Insert offset folio 54 here 91293.054
94 


Insert offset folio 55 here 91293.055
95 


Insert offset folio 56 here 91293.056
96 


Insert offset folio 57 here 91293.057
97 


Insert offset folio 58 here 91293.058
98 


Insert offset folio 59 here 91293.059
99 


Insert offset folio 60 here 91293.060
100 


Insert offset folio 61 here 91293.061
101 


Insert offset folio 62 here 91293.062
102 


Insert offset folio 63 here 91293.063
103 


Insert offset folio 64 here 91293.064
104 


Insert offset folio 65 here 91293.065
105 


Insert offset folio 66 here 91293.066
106 


Insert offset folio 67 here 91293.067
107 


Insert offset folio 68 here 91293.068
108 


Insert offset folio 69 here 91293.069
109 


Insert offset folio 70 here 91293.070
110 


Insert offset folio 71 here 91293.071
111 


Insert offset folio 72 here 91293.072
112 


Insert offset folio 73 here 91293.073
113 


Insert offset folio 74 here 91293.074
114 


Insert offset folio 75 here 91293.075
115 


Insert offset folio 76 here 91293.076
116 


Insert offset folio 77 here 91293.077
117 


Insert offset folio 78 here 91293.078
118 


Insert offset folio 79 here 91293.079
119 


Insert offset folio 80 here 91293.080
120 


Insert offset folio 81 here 91293.081
121 


Insert offset folio 82 here 91293.082
122 


Insert offset folio 83 here 91293.083
123 


Insert offset folio 84 here 91293.084
124 


Insert offset folio 85 here 91293.085
125 


Insert offset folio 86 here 91293.086
126 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 87 here 91293.087