U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–148 PDF 2013

A REVIEW OF THE FAA’S 

CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM 

(112–93) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 18, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, United States Department of 

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 3 

Hon. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization, Federal 

Aviation Administration, accompanied by Hon. Julie Oettinger, Assistant 

Administrator for Policy, International Affairs and Environment, Federal 

Aviation Administration ...................................................................................... 3 

PANEL 2 

Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E., Chair, Policy Board, United States Contract 

Tower Association, an affiliated organization of the American Association 

of Airport Executives ........................................................................................... 20 

Patricia Gilbert, Executive Vice President, National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 20 

Melissa K. Rudinger, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association ............................................................................ 20 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Jerry F. Costello, of Illinois ........................................................................... 32 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia ............................................................... 35 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III ........................................................................................ 37 

Hon. David Grizzle and Hon. Julie Oettinger, joint statement ........................... 51 

Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E. .................................................................................. 56 

Patricia Gilbert ........................................................................................................ 68 

Melissa K. Rudinger ................................................................................................ 76 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E., Chair, Policy Board, United States Contract 

Tower Association, an affiliated organization of the American Association 

of Airport Executives, letter providing additional information to his hearing 

remarks, sent to Hon. Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, July 30, 2012 ................................................................................................ 83 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75148.001

1!l.~. 1l{uuse uf fRepresentatfu£s 

~ommittee on \!l:rmu)portatiott altlJ lhlfra~tt'u£ture 

Jiab» I!.. Jfllm 

O;:~nh'lI1nlt 

JRrnl'S w. Cuon lI, Ct;kfofSt."\fi" 

MEMORANDUM 

.1I%bingtoll, il\<tr 20515 jl(d\ Ji.l~nlJn{[, 3131 

~nl1king Jflrmucr 

July 13,2012 

JIUI\\"S If. Z(>\A, JknHx:mt Chl~f 0(6't11(f 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Aviation 

FROM: The Honorable Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation 

SUBJECT: Hearing on "A Review of the FAA's Contract Tower Program" 

PURPOSE 

On July 18,2012, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the 

Subcommittee on Aviation will meet to review the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 

Contract Tower Program and receive testimony on the Department of Transportation Inspector 

General's audit of the FAA's Contract Tower Program, and related issues. 

BACKGROUND 

FAA Contract Tower Program 

Under the Contract Tower Program, the Federal Aviation Administration contracts with 

private entities to provide air traffic control services at Visual Flight Rules (VFR) airportsl

. The 

program is intended to reduce the cost of air traffic control services and to enhance aviation 

safety by providing air traffic services at airports where federally-staffed towers would not be 

cost effective. 

1 Air traffic controllers at these airports sequence and separate aircraft visually and with radio communication during 

times where horizontal and vertical visibility is greater than tlu'ee miles and 1000 feet respectively. They do not use 

RADAR as a primary means of control. 
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75148.002

Created in 1982, the Contract Tower Program began as a pilot program to reo~en five 

Level I towers that had been closed as a result of the 1981 air traffic controller strike. In 1994, 

Congress provided funding to convert all remaining Level I towers to contract operations.3 At 

that time, the program was further expanded to allow for the construction of new contract towers. 

The Contract Tower Program has since expanded to towers at 250 airports. 

In 1999, Congress funded a cost-sharing program that allows airports that would not 

otherwise qualify to take part in the Contract Tower Program. A community can choose to enter 

the program by paying for a portion of the tower's operating costs to meet FAA's threshold 

benefit-cost ratio of 1 to 1. Of the 250 towers cun·ently in the Contract Tower Program, there are 

16 towers where the FAA and the local community share the costs of operating the tower. 

Contract towers and FAA-staffed VFR towers serve both large and small communities in 

urban and rural areas.4 There are also a number of commercial service airports that are served by 

contract towers. S Controllers at FAA contract towers are free to join a union, and currently 

controllers at approximately 35 percent ofthe contract towers belong to either the National Air 

Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) or the Professional Air Traffic Controllers 

Organization (PATCO). 

The FAA retains safety oversight of the contract towers and the controllers who staff 

them. All contract controllers are certified by the FAA, contract tower facilities are monitored 

on a regular basis by the agency, and staffing plans at contract towers are approved by the FAA. 

Vittually all (99 plus percent) of the FAA contract tower controllers are former FAA or U.S. 

military controllers, and a majority are retired FAA or military controllers. The average years of 

experience are about 20 years per contract controller. Contract controllers are subject to the 

same rules, operational procedures and training as FAA controllers. All contract controllers are 

required to have an armual FAA medical exam. Finally, all contract towers and FAA-staffed 

VFR towers use the same tower operating procedures. 

2 Prior to 1998, the FAA classified towers as Levels I through V, with Level I having the lowest number of flights. 

3 The FAA currently operates 71 towers at VFR airpOlis that are fully staffed by FAA employees. These towers 

(previously known as VFR towers or Level II and III facilities) were not included in the 1994 conversion of Level I 

towers to contract towers. 

4 For example, reliever airports for Chicago, Baltimore, St. Lonis, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Hartford, 

POltland, Tampa, Miami, Phoenix and others are served by FAA contract towers. 

5 Airports include, Kona and Lihue in Hawaii; Bethel, Kenai, and Kodiak in Alaska; Northwest Arkansas Regional 

Airport; Appleton, Wisconsin; Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, Flagstaff and Bullhead City in Arizona; San Luis Obispo, 

Redding and Santa Maria in Califomia; Redmond and Medford in Oregon; Stewart, New York; Branson and 

Columbia in Missouri; Latrobe, Pennsylvania; Lewisburg, West Virginia; Bloomington and Marion in Illinois; 

Hyannis, Massachusetts; Charlottesville, Virginia; Key West, Panama City, Gainesville, and Melhoume in Florida; 

Bozeman, Missoula, and KalispeH in Montana; Hailey, Lewiston, and Idaho Falls in Idaho; Harlingen, Laredo, and 

Brownsville in Texas; Eagle and Grand Junction in Colorado; Jackson Hole and Cheyenne in Wyoming, Rapid City, 

SQuth Dakota; SI. Croix; Guam; and others. 

2 
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75148.003

Department of Transportation Inspector General 2003 Report 

In 2003, the Department of Transportation Inspector General (10) issued a l'epOlt that 

provided an independent analysis of comparable cost and safety data at FAA-staffed towers and 

contract towers.6 According to the 2003 IG report, both contract towers and FAA-staffed towel'S 

had error rates that were well below FAA's FY 2002 overall average of 6.70 operational errors 

for every million operations handled. In FY 2002, there were a total of 8 operational 

errors/deviations at contract towers, producing an enol' rate of 0.49 errors per million operations. 

