U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–336 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–530

ALASKA AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND

FUNDING CHALLENGES—MEETING FUTURE

SAFETY, CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 5, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 5, 2006 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 1

WITNESSES

Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ........ 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

George, Tom, Alaska Regional Representative, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association ............................................................................................................ 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Hajdukovich, Bob, Chief Operating Officer, Frontier Flying Service .................. 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18

Plumb, Jr., Morton V., Director, Ted Stevens International Airport .................. 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Torgerson, John, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ................................................................................. 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

(1)

ALASKA AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND 

FUNDING CHALLENGES—MEETING FUTURE 

SAFETY, CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL 

NEEDS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Anchorage, AK. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in Assembly 

Chambers, Loussac Library, Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman of the 

Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. This is another hearing of the Commerce Committee in the field. Today we’re going to hear from the Administrator, Marion Blakey, and she’s joined by Pat Poe who is our Regional Administrator. Pat, you’re leaving us soon, I understand. 

You’ve been here, what 8 years now? 

Mr. POE. Just about, it’s gone very, very quickly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you very much for the time 

you’ve spent working on these aviation safety matters along with 

all of us and it’s been a great change here under your administration of the Regional Office. We have been focused on our committee 

on communications policy but we’re going to get back to the aviation areas later this year I hope. We’ve got a lot to discuss. We all 

know that Alaska depends on aviation more than any other state 

and we have had a terrible history in aviation safety. A few years 

ago when we started the Capstone program, and Ms. Blakey will 

testify about it today, we had serious concerns about the future of 

safety with so many pilots having accidents and so many deaths in 

our state. Innovation has come about which is driven by necessity 

and I’m really pleased that the FAA and the state and the various 

interests in Alaska joined together sometime early in the 1990s. 

Capstone remains a model for the government and for industry. In 

the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta alone, since Capstone has been introduced, the accident rate has been reduced by about 60 percent. I 

don’t want to steal your statement, Ms. Blakey, but I’m very proud 

of what has been done here. This afternoon we’ll meet with the 

people involved with the Medallion Program. That, too, has been a 

voluntary program of our operators. We have a recent history of 

success and we want to hear from Ms. Blakey and others on the 

second panel on what we can do to improve on even that. So, Pat, 

2

we do wish you the best as you go on to whatever you’re going to 

do as you leave this office. Ms. Blakey, the Administrator has been 

here several times now and has participated in not only the Capstone review but also the Medallion Program and we’re grateful to 

you for the time you’ve spent on Alaska safety matters. I’m pleased 

to have your statements this morning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to tell you, it is 

wonderful to be back in Alaska. This is one of those things that’s 

been a great privilege of the job I have. And I must tell you that 

when I was here——

The CHAIRMAN. Can you pull that mike up toward you please? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Yes, I can. Is this the one that’s live here? This——

The CHAIRMAN. Wrong mike. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Does that work better? 

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, thank you. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Great. I was here a year ago and I had the opportunity to speak with people about the aviation needs of this great 

state and to work with you, Mr. Chairman, on some of the most 

important initiatives that we have in the state, ones that are 

bellwethers for so much of the rest of the country. I thought to myself, how important it is that, relatively new safety initiatives are 

making a tremendous difference in the lives of people in the State 

of Alaska who depend so much on flying. It’s clear that, thanks to 

the continued interest and support from you and with the help of 

the Alaskan aviation community, which is very vocal and so active, 

air safety in this state continues to improve. I should also tell you 

that, as you know, the State of Alaska and your leadership here 

has had tremendous support from Secretary Norman Mineta, who 

last year was here with us working together on a number of these 

initiatives. As you know, this is his last week in office as Secretary 

of Transportation. And so he is in Washington attending to a number of things, wrapping up his tremendous tenure there, one that 

I think is going to be seen as historic. But he would have loved to 

have been here as well. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not also say in referring to 

those who are retiring that we have done everything we knew to 

talk Pat Poe out of this idea of retirement. I think it’s intrinsically 

a bad thing and I told him it may not be good for his health. But 

I cannot seem to persuade him off this idea. So, we are very grateful. And I’m looking forward to this trip, to taking advantage of as 

much of Pat’s knowledge base as I can to absorb while I’m here. 

Because we really are going to miss his help in the state. 

Although I emphasized it last year, it bears repeating that aviation safety is the critical mission of the FAA. Likewise, enhancing 

safety in Alaska remains an essential part of our flight plan which 

as you know is our business plan that governs the priorities of how 

we spend our resources in the FAA. Most Americans don’t have to 

worry about getting in a plane to get medical attention or simply 

basic supplies; Alaskans do. But the goods news is that Alaska 

doesn’t take aviation safety for granted and we can all be proud of 

what we’ve achieved in terms of accident reduction. You referred 

3

to this in your statement, Mr. Chairman, and you are absolutely 

right. We’ve seen a 40 to 50 percent accident reduction in some 

parts of the state. It’s really extraordinary. And we can be prouder 

still that we’ve not been content to rest on those accomplishments. 

So, if you’ll permit me I’d like to simply update you on a few of the 

initiatives that you know well but that I know some in this hearing 

room today would like to hear more of the specifics. 

Alaska Capstone is a technology driven safety program. The key 

enabling technology on which Capstone is based is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, more commonly called ADS–B. 

Capstone equipped aircraft using ADS–B have held a consistently 

lower accident rate than non-equipped aircraft. Consequently, a 

major goal of Capstone is to pursue affordable avionics and encourage equipage so that aircraft owners will have a range of choices 

appropriate to their operational needs. 

Without a doubt, ADS–B is the future of air traffic control, of 

this we’re convinced. In the near term, pilots operating aircraft 

equipped with ADS–B have much better situational awareness 

than other pilots. They know where their own aircraft are with 

greater accuracy and the displays show them all the aircraft in the 

air around them. In addition to increasing capacity, ADS–B improves aviation safety both in the air and on the ground. On the 

ground it is of tremendous importance because of the liability of 

runway incursions. Capstone, which began installing equipment in 

aircraft in July 2000 in the Y–K Delta Region, has served as a critical test bed for this important technology. In other words, what 

you’re doing here is shaping the future of the Nation’s air transportation system. 

In May, I established a national ADS–B program office in the 

FAA to facilitate the integration of ADS–B into the National Airspace System. The national program is building on the successes 

of Capstone, Senator, and I want to give credit where credit is due. 

You and the people of Alaska have been the drivers of this technology. In the years I’ve been at the agency over and over again, 

Alaska is making it happen for the rest of the country. 

Another joint industry/FAA effort that continues to improve aviation safety in Alaska is the Medallion Shield Program, an effort implemented by the Medallion Foundation. The program sets voluntary safety standards for air carriers in Alaska that are above 

and beyond FAA requirements. The Medallion Shield Program has 

expanded from 10 carriers in August of 2002 to 75 today, which is 

tremendous. Of those, 27 have at least one star, meaning they’ve 

established a safety program that meets certain requirements. And 

three have received their shield, meaning they’ve earned all five 

stars by meeting specific training, operational, auditing and risk 

management goals. The State of Alaska now requires bidders for 

any type of state contract involving air carriage to contract with 

carriers that have at least one star in the program, which has 

yielded great results. Since September 2004, there have been no fatalities involving Part 135 air operators in the State of Alaska. It’s 

a record we certainly hope to continue. 

Medallion Flyer Program is the general aviation counterpart of 

the Medallion Shield. And I will point out that today I am very 

proudly wearing my Medallion flyer wings. I was very proud at the 

4

beginning of this program to be presented with these because it’s 

impressive; it’s a voluntary program that targets all Part 91 operators. The program focuses on the adoption and implementation of 

personal safety and risk management programs by Alaska’s general aviation pilots. More than 1,000 pilots have voluntarily participated in the program and more than 500 have completed their additional Medallion training. Again, let’s look at the bottom line. 

There have been no fatalities involving any Medallion pilot who 

completed the initial training. It’s a real success. And the FAA is 

proud to continue working to keep this going. 

The last thing I’d like to talk about is something I know is of 

great concern to you, Senator, and that is the President’s 2007 

budget, and our request particularly for the AIP Program, Airport 

Improvement Program. You spoke with great eloquence and passion the last time I appeared before your Committee, so I’d like to 

take the time to address the concerns you outlined then and take 

them on head-on because this is a difficult budget time for all of 

us. 

Of course, given how uniquely situated you are in terms of understanding the current budget climate in Washington, I know it’s 

somewhat superfluous to explain to you that, like other government agencies, the FAA has been having to make some very tough 

choices and take a look at our programs with an eye to what really 

does require priority funding at this moment in time. At the same 

time, I want you to know that after the last hearing, I’ve gone back 

and carefully reviewed our budget request. And I want to emphasize that Alaska’s airport needs will continue to be met. As I said 

at the outset of my statement, I fully appreciate the importance of 

aviation to the State of Alaska. It is unique. That’s why, although 

Alaska would see a reduction in AIP funding under our budget request, it would rank second in the Nation in the amount of entitlement funds. That is up from last year. Last year it was third in 

the nation, in 2006. Surely this says something about the FAA’s 

commitment to this important state. Rural access programs in 

Alaska are specifically included in the FAA’s overall flight plan. 

FAA’s commitment to funding such projects is evidenced by our recent investments, including $23 million this fiscal year to improve 

remote access airports. Our current flight plan continues this initiative through Fiscal Year 2011. We will continue to give high priority to funding rural access projects in the state. 

Finally, I’d like to note that while our commitment to Alaska’s 

rural communities is very firm, at the same time we’re supporting 

major airports like Ted Stevens International Airport here in Anchorage. Ted Stevens International Airport has received $14.2 million in discretionary funds to support their Letter of Intent projects 

and noise program. LOI’s also have the highest priority for our discretionary funds and would be fully funded in Fiscal Year 2007 

under the President’s budget. Also noise-related projects are funded 

through a dedicated pool of discretionary funds. We anticipate that 

Alaska’s noise projects will also be funded under our Fiscal Year 

2007 proposal. 

Obviously, there are numerous programs and projects going on in 

Alaska that I haven’t touched on. Alaskans have a lot of energy 

when it comes to aviation which, as someone who loves aviation, 

5

is why it’s so terrific being up here. And I learn a lot every single 

time I come about new priorities and programs that are really advancing the bounds of safety. I just want to end by saying that I 

appreciate the people of Alaska, the uniqueness of Alaska and the 

special working relationship that exists between the FAA, your 

leadership and the aviation community. We can take pride that our 

work here will ultimately benefit the entire country. 

As I close, Senator, please take a look at the kiosk that stands 

before us right here. It’s another terrific step for technology and of 

course it’s another first step that’s being taken in the State of Alaska. The weather camera program has been very successful. There 

are 63 weather cameras located throughout the state. These kiosks 

will allow pilots at remote airports throughout the state to see 

weather along the route once they’ve reached the airport. Because 

after all, things can change a lot from when they checked on their 

home computer usually early in the morning. But they can check 

at the airport right before that critical go, no-go decision is being 

made. 

Sir, we’re proposing 35 kiosk locations. Lake Hood will be the 

first. And given Alaska’s track record for pushing the envelope on 

aviation safety, taking us where we haven’t gone before, I’m confident that this one is going to be one of many that will be effective 

throughout the state. So thank you very much for allowing me to 

testify here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Good morning Senator Stevens and Members of the Committee. It is wonderful 

to be back in the great State of Alaska. I was here a year ago and had a wonderful 

time. At that time, I had the opportunity to speak with many interesting people 

about the aviation needs of Alaska and see for myself how the important safety initiatives we are working on with the aviation community here are making a real difference in the lives of the people who depend so much on flying for the basic needs 

of everyday life. So I am happy to be back and see what has happened in the past 

year and to reacquaint myself with some of the folks I talked with last year. I very 

much appreciate that, thanks to the continued interest and support of Senator Stevens and the help of the Alaska aviation community, aviation safety in the state 

continues to improve. The experience and expertise gained through the initiatives 

we are working on here will eventually improve safety throughout the country. 

Although I emphasized it last year, it bears repeating that aviation safety is the 

critical mission of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and enhancing safety 

in Alaska remains an essential part of our Flight Plan. Most Americans don’t have 

to worry about getting in a plane to get medical attention or basic supplies; Alaskans do. While flying is taken for granted in Alaska, safety isn’t, as has been evidenced by the admirable work that has gone into reducing the number of accidents 

in certain parts of the state by 40 to 50 percent in the past decade. We can all be 

proud of what we have done to achieve this accident reduction and we can be 

prouder still that we are not content to rest on our accomplishments and are working to make things ever safer. So I would like to update you on a couple of the initiatives I talked to you about last year to let you know where we are and where 

we are going. 

The Alaska Capstone Program, a technology-driven safety program, continues to 

achieve near term safety and efficiency gains in aviation by accelerating implementation and use of modern technology, in both avionics and ground systems. The key 

enabling technology on which Capstone is based is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B). ADS–B gives an aircraft with the requisite data uplink/

downlink and cockpit display capabilities the same information about other aircraft 

in the vicinity as air traffic control now receives. Capstone equipped aircraft using 

ADS–B have had a consistently lower accident rate than non-equipped aircraft. ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
6

sequently, a major goal of Capstone is to continue to pursue affordable avionics so 

that aircraft owners will have a range of choices appropriate to their operational 

needs. This includes both creating options for equipage and a strategy to ensure 

that all aircraft in Alaska are equipped. I won’t go into all of the details I did in 

my statement last year on this important program, but I would like to focus on how 

Capstone has helped us get to the point where we can move forward with ADS–

B. 

ADS–B is, quite simply, the future of air traffic control. Instead of using radar 

data to keep aircraft at safe distances from one another, in the future, signals from 

Global Positioning Satellites will provide air traffic controllers and pilots with much 

more accurate information that will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky 

and on runways. Pilots operating equipped aircraft have much better situational 

awareness because they know where their own aircraft are with greater accuracy, 

and their displays will show them all the aircraft in the air around them. ADS–B 

will improve aviation safety in the air and on the ground, as well as increase capacity. Capstone, which began installing equipment in aircraft in July 2000 in the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y–K) Delta Region, has served as a critical test bed for this important technology. 