In that same year, there were a total of 38 errOl'Sldeviations at FAA-operated VFR towers, 

producing an e11'01' rate of 2.70 en'ors per million operations. At the time, it was pointed out that 

on average, the FAA-operated VFR towers handled more complex air traffic patterns, more 

varied users, and higher volumes of traffic per hour than contract towers. However, for the 

purpose of comparison, the IG used metrics from 30 FAA-staffed towers that handled operations 

similar to those of contract towers. The enol' rate at these 30 FAA towers was 2.03 errors per 

million flights handled. 

According to the 2003 IG report, the average cost to operate a contract towel' was 

$365,608 inFY 2002, while the average cost to operate an FAA-operated tower was $1,741,935. 

However, when comparing metrics from comparable towers, the IG found that the twelve 

contract towers cost $917,000 less than similar FAA-operated towers. The IG concluded that the 

Contract Tower Program saved the FAA $173 million in FY 2002. Salaries and staffing 

requirements accounted for the majority of the cost savings. The average annual salary and 

benefits for a contract tower controller was $55,000 a year, while the average annual salary and 

benefits for an FAA controller at a VFR tower was $109,000 a year. Contract towers often 

required fewer controllers since they had more flexibility to use part-time labor and tower 

managers spent time controlling u·affic. 

Department of Transportation Inspector General Current Contract Tower Work 

The DOT IG has current work undelway updating the 2003 1G Report and again 

providing an independent analysis of comparable cost and safety data at FAA-staffed towers and 

contract towers. Once again, DOT IO's ongoing work demonstrates that contract towers are just 

as safe and cost less to operate than comparable FAA-staffed towers. 

The current contract tower work compares 240 contract towers and 92 FAA towers. The 

92 FAA towers are towers that the FAA identified as comparable in terms of total operations. 

The IG found that in FY 2010 contract towers reported both a lower number and rate of safety 

incidents than the FAA towers. Specifically, in FY 2010, there were a total of 18 operational 

errors at contract towers, producing an enor rate of 1.24 errors per million operations. In that 

same year, there were a total of 52 errors at comparable FAA -operated towers, producing an 

error rate of 4.54 enors per million operations. In FY 201 0, there were a total of 12 operational 

deviations at contract towers, producing an incident rate of 0.83 deviations per million 

operations. Again, in FY 2010, there were a total of35 deviations at comparable FAA-operated 

towers, producing an incident rate of 3.06 deviations per million operations. Finally, in FY 

• Safety, Cost, and Operational Metrics of the Federal AI'iation Administration's Visual Flight RIde Towers (Report 

Nwnber: AV-2003-057), September 2003. 

3 
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75148.004

2010, there were a total of 167 runway en-ors at contract towers, producing an en'or rate of 11.55 

errors per million operations. Again, in that same year, there were a total of275 runway 

incursions at comparable FAA-operated towers, producing an error rate of24.01 errors per 

million operations. 

In making cost comparisons during the ongoing contract towel' work, the IG selected 30 

contract towers and compared them to 30 FAA towers with similar air traffic densities.7 The IG 

evaluated the FY 2010 operating cost for each to determine the cost difference on a per year 

basis.s Based on this sample, the IG determined that the average cost to operate a contract tower 

in FY 2010 was about $537,000, compared to about $2.025 million to operate an FAA tower, a 

difference of $1.488 million. 

The IG determined that the cost difference is due to two primary reasons. First, contract 

towers are staffed at lower levels than the comparable FAA towers. The contract towers in the 

audit sample had an average of six air traffic personnel (air traffic controllers, supervisors, and 

managers) while the FAA towers had an average of 16 air traffic personnel. Second, contract 

tower controllers are paid less than FAA controllers. Contract towel' controllers' salaries are 

based on Department of Labor wage rates, which are lower than the salaries paid to FAA 

controllers. For example, based on CUlTent Department of Labor rates, an air traffic controller at 

a contract tower near Tampa, FL, would receive base pay of about $56,000 per year, whereas an 

FAA-employed air traffic controller in Sarasota, FL, an area with a similar cost of living, would 

receive base pay ranging from about $63,000 to $85,000 per year, depending on the controller's 

experience. 

WITNESSES 

Panel I: 

The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel 

Inspector General 

United States Department of Transportation 

The Honorable David Grizzle 

Chief Operating Officer 

Air Traffic Organization 

Federal Aviation Administration 

The Honorable Julie Oettinger 

Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs and Environment 

Federal Aviation Administration 

7 The telm "air traffic densities" is defined as the average number of operations at a tower per hour the facility is 

open. 

S Costs evaluated included air traffic personnel compensation and benefits, travel and transportation, supplies, 

materials and insurance. Infrastructure, maintenance, and equipment costs were not included in the IG analysis 

because under the terms of the contract federal contract tower con~lIctors are not responsible for these costs. 

4 
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75148.005

Panel II: 

Mr. Waiter B. Strong, A.A.E. 

Chairman 

United States Contract Tower Association Policy Board 

Ms. Trish Gilbelt 

Executive Vice President 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

Melissa Rudinger 

Senior Vice President of Govemment Relations 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

5 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE FAA’S CONTRACT TOWER 

PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The Subcommittee on Aviation session will come to 

order. Today we will hear testimony on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Contract Tower Program. And I would like to welcome the witnesses, and we all look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you for the effort that you have made to prepare that. 

The Contract Tower Program has been in existence for some 30 

years. This program allows Federal Government to contract with 

private entities to provide air traffic safety services at low-activity 

airports. Currently, 250 airports in over 45 States participate in 

the Contract Tower Program. Contract Towers handle approximately 28 percent of all air traffic control tower aircraft operations 

in the U.S., but account for just 14 percent of FAA’s overall tower 

operation’s budget. The safety and efficiency of the Contract Tower 

Program has been validated numerous times by the inspector general, the FAA, and the National Transportation Safety Board. 

In 2003, the inspector general conducted a review of the cost and 

safety record of the Contract Tower Program, and found that the 

program was just as safe as and less costly than comparable FAAstaffed towers. More recently, the inspector general has updated 

this audit. And again, the inspector general found little difference 

in the safety or quality of services provided by similar FAA and 

contract towers. 

The inspector general determined that contract towers had a 

lower number and rate of reported safety instances than similar 

FAA towers. The inspector general also found that the contract 

towers provided air traffic services to low-activity airports at lower 

costs than the FAA could otherwise provide. 

The inspector general determined that the average contract tower costs roughly $1.5 million less to operate than a comparable 

FAA tower, due largely to lower staffing and salary levels. I want 

to stress that we are talking about towers at low-activity airports. 

Operations per hour of these towers range from about 4 operations 

per hour to about 45 operations per hour. But there are also airVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:23 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\7-18-1~1\75148.TXT JEAN
2 

ports with mixed use and other operational conditions that make 

it essential they have a tower to ensure safety. 

Contract Tower Program is a key component of our Nation’s aviation system, and provides vital air traffic services to communities, 

businesses, and travelers. After almost three decades, this program 

remains highly popular with its users. Without the program, many 

communities would not be able to afford these critical services. 

Contract towers are manned by highly experienced and highly 

trained professional controllers, 99 percent of whom are former 

military or FAA controllers, and average 20 years of experience. 

FAA retains safety oversight of the contract towers, and the controllers who staff them. All contract controllers are certified by the 

FAA. Contract facilities are monitored on a regular basis by the 

agency, and staffing plans are approved by the FAA. Contract controllers are subject to the same rules, medical exam requirements, 

operational procedures, and training as are FAA controllers. Contract Tower Program is cost-effective, safe, and well-regulated. So 

I believe today’s testimony will confirm the importance of the Contract Tower Program to the national aerospace system. 

Before we turn to the witnesses for their statements, I would ask 

unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for 

the record of the hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. And, without objection, so ordered. 

And I now recognize Mr. Costello for any opening remarks he 

would like to make. 

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

thank you for calling this hearing today. I have a brief opening 

statement which I will enter into the record, and yield my time at 

this point to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate that. And I 

also appreciate Chairman Petri for calling the hearing today on the 

Contract Tower Program at the FAA. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses about the role of the program for airports in 

many smaller communities that might not otherwise have control 

towers. 

There can be little doubt that a control tower, whether operated 

by the FAA or a contractor, enhances safety for pilots. The FAA 

has implemented a nationwide voluntary safety reporting program 

that actively encourages FAA controllers to report errors without 

fear of punitive action. The program shines a spotlight into the 

dark room of errors that may occur in FAA facilities, revealing 

safety issues that otherwise may have remained cloaked in the 

darkness. 

However, the FAA’s safety program does not apply in contract 

towers. Peering into the dark room of errors that may occur in contract facilities, we have just a flashlight, the same flashlight that 

has always been used to find out about operational errors. Comparatively speaking, we know more about errors in FAA facilities 

because the FAA spotlight is bringing them out of the darkness. 

Without an equally broad view of errors in contract facilities, I 

think it is very difficult to draw absolute comparisons about safety. 

3 

I would note that the Department of Transportation’s inspector 

general observes that applying the FAA’s voluntary reporting program to contract towers would ensure that errors are thoroughly 

reported. I understand that the FAA is encouraging its contractors 

to implement safety reporting programs, and I look forward to 

hearing more about these efforts. 

The IG has also found that contract towers cost less to operate 

than FAA facilities because, in part, they are staffed with fewer 

controllers. However, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which actually represents controllers at a quarter of all current contract towers, has raised safety issues and concerns with 

lean staffing levels. 

For example, controllers may have to stay on duty for longer. 

They may have to multitask at a greater risk of distraction. They 

may have to work alone with no backup. Past accidents and incidents have taught us that there must be enough controllers on 

duty in towers to do the job safely. I am not suggesting that contract towers are not as safe as similar FAA facilities. Rather, I am 

saying we lack sufficient information to make a strong comparison, 

and contract towers have not adopted the best practices that would 

allow us to fully evaluate and improve safety at these facilities. 

Contract towers should implement the same proactive reporting 

programs that have been implemented at FAA towers, so that we 

can collect the best safety information. 

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for these hearings, and I look forward to the hearings today. 

I yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Costello. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And we now turn to the first panel. 

Again, thank you for being here. And let me just briefly introduce 

the panel. 

It consists of the Honorable Calvin Scovel, who is the inspector 

general of the Department of Transportation, and a frequent testifier before this and the general committee; David Grizzle, chief operating officer of the Air Traffic Organization of the FAA; and the 

Honorable Julie Oettinger, assistant administrator of Policy, International Affairs and Environment, of the FAA. 

Again, thank you for being here. General Scovel. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

HON. DAVID GRIZZLE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR 

TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JULIE OETTINGER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on 

FAA’s Contract Tower Program, which has been in place for 30 

years, and now spans 250 towers nationwide. The program has provided a valuable service to smaller cities and airports that otherwise would not have air traffic control services, and has increased 

the level of safety for pilots and those communities. 

4 

Our prior reviews of the program have found that safety at contract towers and similar FAA towers was comparable, and that contract towers provided services at lower costs than the agency could 

otherwise provide. My testimony today is based on our current review of the program, requested by the House Committee on Appropriations, and will focus on the safety and cost efficiency of contract 

towers, as well as actions FAA can take to improve program oversight. 

Overall, contract towers continue to provide safe air traffic services, and are supported strongly by their users. We compared safety incidents reported in fiscal year 2010 at 240 contract towers and 

92 comparable FAA towers, and found that contract towers reported both a lower number and a lower rate of operational errors, 

operational deviations, and runway incursions. 

FAA’s periodic evaluations of air traffic facilities’ compliance with 

FAA directives also found fewer procedural, training, and administrative deficiencies at contract towers. Pilots, flight instructors, airport officials, and other stakeholders with whom we spoke are satisfied with the quality and safety of contract tower services. In several instances, pilots describe the services provided by FAA and 

contract towers as seamless. 

Contract towers also continue to provide cost-efficient air traffic 

control services, with the average contract tower costing about $1.5 

million less to operate annually than a comparable FAA tower. The 

cost difference is primarily due to the fact that contract towers 

have lower staffing levels than FAA towers. The 30 contract towers 

in our sample had an average of 6 air traffic personnel per facility, 

while the sample of 30 comparable FAA towers had an average of 

16 air traffic personnel. 

Also, contract tower controller salaries, which are based on Department of Labor wage rates, are lower than salaries paid to FAA 

controllers. 

While the Contract Tower Program continues to provide safe, 

cost-efficient air traffic services that are supported by users, there 

are opportunities for FAA to improve its oversight and strengthen 

program controls. 

First, FAA needs to implement a voluntary safety incident reporting program at contract towers. Controllers at FAA towers currently have the Air Traffic Safety Action Program, ATSAP, a voluntary, nonpunitive safety reporting program that encourages controllers to report operational errors and other safety incidents. Implementing a similar program at contract towers will help FAA’s efforts to ensure one level of safety. 

Second, FAA needs to review annual labor hours worked, to determine if contractors provide the level of service stated in the contract. This is important, because we found in the past that some 

contract hours were not staffed according to contractor staffing 

plans. In response, FAA required contractors to comply with an approved staffing plan that includes the total number of hours controllers will work annually. 

However, we found that the effectiveness of this control is limited, because FAA only reviews the contractors’ monthly reports, 

not the actual annual hours worked by contractors. As a result, 

5 

FAA does not validate whether services paid for have been delivered. 

Finally, FAA needs to implement processes to regularly evaluate 

contract towers, as required by the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act. While FAA’s new risk-based oversight 

system allows the agency to target high-risk towers, lower risk towers, such as contract towers, could go years without being evaluated. In our opinion, periodic evaluations of contract towers are an 

important factor to ensure the safe and successful performance of 

this program. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to address any 

questions from you, Mr. Chairman, or other members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Grizzle. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today about the status of the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

Contract Tower Program. At the outset, let me introduce my colleague, Julie Oettinger, assistant administrator for Policy, International Affairs and Environment. Ms. Oettinger’s office is responsible for using the FAA’s cost accounting data to refine the agency’s 

cost-benefit analysis, and she is happy to answer your questions related to that topic. 