In May, I established a national ADS–B program office in FAA to facilitate and 

oversee the integration of ADS–B into the National Airspace System (NAS). The national program will build on the successes of Capstone. The information and experience we have gained here in Alaska will help FAA accelerate the integration efforts 

throughout Alaska, which is critical to the success of the Next Generation of Air 

Traffic Services (NGATS). So the importance of the role played by the people here 

in Alaska cannot be overstated. I want to thank the entire Alaskan aviation community, in partnership with the Capstone Program Office, for its leadership in the development of far-reaching and innovative changes that will continue to have a positive impact on the NAS. 

I do want to acknowledge one problem we faced regarding ADS–B in Alaska. Earlier this year, it was determined that an unapproved separation standard was being 

applied by the Anchorage Center (ZAN) between ADS–B surveilled aircraft and 

radar surveilled aircraft. As a result of this determination, FAA executives, including the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety and the Alaska Regional Administrator, decided to suspend the display of ADS–B targets on ZAN controller displays. I believe this action was necessary and appropriate pending an assessment 

of the operational use of ADS–B in this area. 

Unfortunately, there were unintended consequences with the operator fleet monitoring (OFM) and the display of traffic information in the control tower at Bethel. 

Upon learning this, we took corrective action to reinstate the capability of OFM and 

display of traffic information in the Bethel tower, both of which are now restored. 

The ADS–B capabilities of Flight Information Services—Broadcast (FIS–B), Air-toAir situational awareness, and Search and Rescue (SAR) have been and will continue to be provided without disruption. Anchorage Center continues to provide instrument flight rules (IFR) separation services in the Bethel area through procedural methods. 

FAA is committed to resolving the remaining issues associated with safely separating ADS–B targets from radar targets (known as a mixed environment). The use 

of ADS–B information as a fully integrated air traffic control surveillance source requires an approved operational evaluation with appropriate controls to ensure compliance with safety standards. FAA has in place an aggressive schedule to achieve 

such compliance. On July 15, the FAA will begin an operational validation to evaluate minimum separation standards in a mixed environment in the Bethel, Aniak, 

and St. Mary’s areas. On or about August 15, the FAA plans to expand the operational validation of the mixed environment to the Dillingham and Kang Salmon 

areas. 

Another joint industry/FAA effort that continues to improve aviation safety in 

Alaska is the Medallion Shield Program, a program implemented by the Medallion 

Foundation. The program sets voluntary safety standards for air carriers in Alaska 

that are above and beyond FAA requirements. The program focuses on establishing 

and sustaining an elevated level of safety performance through: the development of 

a safety culture that holds safety as a core value; continuous professional development of individual skills and competence; proactive sharing of operational control 

responsibilities; hazard identification and risk management; and management practices that support the organization’s safety objectives. 

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the program, the Five Stars in the Medallion Five Star Shield program include numerous methods for improving safety. 

To earn the First Star, each air carrier must establish a safety program which, at 

a minimum, should include safety meetings and audits, the use of root-cause analVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
7

ysis, hazard identification, incident investigations, and a viable emergency response 

plan. The Five Star program also requires a classroom training program for pilots, 

mechanics and ground service personnel, as well as required training on a PC-based 

computer simulator. Two annual check rides are required to receive this Second 

Star, and annual pilot proficiency check rides are required to keep the Star. The 

Third Star involves operational risk management. A dynamic system that provides 

analytical tools as well as a system of checks and balances to proactively identify 

hazards and manage risks is required. The carrier must have an operational risk 

management system that quantifies the risks for each flight, including weather, airport, and crew readiness. The total risk score determines if the flight is conducted 

normally, if more management evaluation is required for release of the flight, or if 

the flight is cancelled. The Fourth Star concerns maintenance and ground service 

operations, requiring specific training and manning levels. The Fifth Star is an internal audit program, which requires incorporation of a proactive internal audit system that focuses on the use of systems safety principles, as well as regulatory compliance. This is a comprehensive audit program requirement intended to allow the 

operator to continuously monitor their operating systems and provide for continuous 

improvement. In order to maintain Shield status, the operator must successfully 

pass an audit each year. A direct benefit of the Shield program for operators is that 

the insurance industry has agreed to provide favorable rates for Shield carriers. 

The Medallion Shield Program has expanded from 10 carriers in August 2002 to 

75 today. Of those, three have received their Shield and 27 have at least one Star. 

The State of Alaska now requires bidders for any type of state contract involving 

air carriage to have at least one star in the program. This work has yielded results. 

Since September 2004, there have been no fatalities involving part 135 air operators 

in Alaska, a streak that we hope will long continue. 

The Medallion Flyer Program is the general aviation counterpart of the Shield 

Program. It is a voluntary program that targets all Part 91 operators, including 

flight schools, hunting and fishing guides, lodge operators, Civil Air Patrol, and law 

enforcement agencies. The program focuses on the adoption and implementation of 

personal safety and risk management programs by Alaska’s general aviation pilots. 

In addition to an ongoing structured educational program, the Flyer Program uses 

sophisticated flight training devices and flight simulators have been purchased and 

are being used to improve the pilot skills of its participants. More than 1,000 pilots 

are voluntarily participating in the program, and more than 500 have completed the 

initial Medallion training. Again, let’s look at the bottom line. There have been no 

fatalities involving any Medallion pilot who has completed initial training. This says 

to me, let’s just keep working together. 

The last thing I would like to talk about today is something that I know is of 

great concern to Senator Stevens and that is the President’s 2007 budget request 

for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Senator Stevens spoke with great eloquence and passion the last time I appeared before his Committee on this matter, 

so I would like to take the time to address his concerns head on. 

I know Senator Stevens is uniquely situated to understand the current budget climate in Washington, D.C. I also know the Administration and Congress share the 

sense of obligation that we must make the absolute best use of the taxpayers’ dollars. Like other government agencies, FAA had to take a hard look at our programs 

and make some difficult choices. While I recognize that some people would like to 

see the AIP funding level higher, the AIP budget request for next fiscal year will 

meet the current needs of the nation’s airports. I also want to emphasize that Alaska’s airport needs will continue to be met. As I said at the outset of my statement, 

I understand the importance of aviation to the State of Alaska. That is why, although Alaska would see a reduction in AIP funding under our budget request, it 

would rank second in the Nation in the amount of entitlement funds it would receive, up from third in FY06. Surely that says something about FAA’s commitment 

to this important state. 

Senator Stevens expressed his concern about how the AIP proposal would affect 

access to rural areas in the state. Rural access projects in Alaska are specifically 

included in the FAA’s overall Flight Plan. In addition, FAA’s commitment to funding 

rural access projects is evidenced by our recent investments. Our current Flight 

Plan continues this initiative through FY 2011. This serves as our promise to the 

people of Alaska that we will continue to give high priority to funding rural access 

projects in the state. 

Another concern expressed by Senator Stevens was the effect of the President’s 

AIP budget request would have on the Rural Alaska Lighting Program, where aeronautical lighting is provided at remote unlit communities throughout the state. 

There were 63 locations included in that program. All 63 locations are now fully 

equipped with either an interim or permanent lighting solution that provides for unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
8

conditional 24-hour visual flight rule (VFR) aviation access by emergency medical 

aircraft. Thirty-one locations have received permanent lighting solutions. The remainder are equipped with a highly effective interim solution. Of those, 14 are expected to receive a permanent solution prior to FY 2010. The remaining 18 have 

extreme challenges that are likely to delay the installation of a permanent solution 

until after 2010. However, the program remains a priority for FAA and we anticipate continuing to fund these projects as scheduled. 

Finally, I would like to note that, while our commitment to Alaska’s rural communities is firm, at the same time we haven’t forgotten Anchorage. Ted Stevens International Airport has received $14.2 million in discretionary funds to support their 

Letter of Intent (LOI) projects and noise program. LOIs have the highest priority 

for discretionary funds and are planned to be fully funded in FY07 under the President’s budget. Also, noise-related projects are funded from a dedicated pool of discretionary funds. Therefore, we anticipate that Alaska’s noise projects will also be 

funded under the FY07 proposal. 

Obviously, there are lots of important programs and projects going on in Alaska 

that I haven’t touched upon. Alaskans have a lot of energy when it comes to aviation which is why it is always so much fun to visit. I just want to end by saying 

that I appreciate the people of Alaska, the uniqueness of Alaska and the special 

working bond that exists here between the FAA and the aviation community. We 

can take pride that our work here will ultimately benefit the entire country. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Blakey. And I note that with regard to the FAA’s weather cam programs, you have a brochure for 

the people in attendance. You’re going to hand that out after the 

hearing, right? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I’m delighted to have had a chance to sneak 

a look at this new program. The effect of that will be to have not 

only the Weather Channel but the FAA advisory and to have a 

weather cam available at the destination the pilot has selected. 

Right? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Exactly. And you can follow flight plans from this 

as well and consult with the flight service specialist. So it gives a 

multitude of benefits. But the ability for pilots to see for themselves what’s exactly going on in real time is invaluable. 

The CHAIRMAN. And this is going to be the first one, at Lake 

Hood? 

Ms. BLAKEY. First one at Lake Hood and then I think we’re going 

to evaluate how that works. Pat has been working very hard on 

this. 

Mr. POE. Actually, we will have two that we’re going to evaluate. 

One will be at Lake Hood and the second will be at Yakutat. And 

we hope, by the end of this calendar year, to confirm the viability 

and the workability of this. And, of course, we’ll interact with the 

pilots to see how we can make it even better. Ultimately this is 

going to be an extended component of our flight services within 

Alaska; it’s just not a weather camera device. And personally I——

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that’ll evolve so the pilot can pick 

up weather en route, so you can get it into the cockpit? 

Mr. POE. You know, we’ve had that as a vision almost from the 

beginning, combining weather camera technology with the Capstone in-cockpit display. And many will say it’s in reach. I think 

it’s—you have to reach far unfortunately, because of the bandwidth 

and other things to move that video image. But that’s where we’re 

going. I think it’d be great if a pilot could look at alternatives if 

he or she found that their route of flight was no longer safe and 

9

could do that in real time and visually. So this, by the way, we received, I think, 2 weeks ago and so it’s really fresh in terms of an 

opportunity in——

The CHAIRMAN. Our Committee is working, and we’ll soon take 

to the floor, we hope, the new communications bill which will have 

an impact on the allocation of broadband in the future. Maybe we 

can work with your people in Washington, Ms. Blakey, to see 

whether we could reserve a little bit more of that for the FAA’s 

purpose if this has got a national implication. We’ll be happy to 

look at that with you. I want to call attention to the fact that 

Channon Hanna is here. Channon is part of Senator Inouye’s staff. 

He has sent his staff along as Co-Chairman to monitor these hearings. This is sort of a lowball, but avian flu is on the minds of everybody I’ve been talking to here in Alaska. And have you had any 

particular role in avian flu planning, considering the fact that we 

have become a major destination for many people on the Asian continent? They come through here or to here. Has the FAA been involved at all in planning for the avian flu here? 

Ms. BLAKEY. We’ve really had to be because I think that everyone understands that it could have an enormous effect. And there’s 

a lack of predictability. So it does mean we’re looking at a number 

of scenarios and eventualities. We do have a plan for the FAA on 

how to deal with an avian flu outbreak that involves not only how 

we compensate for staff losses, how we continue to provide air traffic control when you may have as much as 40 percent diminution 

in your work force. Forty percent because people may be ill or having to care for those who are ill, or frankly unwilling to come into 

heavy congested areas. So there is an effort, therefore, that we 

have made to make sure we know how we would transfer responsibilities, from one facility to another, what we would do to continue to cover the safety responsibilities and all of that. When it 

comes to passengers and how they would be handled coming into 

the country, we’re working very closely with the Department of 

Homeland Security, of course through the Department of Transportation, because this affects all modes of transportation but particularly aviation. We’re also working of course with the Centers for 

Disease Control about what the best methods are for handling 

quarantine and handling the specifics of ill passengers coming in. 

It may be of interest, also, to know that in addition to having a 

very strong written plan, that we have flexed, we’ve been doing scenarios, the kind of ‘‘what if’’ tabletop exercises that I think also 

show you where the gaps are. And then, finally, I just was at a 

meeting which we called the National Aviation Trilateral Meeting. 

It’s between Canada, Mexico and the United States. And the three 

heads of aviation for our countries, myself and my counterparts, 

agreed that we would form a work force to deal with the border 

issues and what will be the effects if we begin to find avian flu 

crossing over which of course would affect Alaska very much with 

the Canadian buffer between us. We are committed to this summer 

putting in place a strong plan that we would all then follow as the 

protocol on this. So there is a good bit working. I won’t tell you that 

it doesn’t still pose challenges, it does. But we’re certainly working 

it very, very actively and I think it’s fair to say that a good plan 

is in place. 

10

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for that. On Capstone, my 

staff tells me that ADS–B was temporarily suspended here in Alaska waiting for some certification. What’s the status of that now? 

Ms. BLAKEY. Back in March we temporarily took Capstone off the 

glass because we were—we became aware that we were using Capstone in a way that was what we call a mixed environment, ADS–

B targets and radar targets. And we really had not gone through 

the operational safety analysis of what kind of safe separation 

standards should be involved there. We were aware though, that 

Capstone is an important program for a variety of flights providing 

a situational awareness for pilots that are equipped and in the 

area. And so we quickly restored the flight information services 

and the traffic information services that we had with the program. 

Also, we have begun to work on the certification requirements so 

that you can use the Capstone program in a mixed environment 

coming out of the Anchorage center. I’m pleased to say that we’re 

making great progress. In addition to turning on the services very 

quickly, we began June 15th on the air traffic control front to 

evaluate where we were for ADS–B and ADS–B equipped aircraft. 

And then we have moved—our plan is in July, July 15, so coming 

up very soon, to start the operational evaluation of ADS–B to radar 

targets and to see how those safe separation standards should be 

certified and developed. We’ll be doing that initially down in the 

Bethel area. We will be at St. Mary’s, Aniak, and then by August 

15, we expect to expand it further to Dillingham and King Salmon. 

So we’re really trying to take this in stages so that the safety analysis is rigorous and will hold up. But we feel that this should be, 

at this point, the way to go to a situation where we’re flexing the 

full capabilities of ADS–B for separation. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m impressed with the Alaska-based information. We’re delighted that you’d be with us and give us those answers. Let me ask Pat a question. Pat, do you know of any pilots 

in the state that are still using LORAN? 

Mr. POE. No, I don’t personally. Perhaps we have Bob 

Hajdukovich and others here that will testify later, they might be 

able to help you on that, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m interested in that. We have the sudden termination plan for the modernization of LORAN and we’ve temporarily stopped that because we don’t know that everyone is 

transitioned to the new systems yet. I’d appreciate it if you’d give 

us any knowledge that your people pick up as to whether that 

LORAN program should be totally canceled. We do appreciate very 

much your testimony. Channon, with Senator Inouye, do you have 

anything else? And we thank you very much. We appreciate your 

being willing to come up each year, Ms. Blakey, and to be able to 

keep up with the developments of your programs here in Alaska, 

they’re very important. I’m told that the objectives for phase three 

of Capstone will indicate a further reduction in general aviation accidents of 15 percent. A goal is to have a further reduction in general aviation fatal accidents by 33 percent and a reduction in commercial fatal accidents by 41 percent. And that goes on top of the 

progress that’s already been made. As I’ve indicated, it’s our information that we are—although we’re about 10 percent of the Nation’s air program that we’ve made this substantial reduction alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
11

ready through these programs. So those goals are very welcome for 

us. It means a continued improvement in terms of safety for Alaska, which is very vital. We appreciate your help. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it is a great 

privilege to be here because, as I testified, I learn a great deal. And 

I have really become a champion of the Capstone Program not just 

in our country, in moving to a national program for the entire 

United States, but in a number of other countries around the 

world. It was not very long ago I was talking about Capstone in 

Alaska. I was talking about it in Japan, and in Latin America with 

our counterparts. I very much believe that ADS–B is the future 

that we all should move to and you all are pioneering it so I thank 

you for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe we could create a new position in the Department of State for you, Pat, and make you the ambassador for 

aviation safety worldwide. 

Mr. POE. I’m open for consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re ready, you’re available, OK. Thank you 

very much, we appreciate your coming. Our second panel this 

morning is John Torgerson, the Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation; Tom George, the Alaska Regional Representative for the Alaska Owners and Pilots Association; Mort Plumb, the Director of Anchorage International Airport; 

and Bob Hajdukovich, the Chief Operating Officer for Frontier Flying Service. Gentlemen, we appreciate your coming, and your willingness to participate in this hearing. 

Why don’t I ask you to present any comments you wish to make 

in the order that I read the names of the second panel, or the way 

you’re lined up is all right with me. John, you’d be first, John 

Torgerson, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Transportation for Alaska. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN TORGERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC 

FACILITIES 

Mr. TORGERSON. Thank you, Senator, and welcome home. The 

State of Alaska operates 258 airports ranging in size from Ted Stevens Anchorage International, Fairbanks International to our 

smallest community airports. Of the rural airport system, 47 are 

paved and 173 are gravel. And of those 173, 72 of those are runways that are less than 3,000 feet. Today most of my remarks will 

be concerning the rural airport system. And we have Mort Plumb 

as part of the panel here to talk about the Ted Stevens International and the Fairbanks International. 

I’d like to start by expressing our thanks to the FAA for the ongoing cooperative relationship with the State over the years. We 

have found that our agencies share a common mission in providing 

the infrastructure and air transportation in a very large and difficult area. The willingness of the staff at the FAA to face these 

challenges, together with their state counterparts, continues to 

produce mutual benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to give you an update on the rural airport 

lighting system that’s something you have been involved in over 

the years. So I’ll give you a little update of where we’re at on that. 

12

The state has a strategic goal to improve runways to a 24-hour 

VFR standard in communities that depend on air medical evacuation. A Congressional study conducted in 1999 identified 63 communities that rely on aviation access for medical evacuations that 

do not have the 24-hour VFR capability. These 63 airports are our 

largest priority for having 24-hour VFR access. 

From Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2006, Congress made spe- cial rural airport lighting appropriations of $38 million to the FAA 

for the lighting and navigation improvements to these airports. We 

have worked cooperatively with the FAA to apply these monies to 

the communities on the list of deficient airports to install lighting 

and navigation systems. 

With these special appropriations we improved medical access by 

deploying portable emergency lights for helicopter landing zones in 

all communities. These lights facilitate safer evacuation by the 

Coast Guard and the National Guard helicopters in medical emergency situations. 

For fixed wing land-based operations, at a minimum, an adequate runway and runway edge lights are needed for the 24-hour 

VFR operations. Preferably, runway edge lights, rotating beacon, 

end identifier lights and precision approach path indicators installed on a 3,300-foot runway or longer will be developed as a 

package to allow the 24-hour access for maximum safety. Unfortunately, many Alaska village airports are not suitable in their current condition for installing permanent lighting and require first 

significant improvements to their length, width and surface condition to support nighttime aircraft operations. 

Since 1999, we have improved 29 of these 63 airports to the 24 

hour VFR standards. Of those 29 completed airports, there were 

nine that required major reconstruction or relocation in order to 

support the 24 hour access standard. Another 6 airports will be improved to meet the 24 hour access standard by fall of this year. 

And five of those require major reconstruction or relocation. By the 

fall of 2008, another five airports requiring major reconstruction or 

relocation are expected to be improved to meet the standard. In addition to the $38 million in special rural Alaska airport funding appropriated to the FAA we have allocated approximately $150 million in AIP funding to these 40 airports to provide this access. 

Twenty-two additional communities await the permanent 24 

hour solution for completion beyond 2008. Because most of them 

will require major airport construction, reconstruction or reallocation to meet these safe nighttime operations, we currently estimate 

that more than $300 million will be required to improve these additional 22 airports. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to talk just a moment on the AIP Program. With your help, Mr. Chairman, the AIP Program has grown 

from $126 million to $184 million in the last 5 years. Alaska has 

benefited tremendously from the AIP program, particularly in our 

rural communities where airports are our highways, and Alaskans 

are grateful. 

This is not to say we don’t have unmet needs. The cost of construction in rural Alaska is expensive. At most locations the material and equipment needed to construct the airport must be barged 

in from hundreds of miles away during the short summer construcVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
13

tion season. As communities grow and everyone focuses on improved levels of service, such as those identified in the 1999 medical access study, we could easily double our AIP funding and still 

find ourselves behind. 

Although Congress has not completed its work on the Fiscal Year 

2007 AIP budget, I would like to express my concerns regarding 

the impacts of the President’s proposed budget would have on Alaska’s rural airport system. Under the President’s proposed reduced 

funding levels, for the primary—for the rural system we have—we 

could have an estimated 43.5 percent decrease in primary funding 

and a 22.6 percent decrease in non-primary funding available compared to our estimated Fiscal Year 2006 funding calculations. The 

House recently passed an AIP authorization bill at the $3.7 billion 

level, which is the maximum allowed under the AIP authorization 

bill, Vision 100. We encourage the Senate to consider the House appropriations and authorize the maximum appropriation set in Vision 100. 

The current FAA regulations do not allow state aviation organization sponsors to conduct the Environmental Impacts required for 

certain types of aviation projects judged to have significant impacts. 

Currently, all required EISs must be managed by the FAA. Recently authorized through the passage of TEA–LU, the Federal 

Highway Administration allows State Department organizations, 

such as Alaska Department of Transportation, to manage its own 

EISs to completion. We would recommend that consideration be 

given to align FAA regulations to allow knowledgeable sponsors 

such as Alaska Department of Transportation to conduct EISs with 

the FAA oversight as currently done in Environmental Assessments. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are well aware that no other state 

in the Nation has greater dependence upon aviation and associated 

airport improvements as a principal means, for the vast portions 

of Alaska the only practical means, of year-round access to our 

communities and residents. This dependence on aviation and airports provides Alaska with a unique perspective on the need for 

airport improvements and their relative priority to meeting critical 

system-wide airport needs through the AIP. If I or my staff of the 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities can be of assistance in helping your community consider changes necessary to 

the FAA reauthorization bill we would welcome the opportunity to 

provide that assistance. From our international airport systems 

down to our smaller village strips, our airport system is simply 

critical to the state’s economy, local economies and the health and 

well-being of all Alaskans. I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and be happy to answer any questions if you may have some. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Torgerson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN TORGERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

The State of Alaska operates 258 airports, ranging in size from the Ted Stevens 

Anchorage International, Fairbanks International, to small community Airports. Of 

the rural airport system, 47 are paved, 173 are gravel of which 72 runways are less 

than 3,000 feet. Today, I will confine my remarks primarily to those issues that imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
14

pact our rural communities and allow Mort Plumb, our Airport Director for Anchorage to testify on that system. 

I would start by expressing our thanks to the FAA for its ongoing, cooperative 

relationship with the state over the years. We have found that our agencies share 

a common mission of providing the infrastructure for air transportation in a very 

large, difficult, area. The willingness of the staff at FAA to face these challenges 

together with their state counterparts continues to produce mutual benefits. 

Essential Air Service 

I would like to recognize your support for the Essential Air Service, and thank 

you for that continued support. This program remains a critical support for safe, 

scheduled passenger service to 39 Alaska communities, out of over 200 communities 

that are eligible. In some cases, the service made possible by this program is the 

only way that many Alaskans can get the medical help and other vital services that 

they need. 

Runway Lighting 

The state has a strategic goal to improve runways to a 24-hour VFR standard in 

communities that depend on air medical evacuation. A Congressional study conducted in 1999 identified 63 communities that relied on aviation access for medical 

evacuations and did not have 24-hour VFR capable airports. These 63 airports are 

our highest priority for providing 24 hour VFR capability. 

From FFY02 through FFY06, Congress made special Alaska Rural Airport Lighting appropriations of $38 million to the FAA for the lighting and navigation improvements to Alaska’s airports. We have worked cooperatively with the FAA to 

apply these monies to the communities on the list of deficient airports to install 

lighting and navigation systems. 

With these special appropriations, we have improved medical access by deploying 

portable emergency lights for helicopter landing zones at all communities. These 

lights facilitate safer evacuation by Coast Guard and National Guard helicopters in 

medical emergency evacuations. Civilian operators have also become certified to use 

these portable lights. 

For fixed wing land based operations, at a minimum, an adequate runway and 

runway edge lights are needed for 24 hour VFR operations. Preferably, runway edge 

lights, rotating beacon, end identifier lights, and precision approach path indicators, 

installed on a 3,300-foot or longer runway, will be developed as a package to allow 

24-hour VFR access with maximum safety. Unfortunately, many Alaskan village airports are not suitable in their current condition for installing permanent lighting 

and require first making significant improvements to their length, width and surface condition to support nighttime aircraft operations. 

Since 1999, we have improved 29 of the 63 airports to 24-hour VFR standards. 

Of these 29 completed airports, there were 9 airports that required major reconstruction or relocation in order to support the 24-hour access standard, due to their 

substandard condition. Another 6 airports will be improved to meet the 24-hour 

VFR access standard by fall of this year, with 5 of these airports requiring major 

reconstruction or relocation. By the fall of 2008, another 5 airports requiring major 

reconstruction or relocation are expected to be improved to meet the 24-hour VFR 

access standard. In addition to a portion of the $38 million in special Rural Alaska 

Lighting funding appropriated to FAA, we will have allocated approximately $150 

million in AlP funding to bring these 40 airports up to 24-hour VFR standards by 

2008. 

Twenty-two additional communities await a permanent 24-hour VFR solution for 

completion beyond 2008, because most of them will require major airport construction, reconstruction or relocation to meet the standards for safe nighttime operations. We currently estimate that more than $300 million will be required to improve these additional 22 community airports to provide 24-hour VFR access. 

The continuing support of Congress is greatly appreciated in meeting this vital 

goal of providing 24 hour VFR capable airports to these communities. 

Safety 

The FAA and all of those in the aviation community in Alaska should be commended for their efforts in aviation safety. The reduction in incidents/accidents that 

has been achieved in Alaska is remarkable. The Capstone program has contributed 

to this reduction, as well as achieving a large improvement in access for aviation 

in Alaska. This improved access results from the fact that better weather reporting 

means better IFR success rate, and therefore more completed flights. The State of 

Alaska fully supports an accelerated transition to a new national airspace system 

using space-based navigational aids. 

15

Also, the Medallion program has made a significant contribution to aviation safety. You will hear much about the good this program has done, but simply stated, 

since many state employees fly to all corners of the state, we all look for the Medallion logo on each airplane we board. 

TSA 

We in Alaska are as concerned about transportation security as any state in the 

Nation. We fully support the efforts to protect the traveler and our Nation’s security. We have many transportation assets, such as the oil pipeline and terminal, the 

Port of Anchorage, the oil fields, and others, the loss or disruption of which would 

be a severe blow to our state and the country. 

As it is currently structured, the TSA has three separate organizations in Alaska. 

We believe that the three organizations could be streamlined into one to provide 

consistent security oversight within Alaska. 

We believe, also, that at Alaska’s rural airports, transportation security can be 

achieved in a more efficient manner than at present. Transportation security programs at these airports should be based on threat analysis. 

As transportation security is presently implemented at Alaska’s rural airports, oftentimes the number of TSA employees outnumbers other airport employees. If a 

threat-based approach were used, security interests in Alaska could be met with 

considerably less investment. 