Since its inception in 1982, this program has been part of how 

the FAA delivers safe and cost-effective air traffic control. There is 

a general consensus that the program has been successful, and it 

has created measurable efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators, while delivering safety benefits 

to the traveling public. 

The program has grown significantly over the years. It began as 

a pilot program to contract for air traffic control services for five 

lower activity towers that were closed as a result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike in 1981. The program grew to 27 towers by 1993. In 1994, Congress provided funding for a multiyear program to convert additional FAA-operated 

lower activity towers to contract operations. The program was further expanded by including towers at airports that never had an 

FAA-operated tower. Today there are 250 contract towers in the 

program across 49 States and territories. 

The NAS is currently going through some significant changes. 

The economic downturn that hit the U.S. in 2008 had a profound 

impact on aviation operations. There has been a decline in commercial operations at contract towers of more than 13 percent, and a 

decrease in overall operations at those towers by just over 23 percent. Our forecasts do not see operational levels returning to those 

seen prior to the economic downturn in the near future. Consequently, we need to make sure we are managing a program that 

delivers the safety and efficiency benefits to deal with this changing pattern of aviation activity. 

We appreciate that Congress has spoken in consistent support of 

this program. It has authorized a cost share program so some communities with an airport that did not meet the required cost-benefit ratio to qualify as a fully funded contract tower could instead 

qualify for a contract tower where the cost-benefit ratio was used 

6 

as a determination regarding how costs are shared between the 

FAA and the community. 

Last year, however, Congress included a provision that capped 

the amount any community could be required to pay toward the operating costs of a contract tower in the cost-share program at 20 

percent of the total cost of the tower’s operation, regardless of the 

cost-benefit ratio. This will certainly impact the cost associated 

with this program. 

In light of the economic realities, the FAA’s ability to maximize 

its resources to benefit the overall needs of the NAS is extremely 

important. While it is generally recognized that the Contract Power 

Program is both cost-efficient and extremely safe, the FAA is always investigating ways to operate the towers it manages more 

cost-effectively by reviewing and adjusting, as necessary, staffing 

levels, operating hours, and deployment of system enhancements. 

For example, we welcome opportunities to safely incorporate best 

practices from the Contract Power Program into FAA tower operations. 

Let me now turn to how the FAA plans to refine the cost-benefit 

analysis that will be applied to the Contract Tower Program. We 

continue to use the same basic model for our current cost-benefit 

work, while updating model inputs including traffic changes, revision to the Department of Transportation’s valuation for avoiding 

fatalities and injuries, and data from the FAA’s maturing cost accounting system. We are discussing our approach to incorporating 

this new information with the U.S. Contract Tower Association to 

ensure that the FAA is considering all pertinent factors in its calculations of individual towers. The FAA is determined not to make 

any final decisions until we have had a full and informed discussion with interested parties. 

Finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a wellgrounded, longer term approach. The FAA’s Aviation Safety organization is currently conducting a study to compare safety data between airports with staffed contract towers, whether Federal or 

contract, and airports that are unstaffed. This will provide the FAA 

with important information about future investment in air traffic 

control facilities and risk management. 

We also need to make sure that the Contract Power Program is 

well integrated into our NextGen endeavors. How we manage air 

traffic, how we use technologies, and how we organize our facilities 

and infrastructure will all change over time as we bring NextGen 

technologies into the system. We understand that taking a static 

view of equipment and services will not deliver the system the 

traveling public requires in order to adapt to dynamic circumstances. As new technologies emerge and are integrated into 

the system, the needs of the NAS, including those of contract towers, may change in order to take the best advantage of safety and 

efficiency opportunities. 

The FAA is the guardian of a system that has achieved a safety 

level that is envied around the world. We remain committed to the 

Contract Power Program as an important component of how we deliver safety and efficiency in the NAS. While fiscal realities must 

play a role in aviation investments, the FAA will not tolerate any 

7 

degradation in safety, and we recognize that Congress and the 

traveling public share that view. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. I am happy 

to answer any questions you might have at this time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you both. And I think we do have 

a number of questions. I would like to ask a few. 

Mr. Grizzle, you talk about it being a dynamic system. And, 

clearly, with the switch to digital and NextGen-type technology, 

that is going to provide more opportunities for dynamism in the 

system. 

There was a problem a few months ago that made it into the national media about periods at FAA towers where people were sleeping, and this sort of thing. And I think the solution was to man 

up and maybe put two people in instead of one. Is that a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem, or do you have a system of 

monitoring movements at airports and which airports could be 

switched to a virtual tower approach at certain low-use periods, so 

that TRACON or something can handle the air movements? 

Sometimes staffing levels need to change when the number of 

flights change. And if there are no flights for 6 or 8 hours, and yet 

someone is on the job, you can’t really blame them for staying up 

the whole time if there are no scheduled flights in that. Could you 

talk about that as a cost that might be addressed? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Certainly, sir. First of all, we took each of those incidents extremely seriously. Whether there might have been a more 

cost-effective solution was not our first concern. Our first concern 

was to do what we believed was absolutely essential for safety. So, 

we staffed each tower which had a level of operations that would 

have required us to keep it open during the midshift with two people. The same change was made with Federal contract towers that 

had a sufficient level of operations that we would have kept them 

open during a midshift if they had been federally operated towers. 

We are looking at various NextGen technologies with a possibility of changing fundamentally the way we do air traffic control 

in all of our facilities, not just our smaller towers. One of the beauties of NextGen technology is it is largely geographic-indifferent. 

And so we have opportunities to do our surveillance at locations 

that we previously wouldn’t have been able to employ. But we don’t 

have those online yet, but we are certainly looking at them for, 

again, small towers and all of our facilities. 

Mr. PETRI. Because there are flights into airports where there 

are no towers operating that are handled by TRACON now, as I 

understand it, on a fairly common basis. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. It is not extremely common, but it does occur, yes. 

Mr. PETRI. Are you—you were talking about new technology and 

changes and your analysis of it. Is the agency prepared to work collaboratively with industry and airport stakeholders as you analyze 

the opportunities and challenges of this new technology? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes, very much so. Not only are we willing to work 

collaboratively, but we really have to. This system is a system of 

collaborative decisionmaking. Whether it is putting in new technology, putting in new roots, or initiating new procedures, we cannot do them without collaboration with industry in the actual development of these innovations. We certainly have to have indusVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:23 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\7-18-1~1\75148.TXT JEAN
8 

try’s participation in the development, and consequently, we will 

have their participation in the utilization of these innovations. 

Mr. PETRI. OK, just two more questions. You mentioned in your 

testimony about your new—the cost-benefit analysis. Are you going 

to be applying that to FAA towers as well as contract towers, or 

is that inappropriate? What are your thinking on that? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We will be applying the same cost-benefit analysis 

to FAA-managed towers. But, we are doing that without any expectation that we will then convert any of those towers to Federal contract towers. We want to apply the best cost information we have 

to all of the facilities under our responsibility. 