AIP Program 

With your help, Mr. Chairman, the AIP program has grown from $126 million to $184 million in the last five years. Alaska has benefited tremendously from the AIP 

program, particularly in our rural communities, where airports are our highways, 

and Alaskans are grateful. 

This is not to say that we don’t have unmet needs. The cost of construction in 

rural Alaska is expensive. At most locations, the materials and equipment needed 

to construct an airport must be barged in from hundreds of miles away during a 

very short summer construction season. As communities grow and everyone focuses 

on improved levels of service such as those identified in the 1999 medical access 

study, we could easily double our AIP spending and still find ourselves behind. 

Although Congress has not completed its work on the FFY07 AIP budget, I would 

like to express my concerns regarding the impacts the President’s proposed budget 

would have on Alaska’s Rural Airport System. Under the President’s proposed reduced funding levels, for the Rural System (Non-Discretionary funding only) we 

could have an estimated 43.5 percent decrease in Primary funding and a 22.6 percent decrease in Non Primary funding available compared to our estimated FFY06 

funding levels. The Alaska International Airport System and all Discretionary funding are excluded from these calculations. The House recently passed an AIP appropriations bill at the $3.7 billion level, which is the maximum allowed under the AIP 

Authorization Bill, Vision 100. We encourage the Senate to consider the House AIP 

appropriations bill and authorize the maximum appropriation set in Vision 100. 

Wetlands 

The application of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as section 4(f) 

of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303(c)), to all airports, 

including rural airports, needs to be clarified. At some point in time, a decision was 

made to designate a piece of ground as an airport. It seems that designation identifies the dominant use, and clearly specifies the objective for the designated land. 

I am not advocating running roughshod over the environment as these airports 

are developed. I am advocating common sense application of NEPA, Sec. 4(f), and 

other environmental laws to lands that have been long designated for airport purposes. A great deal of time and money is spent on living up to the letter of the law. 

Stringent application of these laws results in added cost and protracted delays in 

needed projects. Recognition of the primary purpose of lands designated as airports 

should be incorporated into the implementation of environmental laws at airports. 

For some of our rural airports improvements, we are being required to develop a 

full Environmental Impact Statement. We believe that the small footprints of disturbance from our rural airport construction should allow us to conduct environmental assessments, rather than a full NEPA Environmental Impact Statement. 

Environmental Impact Statement Development 

The current FAA regulations do not allow State Aviation Organization sponsors 

to conduct the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) required for certain types 

of aviation projects judged to have significant impacts. 

Currently, all required EISs must be managed by the FAA. Recently authorized 

through the passage of TEA–LU, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
16

lows State Transportation Organizations such as ADOT&PF to manage EISs to 

completion. We recommend that consideration be given to changing FAA regulations 

to allow knowledgeable sponsors such as ADOT&PF to conduct EISs with FAA oversight as currently done with Environmental Assessments. 

The Airports Division staff at FAA review and comment on all Environmental Assessments (EA) and Categorical Exclusion (CE) documents, but does not typically 

write environmental documents. Consequently, their level of expertise at environmental documentation may be less than the State Transportation Organization staff 

who routinely write EAs and CEs for aviation and highway projects as well as EIS 

documents for highway projects. This can lengthen the amount of time needed to 

conduct the EIS as well as the fact that there are relatively few FAA staff to manage EISs and also review and approve EAs and CEs. We at ADOT&PF believe that 

we can move the EISs more expeditiously through the process. Empowering the 

State Transportation Organizations in the EIS process will also make them better 

able to respond to other agencies, the public and the project proponents. 

Closing 

Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, no other state in the Nation has greater 

dependence on aviation and the associated airport improvements as the principal 

means, and for vast portions of Alaska the only practical means, of year round access to our communities and residents. This dependence on aviation and airports 

provides Alaska with a unique perspective on the need for airport improvements 

and their relative priority in meeting critical system wide airport needs through the 

AIP. If I or the staff of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities can be of assistance in helping your Committee consider changes necessary to 

the FAA reauthorization bill, we would welcome the opportunity to provide any assistance requested. 

From our international airports on down to the smallest village strip, our airport 

system is simply crucial to the state’s economy, local economies, and the health and 

well-being of all Alaskans. 

Alaskans appreciate the continuing support of the FAA and the Congress for aviation in Alaska. 

I thank you for the opportunity today, and will answer any questions the members may have for me.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, John. Let’s just go down 

the table if that’s all right. The next would be Bob Hajdukovich, 

Chief Operating Officer, Frontier Flying Service. Good morning, 

Bob. 

STATEMENT OF BOB HAJDUKOVICH, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER, FRONTIER FLYING SERVICE 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. Good morning, Chairman Stevens. Thank you 

for allowing me the opportunity to testify today with regard to my 

experience with the unique issues facing the aviation industry in 

Alaska today. 

In the past 18 years, I have been witness to a distinctive culture 

shift in the aviation community. Safety culture is no longer a cliche ́

or a catch phrase but rather a way of life for most commercial operators in Alaska today. I directly attribute this shift in the culture 

to programs such as the Medallion Foundation, Capstone, the Alaska Air Carriers Association, the Alaska Aviation Coordination 

Council, AOPA, and our FAA leadership in Alaska among others, 

and Pat and John. 

This safety culture has taken root. The industry is committed to 

positive change, but continues to struggle. Just 6 years ago, Frontier paid a system-wide average price of 70 cents a gallon for jet 

fuel and today’s price is $2.85 per gallon, a 307 percent increase. 

We have a range from $2.30 on jet fuel to $5.50 to some of the out 

stations. We get one-half of the insurance coverage for twice the 

premium dollar today while frivolous litigation continues to plague 

17

aviation. Our engine and maintenance costs have risen 5 to 7 percent per year. While these challenges are not unique to Alaska, our 

need for improved infrastructure is. 

I am what one might consider a Generation X Alaskan pilot. I 

was born in Alaska and am fortunate to have a rich aviation history in my family as well as my wife’s. When I first started fulltime at Frontier in 1988 the industry had a culture of ‘‘get the job 

done’’. LORAN was the best thing since sliced bread, except it 

didn’t work in two-thirds of the state. I can look back on my relatively short career in aviation and see a great and continuing evolution of three things: infrastructure, technology and safety culture. 

I would like to point out some of the notable events that our company has been witness to in the past 15 years. In infrastructure, 

we’ve seen GPS approaches; AWOS, automated weather observation systems; weather cameras; GBTs or ground-based transmitters; wide area augmentation system, we have a greater accuracy 

with the GPSs; downsizing of flight service stations; and airport 

improvement projects. 

In technology, the advent of the GPS; cockpit voice recorders for 

nine or more seats in scheduled service; traffic collision avoidance 

systems for nine or more seats in scheduled service; ground proximity warning systems for nine or more seats; digital flight data recorders for nine or more seats; and terrain awareness warning systems for nine or more seats and now driving down into the fiveseat turbine aircraft; Capstone I and II in Bethel and Southeast 

Alaska; sophisticated desktop flight simulation devices which are 

many generations beyond what I would have considered we could 

have done with the desktop computers. We just recently invested 

in a simulation device just based on desktop simulation. And ADS–

B, Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast. 

In culture, Capstone made for affordable installation of collision 

and terrain avoidance and situational awareness equipment. Post 

9/11 insurance rates, which we’re still recovering from, putting a 

greater emphasis today on safety records and history of accidents 

when renewing insurance. It couldn’t be a better time for the Medallion Foundation. Security awareness and mandated programs 

driving down into even the smaller carriers. Conversion of Part 121 

operations with a greater emphasis on operational control. The Medallion Foundation awarding stars emphasizing operational control, 

company safety programs, use of simulation for controlled flight 

into terrain situations, maintenance and ground personnel training 

and procedures and internal audit programs. Risk assessment: the 

process of elevating the decision to accept or not accept risk to the 

highest level of management necessary to address the level of risk. 

Capstone II, affordable installation of WAAS compatible equipment, traffic awareness and creation of WAAS-based approaches 

and airways. The Rural Service Improvement Act or the Bypass 

Mail Program with an emphasis on carrying passengers in Part 

121 operations and reducing costs to the Postal Service. While 

there is much controversy about many facets of the Bypass Mail 

System, the number of air carriers providing service to the remote 

communities in Alaska has shrunk dramatically. Because fewer 

flights are being flown on a daily basis, the risk of accidents has 

been reduced. However, the aircraft left in the system are larger 

18

and require better airport conditions. To maximize the benefit of 

Part 121 operations, the airports and associated airway infrastructure need to be commensurate with the high standards and demands of 121 operations. ATOS, the Air Transportation Oversight 

System, is an FAA program of oversight that emphasizes evaluating the elements of certification and the validation of certificated 

121 carriers. And the ASAP Program, Aviation Safety Action Program, a collaborative non-reprisal program with the industry, the 

FAA and employees that gathers data on safety issues that would 

not otherwise have been reported. 

So what’s missing? I guess that’s why I’m here today, to let you 

know the needs of aviation in Alaska. 

1. Continued funding of Medallion Foundation. 

2. Funding support for Capstone Phase III. The total amount to 

outfit the rest of the state’s aircraft in GA and commercial is upwards of $70 million. This will put WAAS units and ADS–B receivers in most of the active fleet in Alaska. While the up-front costs 

seem large, it will enable the FAA to look down the road and decommission some of the legacy ground aids that are a draw on the 

system. The FAA must follow through on its commitment to install 

ground-based transmitters throughout the state. This provides us 

with improved rural access. 

3. Continued support on maximum AIP funding. We would like 

to see more discretion given to the state on surface maintenance 

spending versus capital projects. The Bypass Mail System has encouraged Part 121 operations. The state will inevitably see more 

Part 121 operations and operators in the future. Today AIP funding 

is linked to enplanements, which should also take into consideration the type of operation at the runway. For example, if the runway is served by a 121 carrier, the AIP funding formula should 

automatically consider the airport to be a primary airport and be 

exempt from the 10,000-enplanement requirement. This will ensure 

that the airport gets funded for the safest level of ground operations. 

In conclusion, I’d like to thank you for joining us in pioneering 

new technologies and proactive safety systems. As a friend of mine 

once said, the problem with being a pioneer is that you get the 

most arrows. The unprecedented Part 135/121 safety record in 2005 

speaks not only to your continued support, but to our desire to be 

the standard to which other parts of our great country are measured. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hajdukovich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB HAJDUKOVICH, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, FRONTIER

FLYING SERVICE

Good morning, Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

allowing me the opportunity to testify today with regard to my experience with the 

unique issues facing the aviation industry in Alaska today. 

In the past eighteen years, I have been witness to a distinctive culture shift in 

the aviation community. Safety culture is no longer a cliche ́ or catch phrase but 

rather a way of life for most commercial operators in Alaska today. I directly attribute this shift in culture to programs such as the Medallion Foundation, Capstone, the Alaska Air Carriers Association, The Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, AOPA and our FAA leadership in Alaska among others. 

This Safety culture has taken root. The industry is committed to positive change, 

but continues to struggle; just six years ago Frontier paid a system wide average 

19

price of 70 cents per gallon for jet fuel and today’s price is $2.85 per gallon (a 307 

percent increase). We get one-half the insurance coverage for twice the premium dollar while frivolous litigation continues to plague aviation. Our engine and maintenance cost have risen five to seven percent per year. While these challenges are not 

unique to Alaska, our need for improved infrastructure is. 

I am what one might consider a Generation X Alaskan pilot. I was born in Alaska 

and am fortunate to have a rich aviation history in my family as well as my wife’s. 

When I first started full time at Frontier in 1988 the industry had a culture of ‘‘get 

the job done.’’ LORAN was the best thing since sliced bread, except it did not work 

in two-thirds of the state. I can look back on my relatively short career in aviation 

and see a great and continuing evolution of three things; infrastructure, technology 

and safety culture. 

I would like to point out some of the notable events that our company has been 

witness to just in the past fifteen years: 

Infrastructure 

• GPS approaches 

• AWOS—automated weather systems 

• Weather Cameras 

• GBT—Ground Based Transmitters 

• WAAS—Wide Area Augmentation System 

• Downsizing of Flight Service Stations 

• Airport Improvement projects 

Technology 

• GPS 

• CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) for 9 or more seats 

• TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) for 9 or more seats 

• GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) for 9 or more seats 

• DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder) for 9 or more seats 

• TAWS or EGPWS (Terrain Awareness Warning System) for 9 or more seats 

• Capstone I / II (Bethel and Southeast Alaska) 

• Sophisticated desktop flight simulation devices 

• ADS–B—Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

Culture 

• Capstone I—affordable installation of collision, terrain avoidance and situation 

awareness equipment.

• Post 9/11 insurance rates—putting a greater emphasis on safety records and 

history of accidents when renewing insurance.

• Security awareness and mandated programs.

• Conversion to Part 121—greater operational control.

• Medallion Foundation—Stars emphasizing Operational Control, Company Safety Program, use of simulation for Controlled Flight into Terrain situations, 

Maintenance and Ground personnel training and procedures and Internal Audit 

Programs.

• Risk Assessment—The process of elevating a decision, to accept or not accept 

risk, to the highest management level necessary to address the ‘‘Level’’ of risk.

• Capstone II—Affordable installation of WAAS compatible equipment, traffic 

awareness and creation of WAAS based approaches and airways.

• RSIA—Rural Service Improvement Act—emphasis on carrying passengers and 

Part 121 operations and reducing costs to the Postal Service. While there is 

much controversy about many facets of RSIA, the number of Air Carriers providing service to the remote communities in Alaska has shrunk dramatically. 

Because fewer flights are being flown on a daily basis, the risk of accidents has 

been reduced. However, the aircraft left in the system are larger and require 

better airport conditions. To maximize the benefit of Part 121 operations, the 

airports and associated airway infrastructure need to be commensurate with the 

high standards and demands of 121.

• ATOS—Air Transportation Oversight System—An FAA method of oversight 

that emphasizes evaluating elements of certification and validation of certificated 121 carriers.

• ASAP—Aviation Safety Action Program—a collaborative non-reprisal program 

with the industry, FAA and employees that gathers data on safety issues that 

would not have otherwise been reported.

20

So What’s Missing? 

Which I guess is really why I am here today, to let you know the needs of aviation 

in Alaska.

1. Continued funding of the Medallion Foundation.

2. Funding support for Capstone Phase III—The total amount to outfit the rest 

of the state’s aircraft (GA and Commercial) is $70 million. This will put WAAS 

units and ADS–B in most of the active fleet in Alaska. While the up-front costs 

seem large, it will enable the FAA to look down the road and decommission 

some of the legacy ground aids that are a draw on the system. The FAA must 

follow through on its commitment to install ground based transmitters (GBT) 

throughout the state.

3. Continued support on maximum AIP funding—We would like to see more discretion given to the state on surface maintenance spending versus capital 

projects. RSIA has encouraged Part 121 Operations. The state will inevitably 

see more Part 121 operations and operators in the future. Today, AIP funding 

is linked to enplanements but should also take into consideration the type of 

operation at the runway. For example, if the runway is served by a Part 121 

carrier, the AIP funding formula should automatically consider the airport to 

be a primary airport and be exempt from the 10,000-emplanement requirement. 

This will ensure that the airport gets funded for the safest level of ground operation.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you both for joining us in pioneering new 

technologies and proactive safety programs. As a friend of mine once said, ‘‘The 

problem with being a pioneer is that you get the most arrows.’’

The unprecedented Part 135/121 safety record in 2005 speaks not only to your 

continued support, but to our desire to be the standard to which other parts of our 

great country are measured. 

Thank you for your time.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mort Plumb, the Director of 

the Anchorage Airport. 

STATEMENT OF MORTON V. PLUMB, JR., DIRECTOR, TED 

STEVENS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

Mr. PLUMB. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, members of the 

staff. My name is Mort Plumb, I’m Director of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak with you today about the particular interests of our airport 

and about matters of importance to commercial service airports 

across the country. 

I’m proud of the airport’s role in the National Air Transportation 

System as the primary transpacific gateway for international cargo, 

an important stop for international passenger routes as well as a 

commercial hub for some 260 communities throughout Alaska. 

Since the beginning of airfield operations more than 50 years ago, 

Anchorage International has grown to be number one for landed 

gross weight for cargo airport and third ranking cargo airport in 

the world based on cargo tonnage. Anchorage International air 

cargo operations have averaged 7 percent growth over the past 10 

years and we expect Anchorage air cargo operations to continue to 

increase. 

Due to the strong growth in Asia-U.S. trade and record fuel 

prices, our Nation reaps economic benefits as more and more cargo 

carriers capitalize on the efficiencies afforded by Alaska’s strategic 

position on the Pacific Rim. They recognize that a refueling stop at 

Anchorage is the key to maximum cargo payloads and peak economic efficiency for transpacific freighter flights. Further, thanks 

to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in 2004 Congress approved flexiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
21

bility of international and domestic carriers to achieve additional 

efficiencies by cross-loading, sorting and clearing cargo in Anchorage to reach multiple locations in the U.S. for eastbound freight 

and Asia for westbound freight. So far, at least four carriers are 

using this flexibility to reach more destinations more efficiently, all 

to the benefit of the United States economy. 

The visitor industry continues to increase passenger traffic as well. This summer construction will begin on a $176.8 million passenger terminal project to complement the new C Concourse which 

opened in 2004. This project is scheduled to be completed by 2010. 

For both airports in the Alaska International Airport System, Ted 

Stevens Anchorage International Airport and Fairbanks International Airport, Passenger Facility Charges or PFCs are part of 

the formula for success. As I’ll discuss in a minute, Alaska’s airport 

system joins other airports across the country in requesting updates to the PFC program. 

In addition to passenger infrastructure improvements, Anchorage International will see over $100 million in private expansion of air 

cargo facilities. As one of the first airports that will host the Airbus 

A–380 in 2009 on FedEx and UPS ramps here, the airport is preparing its airfield with the help of the FAA Letter of Intent discussed by the Administrator. The LOI program, as I will discuss, 

is critical to Anchorage’s ability to accommodate this 1.3 million 

pound aircraft. 

Keeping in mind the very strong performance and outlook here 

at Anchorage International, let me turn now to a major issue with 

which we need this Committee’s continued and strengthened support. 

Chairman Stevens, your staff has worked diligently over the past 

3 years on the Transit Without Visa Waiver issue, better known as 

TWOV. I testified last summer before your Committee and am back 

again this year still asking for your help in resolving the TWOV 

issue. I am disappointed to report to you that rather than being 

closer to a resolution with DHS, TSA and CBP, we quite frankly 

see no end in sight. In April, Governor Murkowski and I met with 

Secretary Michael Chertoff here in Alaska to seek his help in reinstating TWOV in Alaska. Although Secretary Chertoff was receptive and committed to provide an answer 30 days from April 4th, 

the issue remains unresolved. I have learned that DHS has again 

gained interest in working this issue since July 3rd when advance 

copies of my testimony were made available. However, DHS has 

not yet—has yet been unable to develop a solution satisfactory to 

all its component interests. 

In the past, we’ve tried to allay the concern that reinstatement 

of TWOV at Anchorage would set an undesirable precedent. In reality, however, under well established existing precedent over the 

past 20 years, Anchorage transit stops have been handled according to Anchorage’s unique circumstances without establishing 

precedent replicated at other U.S. airports. A program that allows 

non-U.S. passengers without a U.S. visa to deplane into the secure 

transit lounge at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and 

get back on the same aircraft without re-screening is supported by 

Anchorage’s special circumstances and sets no precedent for other 

airports. 

22

Another concern is that a nationwide transit program should not 

be reinstated. But DHS need not reinstate a national transit program. DHS could reinstate the program only to include flights 

where all passengers arrive and depart on the same aircraft in 

flight and remain in a secure facility, physically separated from 

non-transit gates. Or DHS could simply limit the reinstatement 

program to Anchorage. 

Our original, simple request to CBP was to allow carriers to enplane and deplane passengers on transit flights into our special, secure transit facility at Anchorage when stopping en route through 

Alaska to other foreign destinations. In this simple request, well 

meaning Federal officials have identified a thicket of technical 

issues, none of which, we believe, pose any reasonable threat to 

U.S. aviation security. The largest issue, for example, is TSA’s concern that no Federal employee would personally re-screen these few 

hundred passengers each day who were previously screened at a 

foreign point of origin and who merely visit our transit lounge before continuing to a foreign destination on the same aircraft on 

which they arrived. In doing so, DHS is reading a security issue 

into what is really a labor issue. Based on what we believe to be 

a stretched reading of the Aviation and Transportation Security 

Act (ATSA), the TSA believes it raises an issue to allow a TSAscreened passenger to join such a flight transiting through Anchorage to a foreign destination, though there appear to be no material 

security concerns. Mr. Chairman, we request your Committee to 

convey to DHS that ATSA’s requirement that Federal employees do 

the screening for U.S. origin flights and flight segments is a labor 

and control provision. It stipulates who must do the screening at 

U.S. airports, and does not dictate that foreign screened passengers 

must be re-screened or kept separate from TSA-screened passengers. 

We have spent over $1 million in terminal modifications to separate CBP-cleared passengers from un-cleared passengers. Now TSA 

is asking us to again modify the terminal to separate the foreignscreened passengers from the TSA-screened passengers. Any justification for this requirement disappears in the face of the TSA’s 

position that such differently screened passengers may not mix in 

the terminal, but they can mix onboard the aircraft. As a matter 

of fact, we understand that mixing on the airplane has not caused 

any reported incidents at other airports where it’s been occurring 

successfully for some time. 

Let me just quickly explain what the DHS is asking us to do 

with these people. They are asking that these passengers deplane, 

go through a document certification, technically exit to the United 

States by going outside the secure sterile area, come back into the 

sterile area through TSA screening, then go through the U.S. Visit 

program, fill out the forms and get back on the airplane. It appears 

to be a waste of time, manpower, labor and does not add any security to this country. 

All of these processes must be done within the 90-minute ground 

time. The airline staff spends the entire time getting passengers 

through DHS process and back on the airplane just to be able to 

board a few originating passengers in Anchorage. 

23

Currently we have 18 international passenger flights that arrive 

each week, only four of which are actually permitted to deplane 

into the terminal. These flights have operated safely and securely 

for nearly 20 years without incident. We truly believe these modifications are unnecessary because the basis for the demands have 

no material security rationale. But if DHS insists on imposing 

these segregation or re-screening requirements that cannot, at the 

end of the day, reasonably be justified as furthering U.S. security 

interests, then we believe the Federal Government should bear the 

burden of paying these costs of infrastructure and additional 

screeners. 

Our main goal continues to be that all passengers be allowed off 

the airplane into the sterile, secure transit facility with minimal 

processing, yet exposed to U.S. security officials. We firmly believe 

the additional processing that DHS is requiring here in Anchorage 

will soon push carriers to over-fly Alaska and the U.S. altogether, 

to the detriment of both the Alaska economy and U.S. security. 

Let me turn to an issue now that has been addressed by some 

of the other panelists. Although the TWOV and transit passenger 

processing are our most urgent issues, Federal funding issues loom 

large on the horizon. Alaska could face a major funding challenge 

were AIP funding allowed to fall below $3.2 billion. A level of funding below this amount would greatly reduce Anchorage’s critical 

cargo entitlements. As you are aware, Anchorage serves as a critical transit and transfer point for a large proportion of international air cargo to and from the United States. Funding for our 

cargo support infrastructure is truly a concern for our national 

economy. We recommend that cargo entitlements be increased a 

modest .05 percent, from 3.5 to 4 percent, to better balance the increased cargo infrastructure needs compared with passenger infrastructure needs. 

With regard to flexibility in AIP spending, in addition to AIP formula issues, restrictions on the use of these funds has also become 

an issue. The current FAA regulations are restrictive on the ability 

of airports to use their entitlement funding. With greater flexibility, airports could use this funding a little more efficiently. 

For example, it would make sense to use AIP funds to purchase 

a larger runway snow blower here at Anchorage. This new snow 

blower which clears twice the width of any current equipment 

would make our winter operations more efficient, safer for the airlines, economical—and increase safety. The only manufacturer with 

a proven reliability is a foreign entity. Special condition nine of the 

AIP grant agreement precludes us from purchasing this and other 

essential pieces of equipment using AIP funds. 

PFC flexibility. Although airports enjoy somewhat greater flexibility on the use of Passenger Facility Charges, current FAA restrictions include sometimes burdensome limits on PFC use. In addition, current FAA regulations reduce AIP funding to both medium and large hub airports when they raise Passenger Facility 

Charges to any level above $3.00. This provision effectively penalizes a medium hub airport such as Anchorage that collects a higher 

PFC, but does not have a large hub passenger volume to make up 

for the loss of AIP funds. When the FAA states a larger reservoir 

of PFC dollars remains untapped by some airports, it doesn’t inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
24

clude or consider the higher penalties if you do get more AIP funds. 

PFCs are not Federal funds. Those collections should not be subject 

to any offset of Federal dollars for medium hub airports. Anchorage 

is a perfect example of an airport that could grow this capital funding source for much needed projects were the AIP offset rule abolished for medium hubs. To strengthen the PFC program for the 

benefit of airports nationwide, we do support a higher maximum 

PFC. But we also need to reduce the penalty for collecting a higher 

PFC. 

Turning now from general infrastructure funding, I want to address the special challenge of security funding. As you know, the 

airport operating environment has changed dramatically since the 

9/11 attacks. The Transportation Security Administration continues 

to place new requirements on airports without providing airports 

any funding to carry out the new requirements. In fact, Senator, 

we are still waiting for an LOI promised by the former TSA Administrator, Admiral Loy, who in 2003 committed to this airport and 

committed to you and to the staff. 

While we have worked very closely with TSA leadership, Anchorage was promised that a new security requirement would be reimbursed by TSA. To date, these commitments have not been fulfilled. 

To date, Anchorage has spent $19.6 million to fund TSA-mandated 

security enhancements in Concourse C and is projected to spend 

another $15 million in Concourse A. The failure of the Federal Government to fund these security mandates has compelled Anchorage 

to use revenues that would otherwise be available for important infrastructure developments. This burden has now been placed on 

our air carriers, many in dire financial crisis. I am hopeful the Ted 

Stevens Anchorage International Airport will participate in the 

proposed funds in the 2007 DHS spending bill. 

In conclusion, the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

competes in a worldwide market of Olympic proportions. Our nation’s good economic scores in today’s global business environment 

reflect Anchorage’s contribution in delivering value for the lowest 

cost. Air cargo is claiming a growing proportion of international 

trade within the world. The Federal rules by which gateway airports must play and rules that burden AIP funds and PFCs have 

an important effect on our ability to provide services at the lowest 

possible cost to keep pace with other market forces. We believe our 

proposals for infrastructure and procedural enhancements while 

ensuring aviation safety and security are essential. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not note my great appreciation 

for the incredible support of our outgoing Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta. His personal support to me and to the Ted 

Stevens Anchorage International Airport has been superb. Under 

his leadership and that of Administrator Blakey, former Associate 

Administrator of Airports, Woodie Woodward, Acting Associate Director Kate Lang and Alaska Airports Division Deputy Manager, 

Deb Roth, the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has become the Olympic capable world class airport it is today. 

Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Administrator Blakey, for 

your continuing leadership in providing resources and adopting 

new cargo legislation to help this great airport serve the Nation’s 

interests. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his continVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
25

ued support for Alaska and our international airport system. We 

look forward to working with you to implement these reforms we 

have suggested today to continue our strong record to make this a 

secure airport and an economical airport for our air carriers. Mr. 