Mr. PETRI. Finally, Mr. Costello, I and other members of the 

committee have been working with stakeholder advisory groups 

and hopefully people in FAA on sort of bird-dogging and encouraging the forward movement on deploying NextGen. And one area 

that we have been hearing about is that a number of airports have 

been training, airlines have been training pilots as to new approach 

procedures and so on, but the manuals just have not been approved. 

And this is not directly air traffic control, but your controllers 

are, I am sure, being trained as well. And yet, all this money is 

being used, and it is not being effectively utilized if there is a snag 

in the system. And I am eager to ask you if you are willing to help 

work with the airlines and the others who are investing in this new 

future to actually put it into place in as many places as possible. 

It saves a lot of fuel and a lot of cost for everyone concerned. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Chairman Petri, you have identified an extremely 

critical issue, and one that we are very focused on right now. I 

think what you are referencing is that we have a set of procedures 

that is called the controllers handbook, which very much governs 

the interplay between controllers and airspace users. 

That document is essentially 50 years old. We are in the process 

now, at the urging and with the participation of the airlines—and, 

obviously, with our controllers—of beginning to update that document so that it will support the way we currently do air traffic control, and especially the way we will do it in the future. It has been 

an impediment, we are aware of that, and we are fixing it. 

Mr. PETRI. Do you have a timeline on that, or are you trying to 

update at particular airports, or overall, or exactly how is that—— 

Mr. GRIZZLE. It has overall applicability to the entire system. We 

are focused on those provisions of the controller handbook that 

have historically produced the most waiver requests from the individual facilities which we consequently granted; i.e., they are provisions that could stand to be changed. We are focusing on those 

first, and we are intending to have all of those changed within 3 

years. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. To follow up on the 

chairman’s comments, we had a meeting just yesterday in the 

chairman’s office with some of the stakeholders. And we were told 

that at one particular airport the handbook wasn’t even available 

for the controller. I know that staff is—there is a meeting that will 

take place this coming Friday at the staff level, and then we intend 

to follow up with some questions for the agency, where Chairman 

9 

Petri and I will be present to talk about those things, and to try 

and lay out a plan. 

Mr. Grizzle, there is a difference between reporting safety incidents at FAA-staffed towers versus the contract towers, particularly with the use of the voluntary, nonpunitive reporting system 

that is in place at the FAA. I wonder if you might elaborate on the 

differences between the reporting system used at FAA-staffed towers versus the contract towers. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Certainly, sir. We currently have a voluntary reporting system that goes by the acronym ATSAP which has two 

principal features to it that make it very effective. One is that it 

is voluntary. Therefore, it eliminates some of the stigma that would 

ordinarily be associated with an error. Secondly, it provides for a 

nonpunitive feature, so that when a controller reports appropriately under ATSAP, that controller does not do so with fear that 

the disclosure that he or she has made will then be used in a punitive fashion. That has resulted in an abundant increase in the 

quality of information that we have about incidents, and consequently, about the risks which produce those incidents. 

We do not have that system in place now at Federal contract 

towers. We are working with our three contractors, who are, in 

turn, in negotiations with their unions, because the implementation of an ATSAP program is a multiparty investment. But we expect that all of them will, in fact, implement ATSAP in the Federal 

contract towers, because it is so important that we have to have 

it in all of our facilities that are handling traffic. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So, as I understand it, the agency is concerned 

that the incidents at contract towers may not be fully reported 

today, as they are at FAA-staffed towers, because of the voluntary, 

nonpunitive program. So does the agency have concerns that incidents that are taking place at contract towers may not be fully reported, as they are at FAA-staffed towers? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. As I have testified before, we are unable to differentiate between an increase in incidents, or a greater number of incidents, and an increase in reporting. That applies to our own system, and it certainly applies to the disparity in Federal contract 

towers. 

But, as the IG has reported, since we don’t have at staffed—there 

may very well be a lower level of reporting in the Federal contract 

towers. And so that is one of the reasons that we need to have that 

data going into our system. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And so the goal is to put one system in place for 

contract towers and for the FAA-staffed towers? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the negotiations with the three contractors 

now, how are they going? Is there a deadline to try and implement 

a system? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. There is not a deadline. It is my understanding 

that the discussions are going well. The principal work to be done 

is actually between the contractors and the bargaining unit for 

their employees. The principal negotiation is not between the FAA 

and the contractors. But we have told the contractors that this is 

very important, and it will become a contract requirement. 

10 

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you go beyond the contractors that it is very 

important, and put it in as a part of the contract that you are 

awarding to a contractor to provide the services? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We will come to that, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And how soon will you come to that? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. I do not have an answer for you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The contracts that are let to the three primary 

contractors, how often are they let? Is it an open-ended contract, 

or do they have specific terms when they expire? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. They have terms, but I do not recall the expiration 

date of the current set of contracts. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the reason I ask the question is if you are 

going to modify an existing contract, or if you are going to put additional requirements in a contract, can you do that now, or do you 

have to wait until it terminates? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. I would need to review the contract to give you a 

confident answer. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I would ask that you would do that and get 

back to us. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We will do that, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony you indicate that additional oversight could help ensure accurate and 

comprehensive reporting of safety incidents at contract towers. 

Would you elaborate on that statement? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Costello. Yes, we believe that increased and more comprehensive reporting would shed more light 

on the safety aspects of contract towers. We have noted that, while 

ATSAP was in place for FAA control towers for several years now, 

it was not made part of the current contract, which was initiated 

in 2010 and will expire in September 2014, sir. It certainly would 

have been appropriate at that time to build it into the current set 

of contracts, because the Congress and my office have long been 

supporters of voluntary safety disclosure reporting programs, both 

for air carriers and in the air traffic control world. 

I fully concur with Mr. Grizzle when he says that ATSAP data 

should be reviewed, and we trust that the data will ultimately provide a strong boost to the visibility that we have into the operational error world. Currently we don’t have that at contract towers. 

I would note also that as we have testified before the House and 

the Senate in the past, not only the advent of ATSAP, but also the 

initiation of automated traffic analysis and review programs to 

catch all those errors automatically have been a significant impetus 

to better reporting and better safety analysis. We also don’t have 

that in the tower world, either. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And you have recommended to the FAA that they 

incorporate those provisions in the contract? 

Mr. SCOVEL. It is part of our testimony today. And our testimony 

today, sir, as you know, is based on an ongoing review we are doing 

for the House Appropriations Committee. That will be one of our 

recommendations; ATSAP should be included for contract towers. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Has your—has the IG’s office recommended that 

in the past? Have you brought this up to the FAA prior to them 

letting the last contract in 2010? 