Chairman, that concludes my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Plumb follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MORTON V. PLUMB JR., DIRECTOR, TED STEVENS

ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Good morning, Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee. My name is 

Mort Plumb and I am the director of Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the particular interests 

of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) and about matters of importance to commercial service airports across the country. 

I am proud of the Airport’s role in the National Air Transportation System as the 

primary transpacific gateway for international cargo, an important stop for international passenger routes as well as a commercial hub for some 260 communities 

throughout Alaska. Since the beginning of airfield operations more than 50 years 

ago, Anchorage International has grown to be number one for landed gross weight 

for cargo airports and the third ranking cargo airport in the world based on cargo 

tonnage. Anchorage’s international air cargo operations have averaged 7 percent 

growth over the past 10 years and we expect Anchorage’s air cargo operations to 

continue this trend. 

Due to strong growth in Asia-U.S. trade and record fuel prices, our Nation reaps 

economic benefits as more and more cargo carriers capitalize on efficiencies afforded 

by Alaska’s strategic position on the Pacific Rim. They recognize that a refueling 

stop at ANC is the key to maximum cargo payloads and peak economic efficiency 

for transpacific freighter flights. Further, thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, 

in 2004 Congress approved flexibility of international and domestic carriers to 

achieve additional efficiencies by cross-loading, sorting and clearing cargo in ANC 

to reach multiple locations in the U.S. for eastbound freight and in Asia for westbound freight. So far, at least four carriers are using this flexibility to reach more 

destinations more efficiently—all to the benefit of the United States economy. 

The visitor industry continues to increase passenger traffic as well. This summer 

construction will begin on a $176.8 million Passenger Terminal project to complement the new C Concourse which opened in 2004. This project is scheduled to 

be completed by 2010. For both airports in the Alaska International Airport System 

(Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and Fairbanks International Airport) 

Passenger Facility Charges, or PFCs, are part of the formula for success, but as I 

will discuss in a minute, Alaska’s airport system joins other airports across the 

country in requesting important updates in the PFC program. 

In addition to passenger infrastructure improvements, Anchorage International 

will see over $100 million in private expansion of air cargo facilities. As one of the 

first airports that will host the Airbus A–380 in 2009 on FedEx and UPS ramps 

here, the airport is preparing its airfield, with the help of FAA Letter of Intent 

funds. Modifying the LOI program, as I will discuss, is critical to ANC’s ability to 

accommodate this 1.3 million-pound aircraft. 

Keeping in mind the very strong performance and outlook here at Anchorage 

International, let me turn now to the major issues with which we need this Committee’s continued and strengthened support. 

Transit Without Visa 

Senator Stevens, your staff has worked tirelessly over the last three years, on the 

Transit Without Visa issue. I testified last summer before your Committee and am 

back again this year still asking for your help in resolving the TWOV issue. I am 

disappointed to report to you that rather than being closer to a resolution with 

DHS, TSA, and CBP, we quite frankly, see no end in sight. In April, Governor Murkowski and I met with Secretary Michael Chertoff here in Alaska to seek his help 

in reinstating TWOV in Alaska. Although Secretary Chertoff was receptive, the 

issue remains unresolved. 

Our original, simple request to CBP was to allow carriers to enplane and deplane 

passengers on transit flights into our special, secure, transit facility at ANC when 

stopping en route through Alaska to other foreign destinations. In this simple request, well-meaning Federal officials have identified a thicket of technical issues, 

none of which, we believe, pose any appreciable threat to U.S. aviation security. The 

26

largest issue, for example, is TSA’s concern that no Federal employee would personally re-screen these few hundred passengers each day who were previously screened 

at a foreign point of origin under ICAO standards, and who merely visit our transit 

lounge before continuing to a foreign destination on the same aircraft on which they 

arrived. Based on what we believe to be a stretched reading of the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act, the TSA believes it raises an issue to allow a TSAscreened passenger to join such a flight transiting through Anchorage to the foreign 

destination, though there appear to be no material security concerns. We have spent over $1 million in terminal modifications to separate CBP-cleared 

passengers from un-cleared passengers. Now TSA is asking us to again modify the 

terminal to separate the ICAO-screened passengers from TSA-screened passengers. 

Any justification for this requirement disappears in the face of the TSA’s position 

that such differentially-screened passengers may not mix in the terminal, but may 

mix onboard the airplane. As a matter of fact, we understand that mixing on the 

plane has not caused any reported incidents at other airports where it been occurring successfully for some time. 

Let me explain the entire DHS-proposed international transit passenger proc- esses:

1. Passengers must process through CBP including passport verification, immigration document processing submitting I–94 forms, and U.S. Visit 

fingerprinting and photograph.

2. Passengers then exit through Customs submitting Customs Declaration 

Forms.

3. Passengers must then be re-screened through TSA screening.

4. Finally, passengers return to the gate area, where they must soon thereafter 

perform exit procedures through U.S. Visit, submitting fingerprint and photo information once again.

All of these processes must be done within the 90-minute ground time. The airline 

staff spends the entire ground time getting passengers through the DHS processes 

and back on airplane just to be able to board a few passengers originating in Anchorage. 

Currently we have 18 international passenger flight arrivals each week. These 

flights have operated safely and securely for nearly 20 years. We truly believe these 

modifications are unnecessary because the basis for the demands have no material 

security rationale. But if DHS insists on imposing these segregation and/or rescreening requirements that cannot, at the end of the day, reasonably be justified 

as furthering U.S. security interests, then the Federal Government should bear the 

burden of paying the cost of infrastructure and additional screeners. 

Our main goal continues to be that all passengers be allowed off the airplane into 

the sterile, secure transit facility with minimal processing, yet exposed to U.S. security officials. We firmly believe the additional processing that DHS is requiring here 

in Anchorage will soon push carriers to overfly Alaska and the U.S. altogether, to 

the detriment of both the Alaska economy and U.S. security. 

AIP Funding Levels and Formula 

Although TWOV and transit passenger processing are our most urgent issues, 

Federal funding issues loom large on the horizon. Alaska could face a major funding 

challenge were AIP funding allowed to fall below $3.2 billion. A level of funding 

below this amount would greatly reduce Anchorage’s critical cargo entitlements. Anchorage relies more heavily on cargo entitlements than any other airport in the nation. Because ANC serves as a critical transit and transfer point for a large proportion of international air cargo to and from the United States, funding for our cargo 

support infrastructure is truly a concern for our national economy, and not merely 

local interests. We recommend that cargo entitlements be increased 0.5 percent from 

3.5 percent to 4 percent to better balance the increased cargo infrastructure needs 

compared with passenger infrastructure needs. In past years, an effort was made 

to reduce or cap cargo’s share of the funding formula. With growth in heavy air 

cargo continuing to outpace passenger growth, a modest increase in cargo’s share 

is more appropriate. 

Flexibility for AIP Spending 

In additional to AIP formula issues, restrictions on use of these funds has also 

become an issue. Current FAA regulations are very restrictive on the ability of airports to use their entitlement funding. With greater flexibility, airports could use 

this funding more efficiently. 

For example, it would make sense for us to use AIP funds to purchase a larger 

runway snow blower to be used on the larger runways and taxiways we are building 

27

to accommodate the new larger aircraft. This new snow blower, which clears twice 

the width of any current equipment, would make our winter operations more efficient, economical and increase safety. The only manufacturer with a proven reliability is a foreign entity. Special condition 9 of the AIP grant agreement precludes 

us from purchasing this and other essential pieces of equipment using AIP funds. 

PFC Flexibility, Penalty and Ceiling 

Although airports enjoy somewhat greater flexibility on use of Passenger Facility 

Charges, there again FAA restrictions include unnecessary and administratively 

burdensome limits on PFC use. In addition, current FAA regulations reduce AIP 

funding to medium and large hub airports when they raise Passenger Facility 

Charges to any level above $3.00. This provision effectively penalizes an airport that 

collects a higher PFC—depending on passenger volumes, the loss of AIP can exceed 

any additional PFC revenues. When the FAA asserts that a large reservoir of PFC 

dollars remains untapped by airports that do not adopt higher PFC rates, that assessment ignores this penalty. PFCs are not Federal funds; those collections should 

not be subject to any more than minimal restrictions and should not offset Federal 

dollars. ANC is a perfect example of an airport that could grow this capital funding 

source for much-needed projects were the AIP offset rule abolished. To strengthen 

the PFC program for the benefit of airports nationwide, we do support a higher 

maximum PFC, but we also need to abolish or reduce the penalty for adopting a 

higher PFC if the program is to live up its potential. 

TSA 

Turning now from general infrastructure funding, I want to address the special 

challenge of security funding. As you know the airport operating environment has 

changed dramatically since the 9/11 attacks. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continues to place new requirements on airports without providing 

airports any funding to carry out the new requirements. In fact, Senator, we are 

still waiting for an LOI promised by former TSA Administrator Loy in 2003. 

While we have worked very closely with TSA leadership, Anchorage was promised 

that new security requirements would be reimbursed by TSA. To date, these commitments have not been fulfilled. To date, ANC has spent $19.6 million to fund 

TSA-mandated security enhancements in Concourse C and is projected to spend another $15.0 million in Concourses A & B. The failure of the Federal Government 

to fund these security mandates has compelled ANC to use revenues that would otherwise be available for important infrastructure development needs. This burden 

has now been placed on our air carriers, many in dire financial crises. I am hopeful 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport will participate in the proposed funds 

in the 2007 DHS Spending Bill. 

Air Cargo Security 

A security issue of particular importance for Anchorage International is the Department of Homeland Security’s recently issued final rules for Air Cargo Security. 

The approach resulted from collaboration with all parties and correctly emphasizes 

a threat-based system in air cargo. ANC had already created its own Working 

Group on Air Cargo Security at ANC with the industry and interested agencies to 

get a sense of what is realistic and what is overkill, especially for all-cargo air 

freighters. Our Working Group participated in the national policy process. There are 

those, on the other hand, who propose such extreme proposals as 100 percent cargo 

screening and inspection. The effect on our economy, we believe, must be weighed 

against the threat of attack on air cargo aircraft. In fact, devoting DHS resources 

to 100 percent inspection for cargo would either require a tremendous additional 

commitment of Federal funds or it would actually reduce security by pulling inspectors from the tragically proven threat to passenger aircraft. We applaud Congress’ 

awareness that an overzealous bureaucratic solution may not be a good solution at 

all. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport competes in a worldwide market of Olympic proportions. Our nation’s good economic scores in today’s 

global business environment reflect ANC’s contribution in delivering value for lowest cost. Air cargo is claiming a growing proportion of international trade with the 

world. The Federal rules by which gateway airports must play and rules that burden AIP funds and PFCs have an important effect on our ability to provide services 

at the lowest possible cost to keep pace with other market forces. We believe our 

proposals for infrastructure and procedural enhancements while ensuring aviation 

safety and security are essential. 

28

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not note my great appreciation for the incredible support of our outgoing Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta, his personal 

support to me and his professional support of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Under his leadership and that of Administrator Blakey, former Associate Administrator of Airports, Woodie Woodward, Acting Associate Administrator Kate Lang and Alaska Deputy Manager for Airports Division, Deb Roth, the 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has become the Olympic-capable 

world-class airport it is today. 

Thank you, Senator Stevens and Administrator Blakey, for your continuing leadership in providing resources and adopting new cargo legislation to help this great 

airport serve the nation’s interests. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for 

his continued support for Alaska and our International Airport System. We look forward to working with you to implement the reforms we have suggested today to continue our strong record of contribution to a secure and efficient national air transportation system. That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Our last witness is Tom George, the Alaska Regional Representative for AOPA. 

STATEMENT OF TOM GEORGE, ALASKA REGIONAL

REPRESENTATIVE, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GEORGE. Good morning. And thank you for the invitation to 

participate in the panel this morning. My name is Tom George and 

I serve as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s Regional 

Representative for Alaska on behalf of over 4,200 members in the 

state. I’d briefly like to touch on several issues that concern us 

today. 

Funding for the FAA. For the past year, debate over how to fund 

the Federal Aviation Administration and its associated programs 

has been underway. The airlines and the FAA are advocating to replace aviation taxes with the user fee system, including taking the 

air traffic control system out from under the management and 

oversight and budgetary control of the Congress. For many of us 

in Alaska are questioning why Washington would totally change 

the effective mechanism that currently funds the safest, most efficient aviation system in the world. Without Congress acting as 

FAA’s Board of Directors, Alaska’s needs would likely be shortchanged. 

The FAA claims the Aviation Trust Fund is insufficient and provides funding in a manner that is unpredictable. But the fact of the 

matter is, with ticket prices and the number of passengers increasing, more money is going into the Trust Fund than ever. Alaska is 

so reliant on aviation and it plays such an important role in the 

economic backbone of the state, isn’t it appropriate for 25 percent 

of the FAA’s costs to be funded by the general taxpayers? Everyone 

in the state benefits from aviation system, whether or not they actually fly. Deliveries of goods and services, medical care and supplies, mail delivery and other everyday needs are all dependent on 

a viable air transportation system. 

Turning to airport funding. Alaska relies heavily on FAA funding 

through the Airport Improvement Program to develop our airports. 

As you’ve heard already this morning from I think every other 

panel member, the Administration’s request for the program falls 

short of meeting Alaska’s needs. The President’s Fiscal Year 2007 

budget proposes to fund AIP at $2.7 billion, nearly a billion dollars 

less than its authorized level. Due to the specific provisions of the 

29

authorizing statute for the AIP Program, the proposed level of 

funding would result in Alaska losing over $23 million this next 

year. Rural airports most impacted by these formulas are also least 

able to draw from other resources to absorb these cuts. 

Fortunately, the House of Representatives rejected this proposal and voted to fund AIP at its authorized level of $3.7 billion last 

month. The stakes are high for Alaska’s pilots, and this is one of 

AOPA’s top priorities in 2006. We urge you to fund the Airport Improvement Program at $3.7 billion. 

The Capstone Program. You’ve already heard this morning about 

the safety benefits of the Capstone Program. Together both ADS–

B and the WAAS elements of the Program are bringing Alaska up 

to par with the Nation in terms of aviation infrastructure while at 

the same time generating data to help develop the future of our nation’s air traffic control system. 

I’d like to add that both programs appear to be much lower cost 

to install and maintain than some of the current technology. We 

strongly encourage the FAA to move forward and aggressively deploy the ground infrastructure necessary to provide statewide coverage of ADS–B and WAAS routes and approaches. For this program to continue its record of success in improving safety, the FAA 

should also support industry efforts in Alaska to develop a financial 

assistance program to help aircraft owners voluntarily install the 

equipment needed to realize the full benefits of this program. Without affordable avionics, Capstone and its associated nationwide implementation will be hampered, or will fail to reach their full potential. 

I’d like to briefly touch on two weather related programs that are 

also improving aviation safety in Alaska. The FAA Weather Camera Program, which you’ve already heard about this morning, has 

certainly become an invaluable source of weather information to 

general aviation pilots. Observations recorded every 10 minutes are 

made available to the public over the Internet. As a frequent user 

of the Camera Program, I can tell you that being able to look at 

weather conditions firsthand really helps make an informed decision. And it also helps overcome many of the shortcomings of the 

unattended automated weather stations. We need to continue to expand this network and to improve the user interface for this beneficial service. 

I’d also like to mention the National Weather Service efforts with 

regard to aviation. They operate an aviation weather website that 

delivers weather products, often in graphical form, directly to pilots. When I use this site I can also get access to the most current 

weather satellite and NextRad weather radar data. Ironically it’s 

the only operational way that pilots can graphically view the pilot 

reports that have been collected by the FAA. AOPA encourages the 

National Weather Service to continue the development of their 

Alaska aviation weather website. 

I’d like to turn to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. One area that 

needs much more attention from the FAA is the issue of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or UAVs. Potential applications here in 

Alaska include military training, fisheries monitoring, pipeline patrol and forest fire mapping. Rugged terrain and severe weather 

conditions make the challenge of mixing UAVs with manned airVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:25 Aug 22, 2006 Jkt 029336 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\29336.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
30

craft worse in Alaska. It’s crucial to understand that aircraft are 

often funneled into narrow mountain passes or compressed under 

cloud layers, meaning that UAVs and manned aircraft will share 

limited airspace in close proximity to each other. While exciting 

technologically, it is important that UAVs don’t become a hazard 

to existing airspace users. 

AOPA believes that temporary flight restrictions for UAV operations are not appropriate and that the FAA needs to fully explore 

the alternatives available to allow Federal agencies to meet their 

operational needs without impacting general aviation. Alaska’s dependence on aviation as a form of basic transportation magnifies 

the inconvenience of airspace restrictions into a fundamental question of access. 

Military use of UAV, is also a concern. We have been told that 

the Army plans to use unmanned aircraft as part of their training 

for ground troops near Fort Greely. Where other military UAVs 

primarily use existing restricted airspace, the Army has stated that 

it will not ask for restricted airspace for this facility. It is essential 

that general aviation not be excluded from additional airspace in 

this area. 

When I talk with other pilots they express concern about running 

into these other aircraft or being blocked by TFRs. The FAA must 

develop standards to certify UAVs to the same level of safety as piloted aircraft. Failure to do so could further isolate Alaskan residents from the basic necessities needed to survive. 

Military airspace. The military shares vast amounts of airspace 

with civilian users in Alaska in the form of Military Operation 

Areas. These MOAs are used for military training activities both on 

a routine basis and for major flying exercises. The civil community 

has cooperated with the military in Alaska to develop these areas, 

respectful of both civil and military needs. A major factor contributing to the success is a service supported by the military called 

the Special Use Airspace Information Service. This service allows 

civil users to determine the current and near term status of the 

MOAs in restricted areas, greatly improving the situational awareness and therefore aviation safety for all users of the airspace. This 

system may need to be expanded to meet the growing needs of the 

Air Force and the Army as they ramp up their training activities 

in Alaska. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to bring several of 

these important issues that affect AOPA members to your attention. Under your leadership, field hearings in Alaska have become 

an annual event that serves to highlight our state’s unique environment to your colleagues. We appreciate this opportunity and 

your support for aviation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM GEORGE, ALASKA REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, 

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to be here today to discuss aviation 

issues in Alaska. My name is Tom George, and I serve as the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association’s (AOPA) Regional Representative for Alaska. AOPA represents 

more than 408,000 pilots and aircraft owners—more than two-thirds of all active pilots in the United States, including over 4,200 members in Alaska. 

31

Alaska, more than any other state, relies on general aviation as a major component of its transportation system. That is why some of the aviation funding proposals being debated back in Washington, D.C. would have a profound negative impact on Alaska’s residents. I’d like to share AOPA’s concerns in regards to this 

issue, highlight the initiatives that are improving aviation safety in the state, and 

outline the areas needing more attention. 

Protect the National Aviation System—Preserving the World’s Safest, Most 

Efficient Aviation System 

For the past year, debate over how to fund the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and its associated programs has been underway. The airlines and the FAA 

are advocating to replace aviation taxes with a user fee system, including taking the 

air traffic control system out from under the management oversight and budgetary 

control of the Congress. But many of us in Alaska are questioning why Washington 

would totally change the effective mechanism that currently funds the safest, most 

efficient aviation system in the world. Without Congress acting as the FAA’s Board 

of Directors, Alaska’s needs will likely be shortchanged. 

The FAA claims the Aviation Trust Fund is insufficient and provides funding in 

a manner that is unpredictable. But the fact of the matter is, with ticket prices and 

the number of passengers increasing, more money is going into the Trust Fund than 

ever. Alaska is so reliant on aviation and it plays such an important role in the economic backbone of the state, isn’t it appropriate that 25 percent of the FAA’s costs 

be funded by the general taxpayers? Everyone in the state benefits from the aviation system, whether or not they actually fly. Everyday deliveries of goods and services, medical services and supplies, mail delivery and other everyday needs are all 

dependent on a viable air transportation system. 

Airport Funding—Essential to Alaska’s Transportation System 

Congress has been particularly mindful of Alaska’s reliance on aviation transportation through its strong support of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). AIP 

grants provide much needed funding for airport development projects such as airfield capital improvements and repairs, navigational aids, airfield lighting, land acquisition, and planning studies. 

But as this Committee is well aware, the Administration’s request for this vital 

program has many AOPA members, especially those of us in Alaska, alarmed. The 

President’s FY07 budget proposes to fund AIP at $2.7 billion—nearly a billion dollars less than its authorized level. 

And the story gets worse. The current authorizing statute for AIP contains several special rules that are triggered only when AIP is funded at $3.2 billion or higher. 

One of those special rules creates a direct entitlement program for general aviation 

airports. While the $150,000 annual nonprimary airport grant may not sound like 

much money in Washington, D.C., it adds up for Alaska’s aviation system. This 

year, under the nonprimary entitlement program, 159 Alaskan airports are entitled 

to $22,938,653. Another rule triggered by this funding level doubles the amount of 

special funding Alaska receives, known as the ‘‘Supplemental Apportionment for 

Alaska.’’ This year, Alaska will receive $21,345,114 through this supplemental apportionment. If AIP is funded below $3.2 billion, Alaska will lose over $23 million in AIP funding—making it one of the top five states most severely impacted by this cut. Aviation is too important to Alaska to jeopardize our economy by allowing these cuts to 

be enacted. 

Fortunately, the House of Representatives rejected this short-sighted proposal, and voted to fund AIP at its authorized level of $3.7 billion last month. The stakes 

are high for Alaska’s pilots, and this is one of AOPA’s top priorities for 2006—we 

urge you to fund the Airport Improvement Program at $3.7 billion. 

Improving Safety—Leading the Way for Aviation Technology With Capstone Program 

Another top priority is fully realizing the safety benefits from the Capstone Program. Documented studies show a 47 percent reduction in accidents for general 

aviation aircraft using this new technology here in Alaska. The FAA partnered with 

the aviation community in Southwest Alaska to operationally demonstrate Automatic Direct Broadcast–Surveillance or ADS–B. General aviation pilots in Alaska 

have proven its viability, and it is one of the building blocks of the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System. This new data link technology provides a greater 

situational awareness to pilots and air traffic control, increasing safety in the sky 

and for the general public on the ground. 

A second phase of the program, still in deployment, is enhancing the Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS) with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) 

32

in Southeast Alaska. This will provide customized air traffic routes and approaches 

to better navigate the fjord-like terrain of the region. Since it does not need ground 

based navigation stations, these routes are easily adapted to the sea-level channels, 

and provide much lower minimum enroute altitudes. This is especially important for 

general aviation aircraft that are unable to handle icing at higher elevations. 

To put it simply, the Capstone Program is bringing Alaska up to par with the Nation in terms of aviation infrastructure, and generating data to help develop the future of our nation’s air traffic control system. These technologies have clearly shown 

the potential to increase aviation safety and access to rural Alaskan communities, 

many of which are still limited to daytime only visual operations (VFR). We strongly 

encourage the FAA to move forward aggressively to deploy the ground infrastructure necessary to provide statewide coverage for ADS-B and WAAS routes and approaches. For this program to continue its record of success in improving safety, the 

FAA should also support industry efforts in Alaska to develop a financial assistance 

program to help aircraft owners voluntarily install the equipment needed to realize 

the full benefits of this program. Without affordable avionics, Capstone and its associated nationwide implementation will be hampered, or fail to reach its full potential. 

Weather Reporting Programs—Another Important Tool for Improving

Safety 

Very quickly, I’d like to mention two weather-reporting programs that are also enhancing aviation safety in Alaska. The FAA Weather Camera Program is rapidly 

becoming a valuable source of weather information to general and commercial aviation pilots. Observations are recorded every ten minutes, uploaded onto the Internet, and made available to the public. This allows pilots to look at weather conditions firsthand before making operational decisions, overcoming many of the shortcomings of the unattended automated weather stations. 

The National Weather Service’s Alaska aviation weather website is filling a vital 

role in delivering weather products, often in graphic form, directly to pilots. The 

same site provides access to the most current weather satellite and NextRad weather data. Ironically, it is the only way that pilots can graphically view the pilot reports collected by the FAA. These observations, made by the pilots as they fly, 

bridge the huge gaps in data between ground reporting stations. AOPA also encourages the National Weather Service to continue the development of their Alaska 

aviation weather website. 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Must Be Implemented Carefully and 

Without Negative Impacts on General Aviation 

One area needing much more attention from the FAA is the issue of Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Potential UAV applications in Alaska include military training, fisheries monitoring, pipeline patrol, and forest fire mapping. Rugged terrain 

and severe weather conditions make the challenge of mixing UAVs with manned 

aircraft worse in Alaska. It’s crucial to understand that aircraft are often funneled 

into narrow mountain passes or compressed under cloud layers, meaning that UAVs 

and manned aircraft will share limited airspace in close proximity to each other. 

While exciting technologically, it is important that UAVs don’t become a hazard to 

the existing airspace users. 

AOPA believes that ‘‘temporary’’ flight restrictions (TFRs) for UAV operations are 

not appropriate and the FAA needs to fully explore the alternatives available to 

allow Federal agencies to meet their operational needs without impacting general 

aviation. Alaska’s dependence on aviation as a form of basic transportation magnifies the inconvenience of airspace restrictions into a fundamental question of access. 

Military use of UAVs is also a concern, and the Army plans to use unmanned aircraft as part of their training for ground troops near Ft. Greely. Where other military UAVs primarily use existing restricted airspace, the Army has stated that it 

will not ask for restricted airspace for this facility. It is essential that general aviation not be excluded from additional airspace in this area. 

AOPA recently surveyed its members on the issue of UAV operations. The overwhelming majority rejected the notion of flight restrictions, preferring that the FAA 

certify unmanned aircraft for operations in the Nation’s airspace. The FAA must develop standards to certify UAVs to the same level of safety as piloted aircraft. Failure to do so could further isolate Alaska residents from the basic necessities needed 

to survive. In addition, pilots have safety concerns that must be addressed by the 

FAA before UAV operations should be considered. Some of these are technical and 

some are regulatory including:

• The inability of UAVs to see and avoid manned aircraft;

33

• The inability of UAVs to immediately respond to ATC instructions;

• The absence of testing and demonstrations that UAVs can operate safely in the 

same airspace as manned aircraft; and

• The need to certify UAVs to the same level of safety as manned aircraft.

Military Airspace—Expansion Requires the DOD to Share More

Information With Pilots 

The military shares vast amounts of airspace with civil aviation users in Alaska 

in the form of Military Operations Areas (MOAs). These MOA’s are used for military 

training activities, both on a routine basis and for major flying exercises. The civil 

community has cooperated with the military in Alaska to develop these areas, respectful of both civil and military needs. A major factor contributing to this success 

is a service supported by the military called the Special Use Airspace Information 

Service (SUAIS). This service, formally defined in a 1997 Record of Decision that 

established the airspace complex, allows civil users to determine the current and 

near-term status of the MOAs and restricted areas, greatly improving the situational awareness and therefore aviation safety for all users of the airspace. This system may need to be expanded to meet the growing needs of the Air Force and the 

Army as they ramp up their training activities in Alaska. 

Congress Should Prevent Premature Decommissioning of LORAN 

General aviation pilots heavily rely on the Global Positioning System (GPS) for 

electronic navigation. In the case of unexpected GPS outages, pilots generally rely 

on ground based navigation aids such as Very High Frequency Omni Range (VOR). 

This is a suitable solution for now. However, VOR is generally believed to be an 

unsuitable backup for advanced GPS positioning and timing applications, such as 

ADS–B. Except for VOR, virtually all backup options are difficult for general aviation pilots to utilize, due to excessive cost or technological immaturity. 