11 

Mr. SCOVEL. I don’t believe we did. Our most recent review prior 

to the one now underway was finished in 2003. So I doubt that we 

had picked up on ATSAP and had had a chance to evaluate the 

merits of that program. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the reason that I am directing this line of 

questioning is that, you know, we ought to be on the same system 

here with FAA-staffed towers and contract towers. We shouldn’t 

have apples and oranges here when we are reporting safety incidents. We ought to have the same system in place. And I would encourage you, Mr. Grizzle, to go back, take a look at when the contracts expire, if you have the ability in existing contracts to modify 

those contracts, and report back to the committee. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank—— 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We will do that, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, I want to pick up right 

there on that same line of questioning. 

Is it your perception—because I know you mentioned earlier 

there is a lower error rate in the contract towers—is it your perception that it is just a statistical anomaly that the reporting is different there, so it is not an apples-to-apples comparison? Or is it 

your thought that there is an actual lower error rate in the contract towers? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We don’t know. What we need is better data. Obviously, that will drive our conclusions. Page 3 of the statement that 

we submitted to the committee for today’s hearing has a table in 

it that notes both the absolute number of safety incidents, and the 

rate per 1 million operations, contrasting contract towers with FAA 

towers. And it appears, from the data in that table, sir, that contract towers may be safer, to use that term. 

I would not advance that conclusion, based on the data, primarily 

because what we have learned in looking at the enroute world and 

at the TRACON world, is that once ATSAP is in place, and once 

automated traffic analysis and reporting programs are in place, too, 

the number of reported operational errors increases. Whether that 

is simply better reporting or more errors being committed, we don’t 

know. FAA does not yet have a solid base line on which to make 

that judgement. But we are going to get there. We can’t get there 

right now in the tower world, because, at least when it comes to 

contract towers, we don’t even have ATSAP in place. 

Mr. LANKFORD. A million and a half dollars cheaper to do a contract tower. Right now we don’t know on safety issue. It looks like 

there is a lower error rate. We will have to see if that is just a statistical anomaly, based on the reporting side of it at this point. Are 

there other areas that we have talked about, or that you have discovered—Mr. Grizzle also mentioned this, as well—are things that 

FAA can learn from the functioning of the contract towers? Whether it be staffing, functionality, operation, whatever it may be, what 

can be learned in the other direction, as well? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Safety, we would conclude, is comparable between 

the two types of towers. When it comes to cost, there is, as our 

statement notes, almost a $1.5 million cost difference between contract and FAA towers. The primary drivers of that are the staffing 

levels and the pay that contract controllers get. The staffing levels 

12 

are determined for contractors by virtue of their staffing plan that 

they submit to the agency for approval and if those staffing plans 

can be structured so as to avoid some of the cost drivers that may 

apply in the FAA world. For instance, the requirement that controllers not spend longer than 2 hours on position, the requirement 

that—or the practice that managers and supervisors not be used in 

an FAA tower to control traffic. They can be used in a contract 

tower to control traffic. Benefits for an FAA controller may be more 

generous, in terms of annual and medical leave, than they are in 

the contract world, too. And so that permits contract controllers to 

stay on the job perhaps a little bit longer. Those are the kinds of 

things that permit the contract towers to have lower staffing levels. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Ideas on efficiency. Can they move the other direction, or do you think structurally it is not possible for them to 

move the other direction? Can ideas move from contract towers to 

FAA towers to say this is working, they are at a correct level, their 

error rates, all the safety issues—or do you think there is a structural issue there to say, really, there is no way for ideas to move 

that direction? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I do want to say there is a way for good ideas to 

move where properly motivated people are involved. I will note that 

there are factors that must be considered—collective bargaining 

agreements and so forth, different traffic densities, FAA’s training 

requirements for their controllers, and the requirement for on-thejob training that some of their controllers must engage in. All of 

that drives FAA’s staffing levels, and we acknowledge the validity 

of those concerns. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. Inherently there are different types of towers, different quantity of takeoffs and landings. I understand that. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. LANKFORD. There are some inherent differences. But if there 

are some areas that we can go the other direction, process wise, 

how would that occur? Who would carry the water to say, ‘‘Let’s 

look seriously at this, and try to figure out how to do that’’? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Is there is a certain office that you would know 

of that would make that evaluation to say, ‘‘This is efficient.’’ How 

do we get some of these efficiencies over here? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I would defer to Mr. Grizzle on that. I know that 

within the Air Traffic Organization he has resources whose mission 

it is to make those comparisons and recommendations. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Mr. Grizzle, my time has expired. Would the 

chairman allow me an additional 30 seconds for Mr. Grizzle to respond? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. It is my responsibility to glean efficiencies from 

whatever source, including Federal contract towers. 

I will say that the opportunity for more efficient air traffic management in our larger facilities absolutely dwarfs our ability to 

move Federal contract tower practices into our comparably sized facilities. But, we are looking at all of them, because there is an opportunity. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK, thank you. With that I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Rahall. 

13 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the expense of beating a dead horse, Mr. Scovel, let me ask you. When comparing 

error rates between contract towers and FAA towers, you refer to 

reported—reported, that is the key word—errors. Would you agree 

that there is a difference between the reported errors and actual 

errors that occur, particularly given that FAA’s reporting program 

does not apply in contract towers? 

I mean I have one contract tower in the district I represent, 

Lewisburg, West Virginia. With the exception of some higher income people flying in to go to the Greenbrier, there is not many— 

not much activity at that airport. 

Mr. SCOVEL. There may be a difference. We don’t know. I do have 

to couch the information that we have presented to the committee 

in terms of an inference that I can make, based on the experience 

of my office in looking at trends in operational errors as reported 

in the enroute and TRACON worlds. When automated programs 

were put in place, and when ATSAP came online, operational error 

numbers increased. And we have focused on that. We are trying to 

determine, as is FAA, whether it is an increase in reported numbers, or an increase in errors committed? We don’t know, because 

there is not a good baseline. 

With time, we will get to that baseline, and then we will be able 

to determine an answer. In the tower world, sir, we don’t have that 

yet, either. ATSAP is fairly new at the FAA towers, and it is not 

even in place at contract towers. So I can’t say. 

Mr. RAHALL. What is the basis for your recommendation in your 

written testimony, where you state that adoption of voluntary safety reporting program among contract towers would improve FAA 

safety oversight of those facilities? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We agree with FAA, and we have reached the conclusion independently that the nonpunitive nature of ATSAP, as it 

is in the air carrier safety action program, is a strong inducement 

to better reporting. We would strongly recommend to FAA that this 

be included for contract towers, if not by modifying the contract, 

then certainly when contracts come up for renewal in 2014. 

Mr. RAHALL. OK. Mr. Grizzle, I know you have been asked this 

question before, but it is in regard to your testimony back in April, 

when you stated that you are confident that the reporting of incidents has increased, thanks to the FAA’s new safety reporting program for air traffic controllers. 