Some believe that the Long Range Navigation (LORAN) system is a viable GPS 

backup for aviation users. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) U.S. Coast Guard has proposed to decommission LORAN as early as this 

September. Given the apparent need for an affordable, robust GPS backup that has 

similar performance, and supports the positioning and timing needs of aviation, the 

decommissioning of LORAN by the DHS is premature. Once gone, LORAN will no 

longer be a backup option, and any other suitable alternative would likely be more 

costly, take longer to implement, and would be the financial responsibility of the 

FAA exclusively. Congress should prevent LORAN decommissioning until the FAA 

can conclusively validate LORAN performance, and verify LORAN is a suitable 

backup to GPS. The FAA should also provide Congress with an assessment of the 

viability of affordable LORAN receivers that can be certified for general aviation. 

AOPA firmly believes that consultation with aviation users should be conducted before decommissioning LORAN. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to bring several of these important 

issues that affect AOPA members to your attention. Under your leadership, field 

hearings in Alaska have become an annual event that serves to highlight our state’s 

unique environment to your colleagues. As you well know, those of us that call Alaska home share a passion—one that is not easily understood by those in the lower 

48—for this place, so we truly appreciate your desire to represent us in the fervent 

manner that reflects who we are.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I do appreciate all of you 

for being with us today. Now, John, you mentioned the monies 

were already appropriated in the past. Are any of those amounts 

available for 2007? Are they carrying over any money? 

Mr. TORGERSON. I believe we are, Senator. I don’t know the 

amount but some of our funding lapses over fiscal years. If that’s 

what you’re referring to. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t remember whether we made those 2 year 

or no-year appropriations. We made money available in the past for 

the state’s priorities. You indicated that you had some carryover 

moneys as I understand it. I wondered have you checked to see if 

those are possible to carry over to Fiscal Year 2007? 

34

Mr. TORGERSON. For the rural airport lighting system this is the last year of that appropriation for that total of $38 million so that’ll 

be—that’s currently being allocated and used now. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know it’s been made available to you but have 

you used it? 

Mr. TORGERSON. No, sir, we’re currently in the construction and 

bidding process for a lot of that money now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell me how much you have available for 

2007? 

Mr. TORGERSON. I’m looking back at my Program Manager. I 

don’t know that number, Senator, but I’ll——

The CHAIRMAN. It’s going to be a very touchy amount this year 

because of the increased demand for those moneys and we have a 

little bit of argument with the Administration over how much those 

TSA fees should be. So I would like to know how much is available. 

It might reduce the amount that we’d have to ask for for 2007 

which would be a lot of help. 

Mr. TORGERSON. I will get that number to you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Bob, it seems to me what you were saying, 

we need funding, funding, funding in so many programs we’ve 

started now. What is your feeling about the situation that we face 

in terms of the kind of technological improvements needed? This 

new weather program, how essential will that be to your operations? 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. We rely on the weather camera system itself 

in our dispatch department for 135 and 121 operations. Many 

times an element of the AWOS system will be out of service and 

we can look at the camera system to give us a real live view of 

what’s happening out there. So we heavily support the weather 

camera system. I can’t really speak to the kiosk setting because 

we’re so dynamic in the company, you know, dispatching real time 

we don’t—we would probably not make it to a kiosk from the company standpoint. But from the private pilot standpoint, I would 

think that would have value placed in key locations in the state. 

The CHAIRMAN. You use other systems than this for your operation on a commercial basis? 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. We use the flight tracking system that marries the ADS–B targets into the Air Traffic Control System and 

with the radar environment to track our aircraft in the system. We 

also use the Iridium phone to have pilots be able to communicate 

back to dispatch. You know, one of the things that I think that I 

focused on over the last several years is—it’s the decision to 

launch, it’s not so much that decision en route. Once you’ve already 

committed to en route you’ve already gone airborne, you have a 

level of commitment to get to your destination. And so I think the 

more that we can communicate, for example a float plane pilot setting down on a lake and being able to contact whoever’s going to 

be looking for him on the other end or his—or the wife or the husband that’s going to be trying to track you. So the two-way communication, I think, is going to be critical to safety in Alaska and that 

comes through Iridium, and the decision to launch by giving the information through systems like the weather camera system. 

The CHAIRMAN. John Torgerson mentioned some of the problems 

with the lighting program. Has this lighting program enhanced 

35

your operations? I noticed it’s all VFR clearance. You go in with 

IFR, don’t you? 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Has this lighting program helped your situation 

at all with regard to commercial aviation into those fields? 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. Absolutely. There’s—we go into some of the 

larger communities or larger runways so we didn’t see a lot of the 

lighting problems. But we—for example, Stevens Village, we grew 

up serving that community and it was very difficult landing, flare 

pots and getting people to line their snowmobiles up and that—

those days are gone. What’s replaced getting me up in the middle 

of the night at 3 in the morning to catch an emergency medevac 

is we have a more developed medevac system in the state. Those 

systems rely on risk assessment programs and want to be a part 

of all these programs. And so what’s critical is we have, you know, 

real air ambulance programs that are out there saying, OK, well, 

we want to do it by the numbers and so we need the airport lighting. So they have been very critical. 

The CHAIRMAN. You heard the comments of Tom George about 

UAVs. Do you have any serious question about the use of UAVs? 

You operate primarily out of Fairbanks, don’t you? 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. Yes. And I think in the Big Delta area we 

don’t have any flight routes over that area but we can get vectored 

quite often around MOAs and sometimes I guestion why the military can’t get the vectors themselves. We’re the ones paying for the 

gas real time. And so that’s a bit of a frustration but the Unmanned Military Vehicles or the UAVs, in Big Delta I could see a 

problem because that’s a big path that private aircraft take. 

There’s very little commercial activity out that direction but a tremendous amount of private activity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there’s a substantial projection of increased 

use of UAVs by Federal agencies here, the Coast Guard as well as 

the Army. Have you had any meetings with them? Have there been 

any sessions with general and commercial aviation on the use of 

those new Unmanned Vehicles? 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. You know, as I understand it, the military 

committee kind of reinvents itself every year and I know they’re 

going through that again in the Fairbanks area and I’m not as involved with that as my father-in-law, Richard Wien, has been so 

I think he would have an opinion on that. But I know that’s going 

to be a major issue and I would agree with Tom that it’s very significant to the private side as well as commercial depending on 

where they go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I wear another hat in terms of defense appropriations and I can tell you there is a substantial increase coming in the use of UAVs by the military in Alaska. And I think we 

should reconvene those coordinating committees. They worked it 

out very well in terms of the problems of the sonic booms. I think 

we could find a way to coordinate that. And I look forward to working with you on that. Mort, I too am frustrated that we did not get 

the decision out of the Department of Homeland Security that was 

committed to us and when I go back we will take up the comments 

you’ve made. I am also disturbed about your report concerning the 

failure to give us the certification for the international passengers 

36

that are just coming off. They must offload because of another regulation, because the planes are being refueled, right? 

Mr. PLUMB. As I mentioned, we have—of the 18 international 

passenger flights, from only 4 are passengers allowed off. The rest 

of those must require passengers to stay on the aircraft while it is 

on the ground, mainly Cathay. So while you could hypothesize 

there’s a threat when these aircraft land or takeoff, for 20 years 

there has not been a threat. And these airplanes still land and take 

off. It’s just these people simply cannot get off the aircraft. And we 

lose a very good intelligence source as it stands now. We have the 

advance passenger manifest so we know who is on the airplane. If 

we let these people off and we check their documents, get their 

thumbprint and take their picture and put them back on, we’re 

way ahead of the game. Many times CBP pulls people off this airplane and deports them back. Absent the ability to get these people 

to stop here, these people will simply find other means and will 

overfly us and go to Canada or possibly Mexico and be 60 miles 

from our border. So I think it’s a win, win situation. It’s a win for 

our economy. It’s a win for our security if we can work through 

these issues and let these people off. 

The main problem is when passengers from China travel from 

Hong Kong to Toronto and they buy a ticket, they don’t have the 

expectation of stopping in the United States because China is a 

visa country. So if they cannot get these people to buy tickets on 

that airplane, Cathay is simply going to pull 14 flights out and 

overfly us to Toronto which is what Continental does right now. So, 

clearly the logic escapes me. 

You could possibly hypothesize a scenario where someone could 

possibly get through, but I think the reality of that is very remote. 

We’ve had these operations for 20 years on ITIs and travel—International and travel without visa waiver and we’ve never had anyone that has gotten out of the secure area. So, again, I think that 

this is something that there’s been some foot dragging on. I think 

there’s some stretched interpretation of things. We all know how 

horrific it was after 9/11 and the people that I have spoken to, that 

doesn’t mean that there are others that have an opinion—don’t 

have an opinion. But the Congressional intent did not perceive the 

way they are implementing the current regulations. And I guess, 

short of DHS making a policy decision, it will have to be fixed legislatively. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is this basically TSA that you’re dealing with? 

Mr. PLUMB. It is the Department of Homeland Security. And it 

gets a little confusing in that it is basically a CBP, a Customs and 

Border Protection, regulation that they are looking at. But if they 

find their way through that, there’s a position within the Transportation Security Agency that claims that these people would have to 

be re-screened or screened by U.S. officials. The thing that’s interesting at Vancouver and Toronto, we have an issue called pre-clearance. We have people that are screened by Canadian officials and 

then they walk a distance and their papers are checked and that 

gives them entrance into this country. They board an airplane. 

They go to Seattle. From there they go to Los Angeles, Las Vegas, 

New York. They enter our system. But the same Canadian screening at Whitehorse does not apply. We have yet to be informed as 

37

to why someone that is screened in Canada by Canadian officials 

and someone that is screened in Whitehorse by Canadian officials 

is different. Furthermore, the only thing that is different, here at 

Anchorage, they walk a distance down in Vancouver and they talk 

to CBP officials. Here, the first person they see when they walk off 

the airplane is a CBP official. So, again, the logic escapes me. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll take a good look at it when we get back 

and I’ll get in touch with you. I’ll instruct the staff to work on that 

particularly because we did have a commitment on that. And I’m 

sad to hear that it’s not been kept. Mr. George, these are tough 

times for us in terms of the FAA budget. And it seems that you’re 

the first person I’ve heard that supports an increased TSA fee. Is 

that what you said? 

Mr. GEORGE. An increased TSA—no. A continued general fund 

appropriation to support the FAA, in addition to just the continued 

tax structure that’s there today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Well, I wish I could do that. The budget’s 

a little tight right now to do that. In terms of AOPA, are you involved in the UAV question also? 

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, and to the best of my knowledge there’s been 

one meeting that NOAA and Homeland Security held here in Alaska in general to talk about UAVs. I wasn’t able to personally attend that meeting but thanks to help from the Alaska Airman’s Association, we did have a general aviation representative there. And 

it sounds like, yes, there are very ambitious plans, not just on the 

part of the military but other agencies interested in, you know, 

pipeline patrol, Fish and Game, surveys as well as fisheries monitoring. And again, that’s where our concerns come up. We’ve got to 

find a way to do that, that doesn’t impact the rest of the aviation 

community. 

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think about the comments that Ms. 

Blakey made about these new facilities such as this weather kiosk 

and things like that. Are these going to be acceptable to your people, the Kiosk Program that’s going to start at Lake Hood for instance? 

Mr. GEORGE. Well, we’re very interested to look at it. And actually, I haven’t yet had a chance to look at this. I think it’s just 

being rolled out. The weather camera program definitely is crucial 

to us. And I think finding other ways to get that information out 

is important. A lot of issues have to be addressed like, where in the 

rural airports kiosks like this would be located, knowing that a lot 

of the airports in Alaska actually have no infrastructure on the 

ground, including even a warm place to wait for weather conditions 

to improve. I think taking any step with a couple of these kiosks 

is a good idea. I’m hoping if it’s not included today, the weather 

service website can be included with it. And we’ll certainly work 

with the FAA to figure out what makes sense in terms of deployment to extend the reach to the people on the other end of their 

flight so to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, this is going to be placed at 

Lake Hood soon, right? I’d be very much interested in the reaction 

of general aviation to this because that’s really basically what it’s 

for. And we’re going to have to have some user statistics in order 

to get the funds to expand this throughout the state. That will be 

38

another substantial expense, I think, before we’re through. So I 

would urge you to use your facilities at AOPA to get the information out about this new system and to see if we can get some user 

reaction to it. The unique part of it is that you have the commercial 

weather channel as well as the FAA side-by-side and, as I understand it, you can change your flight plan on what you see right 

there, is that right? You’ll be able to contact and change the flight 

plan based upon what you picked up on this machine. So, I think 

we need feedback. I’ve just been given a note, Mort, that our general counsel is working with you on TWOV, and the Department 

of Homeland Security is not being helpful in terms of this. We’re 

going to have to find out why. They keep, apparently, vetoing the 

final decision even though the Secretary committed to us he would 

make that decision. So we’ll take that up when we get back. I don’t 

know if any of the FAA people have any questions about this panel. 

I don’t have any further questions. I do thank you very much for 

coming. We’ll review your statement, Mort, it’s a good one and I’ll 

get it faxed back to Ken today, so that by the time we get back to 

work next Monday, we’ll have some contacts ready to make with 

the Department to see what we can do to get them off the dime 

as far as that’s concerned. 

Mr. PLUMB. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That international situation reminds me of right 

after 9/11 when all the planes went somewhere else because they 

didn’t know what was going to happen if they landed here. So we 

will work on it and we’ll help as much as we can. Thank you, Bob, 

for coming. 

Mr. HAJDUKOVICH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Best to your father-in-law. Thank you, John, appreciate it very much. 

Mr. TORGERSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That will terminate the hearing here. We look 

forward to following up on some of these issues when we have further hearings of the Commerce Committee in Washington. Thank 

you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