My followup would be what is the FAA doing to ensure that contract towers adopt a voluntary reporting requirement or program? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We are going to utilize the contractual opportunities that we have. If we have the ability in our current contract to 

require one, we will do so. Otherwise, when we come to a contractual renewal, we will require that our contractors effectuate an 

ATSAP program because, as the inspector general has said, it has 

unquestioned value in terms of providing us a greater amount of 

data about events that occur. 

Mr. RAHALL. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, good morning, everybody. Thank you for your 

testimony today. I have got just a couple brief questions. 

14 

But I would like to say one thing. I would like to commend you. 

I would like to commend the U.S. airline industry and the National 

Transportation Safety Board. I get on an airplane every single 

week. And you know what? I never think about safety. I just get 

on the airplane, and I usually work, and I land, and I go home, and 

I turn around a few days later, and do it again. And that is a real 

testament to what has been going on in this country and how safe 

air travel has become. 

With all that said, as I look through Mr. Scovel’s testimony, I 

just want to read just the headlines, or the titles of the various sections. Contract towers continue to provide safe services and are 

supported by users. Contract towers have a lower number of reported safety incidents and deficiencies than comparable FAA towers. Users are satisfied with the level and quality of services provided by contract towers. Contract towers continue to provide costefficient services. FAA oversight of the Contract Power Program 

could be improved. Accurate incident reporting at contract towers 

is critical to maintaining safety. New oversight system does not ensure that contract towers receive regular safety evaluations required by Congress. FAA can improve its contractual oversight of 

the program. 

As I look and read those titles and then listen to the testimony, 

it almost seems as if the inspector general is more critical of FAA 

than contract tower operations. Why do you suppose that is, Mr. 

Grizzle? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We rely very heavily upon the insights of the inspector general. Whenever the inspector general observes deficiencies in our operation, we immediately discern how we can make 

improvements that will address the deficiencies that he has noted, 

because that organization has, in every case, spent a lot of time 

looking very carefully at each situation. 

I think that the inspector general makes those comments because they entirely conform with what he has observed, and we intend to take those observations extremely seriously. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, I appreciate that. I most often fly out of Appleton, Wisconsin, which, as you are aware, is a contract tower. And 

I know how important that airport is to the economic development 

of northeast Wisconsin. It is critically important. And I just want 

to make sure that you are going to provide us some type of assurance that you are willing to work with the industry in a balanced 

approach to ensure that safety continues to happen, economic development continues to happen, and that the FAA doesn’t unfairly 

just shift additional cost to the operation of that tower onto Appleton and other communities like it. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We believe that each of our Federal contract towers 

provides an extremely safe operation. We are committed to maintaining that, and we are working to develop an ever more accurate 

cost accounting system to accomplish the other purpose that you 

requested of us. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, I want to thank you for that. And again, I 

want to thank you for taking the time to come in here today. And 

I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that even though there was 

criticism here, and criticism this morning, that I don’t recognize 

15 

how great a job the U.S. air industry, in its totality, is actually 

doing. So, thank you for that work. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here. I just have a few questions, as well. First, to Ms. 

Oettinger. I am wondering. Will the FAA commit today to work collaboratively with industry and airport stakeholders to reach consensus on any revisions to the benefit cost analysis for contract 

towers? 

Ms. OETTINGER. Absolutely. We have committed to doing that, 

and we are, in fact, in the process of doing just that. We most recently met with the Contract Tower Association a couple of months 

ago to share with them the latest information that we had, and the 

analysis that we are doing. We are awaiting some feedback from 

them, and we have plans to meet with them again later this 

month. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I wonder if I can ask you, and also Mr. Grizzle, 

if you could please talk about any effects that sequestration could 

have on the national air service, and what steps the FAA is taking 

to plan for these cuts. And also on that, I just wanted to see if you 

have begun communicating this plan in a coordinated action with 

our Nation’s air traffic controllers. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Although we have received no specific direction as 

to the impact of a sequestration on the FAA, we have done a great 

deal of internal planning, looking at different scenarios and how we 

would be required to shift our priorities in the event that different 

sequestration scenarios came into place. 

We have not begun sharing those with anyone yet, because we 

are not far enough along in designing those priorities. But suffice 

it to say that it would require a significant reprioritization of what 

we currently do. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Is it your sense that there will be a big impact 

with sequestration, or is that uncertain right now? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. It could be. The answer is that we do not know, but 

it could be large. 

Mr. HULTGREN. When will you know? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We are in communication with various parts of the 

Administration. Our perceptions are developing as we are in these 

communications. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, you know, I echo what my colleague from 

Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble, said. I am so grateful for the safety that we 

enjoy, and the confidence of getting on an airplane. But I think this 

is very important. And we haven’t gotten a real sense from the Administration of what is the plan with sequestration. We see it impact the Department of Defense. But it very well, I think, could impact the safety of our skies. 

And so, we are asking you to reach out as well to the Administration to clarify this, of what is the intention here. We better get 

these plans in place now, I believe. Am I wrong? Tell me, you 

know, what your thoughts are. If there is any question that this 

could have an impact, we better know about that now and start 

making those plans, and I think start communicating with our air 

traffic controllers on what those plans are. 

16 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We are committed to maintaining the highest level 

of safety. We will not undertake any change that would diminish 

that. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I appreciate that. I just—my fear is with 

sequestration. It is a meat ax approach, basically, of—that could 

address and impact many departments. And it is just very unclear 

of what the Administration and the White House’s plan is to deal 

with this. 

So, I would just ask for your help together to get some clarity 

here, get communicating for the sake of continuing that safety that 

we enjoy, that we really expect and I think have a right to expect 

to continue. 

So, just as my time is winding down, I just—getting back to contract towers, just wonder if each of you could just briefly touch on 

if you feel like if contract towers—is there any lack of redundancies 

resulting in safety issues in contract towers, or do they have any 

inferior equipment or facilities, or do you see, in your opinion, that 

contract towers have deficient training programs? What is your 

sense on those three issues? And I would ask each of you to comment quickly. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We believe that the staffing, equipping, and the 

condition of the facilities in the contract towers are adequate for a 

very high level of safety, and we constantly monitor all of those. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sir, we believe staffing and training are sufficient. 

The agency gives close attention to those measures. We know that 

the agency is stressed, at all air traffic facilities, when it comes to 

aging facilities and making sure that they are maintained in the 

best condition possible. Contract towers are no exception. The 

FAA’s own facilities would also fall into that group. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I do appreciate it. I do think is an important issue that we are going to 

have to continue to talk about, and get some real answers as far 

as sequestration and potential impact on safety of our skies. We 

can’t—as you have said, we can’t allow any compromise in this, and 

we have got to make sure we work together to get some real answers of how this is going to impact. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Costello, you had a comment. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to follow up on 

my friend from Illinois, his comments about sequestration and 

what may happen to the FAA in this particular case. 

While you may not have a plan in place, you do have a dollar 

figure. You know that when sequestration, if in fact it goes forward, you know how much money will be cut out of the agency. We 

had testimony either earlier this year, but I know that we had the 

former administrator, Marion Blakey, who testified before this subcommittee about NextGen, and what effect sequestration would 

have on NextGen. In fact, we had a meeting, as I referred to, yesterday, with some stakeholders in Chairman Petri’s office. And the 

issue of sequestration was brought up again on how it would affect 

NextGen. 

Do you have a dollar figure, that if sequestration is—if, in fact, 

it takes place, how much money the agency would lose under sequestration? 

17 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We have looked at various scenarios, we have done 

planning for a number that is larger than what we think is likely, 

and we have done planning for smaller numbers. I am not prepared 

to offer a number that is my prediction as to what would be the 

exact number. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, the figure that I have heard used is—on the 

bottom figure is $1 billion. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. We have done internal planning involving cuts that 

were smaller than that, and cuts that would be larger than that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Would—is it reasonable for one to assume that if 

there is a $1 billion cut to the FAA, that it would impact safety? 

If the delay of implementing NextGen—if it is pushed off for several years, NextGen is, of course—one of the assets of NextGen will 

be to improve safety. 

Mr. GRIZZLE. It will be our challenge to effect a—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. In other words, you are not going to answer the 

question. 

Mr. GRIZZLE [continuing]. A cut of that magnitude safely. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Southerland. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

On that line of questioning from my good friend, if you were 

going to face $1 billion in cuts due to sequestration—and I hear 

your hesitancy about confirming that—I don’t think it is an unfair 

question to assume that if we then were going to turn around and 

cut DOD by $350 billion, that that too might have a very similar 

cause regarding safety to our war fighters and to the protection of 

this great Nation. So I mean, if we are going to use that rationale, 

then I think we need to examine, you know, all of the possibilities 

of sequestration. 

First of all, thank you all for being here. That was just a statement. I wanted—I am curious about the—Mr. Scovel, you had mentioned that today you were not here prepared to advance the theory 

that contract towers are safer. However, you—let me ask you a 

couple of questions. You know, you—are you of the opinion that 

the—are the contract towers—do they have equal equipment, equal 

facilities? 

Because I have heard general comments by both of you that said 

that we have aging towers, and that—so is it safe, then, to say that 

the towers that—the contract towers are equivalent in quality 

and—in the quality and the excellence of the equipment? Is that 

fair? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, generally. They are comparable. They are comparable, in terms of safety, as well. And my point with regard to 

the safety data was simply if you were to look at the data presented in our statement, you might conclude that contract towers 

are safer. I attached a caveat to that because, based on our prior 

experience, we know that operational errors—and thanks to FAA’s 

good work on the runway incursion side, as well—we know that 

those come up with better training and reporting methods. So that 

is the caveat that I would issue there. 

18 

I will also note, sir, that FAA is responsible, in most cases, for 

the equipment and maintenance of that equipment at contract towers. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. As far as the towers—as far as the staffing 

of the towers, are they equivalently staffed? And I am talking 

about the contract towers to the FAA towers. I mean would they 

be—and I know the volume is different, obviously. But based on 

the volume, are they staffed properly, as compared to the FAA towers? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We believe they are. And we believe that FAA towers, given the structure in which they must operate and their staffing requirements, are properly staffed. 

However, for contract towers, they are free of some of the restrictions that apply to FAA towers. And contractors have taken advantage of that by preparing their staffing plans accordingly. And the 

FAA has approved them after appropriate review. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Define for me a restriction. 

Mr. SCOVEL. For instance, a restriction in an FAA tower is that, 

by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement, a controller may 

not spend longer than 2 hours on position, on scope, before he or 

she takes a break or moves to another place. In other words, gets 

off that place and maybe gets out of that rut. That is not a requirement in the contract tower world. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So in that requirement that they be—that 2- 

hour requirement, they will be there for 2 hours and then they will 

leave and do whatever. So their focus might be interrupted because 

they have to leave in 2 hours. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Or, as some controllers would say, their focus can 

be renewed. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. But we all know that great running 

backs run better when they get the ball 25 times a game, as opposed to 5. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. So there is a belief that you get in a zone 

that you are so good, you are so proficient, you are so excellent that 

you are left alone because of the restrictions of, in your words, collective bargaining. And A players do what they were created to do 

by God. They are excellent at what they do. So when they have the 

law of momentum providing safety, providing efficiencies, to yank 

them out of that, I could make an argument that those that I have 

employed do best when I leave them alone and don’t micromanage 

them and restrict them as compared to maybe some of the contract 

towers, where those same restrictions do not apply. Is that a fair 

assessment? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sir—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Based on self-evident truths? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOVEL. As an inspector general, I am sworn not to indulge 

in self-evident truths, sir. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I must have data. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am amazed at how this place up here continues to disregard common sense. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I know. 

19 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. As if we know better, or know more than our 

founding fathers. 

But—well, thank you very much. I know I am over my time. 

Thank you both, all three, for testifying here today. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to 

thank the panel for being here. Most of my questions have already 

been answered. 

But, Mr. Grizzle, does the FAA approve staffing plans for each 

contract tower? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes, we do. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And do you think or believe that contract towers 

are understaffed? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. I do not believe they are understaffed. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. And are there plans to have contract tower 

controllers participate in the FAA’s voluntary reporting program? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes, there are. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. When might that happen? 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Well, as we discussed earlier, we need to inject 

some deadlines into our contract structure with our contractors, 

which we have not done, but we will do. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Long, did you have any questions, 

or—very good. 

Well, we would like to thank the panel for your testimony. And 

I note, Mr. Grizzle, you will be submitting some information—— 

Mr. GRIZZLE. Yes. 

Mr. PETRI [continuing]. In response to Mr. Costello’s questions. 

And we will now turn to the second panel. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Petri, if I may take simply 15 seconds. We have 

had a lot of talk earlier this morning, and some of it by me, concerning the ATSAP program. We are strong endorsers of ATSAP. 

However, I would be remiss if I did not note that we will be issuing 

a report, hopefully by the end of this week, addressing the merits 

of ATSAP and areas where we believe the agency has strong opportunities for significant improvement. 

ATSAP is not yet a silver bullet. It is a step in a long series of 

steps to get us to better safety. FAA should be commended for embarking on the trail. And hopefully, our recommendations, which 

the Congress and the agency will receive this week, will advance 

that effort. Thanks. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you for that update. And thank you all. 

The second panel is assembling. And I would like to ask our colleague, Mr. Lankford, to introduce the first person on the panel 

who will testify, Mr. Strong. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Yes. Pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman. Walter 

Strong is the chairman of the United States Contract Tower Association Policy Board. And so, obviously, he brings a tremendous 

amount of expertise as far as interaction with his colleagues about 

contract towers. He also is extremely important in contract towers 

in Oklahoma. The Norman airport, Max Westheimer Airport in 

Norman, Oklahoma, is a contract tower location, and is vital to 

both the University of Oklahoma, and to a lot of business in the 

southern part of Oklahoma City and in the southern part of OklaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:23 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\7-18-1~1\75148.TXT JEAN
20 

homa, itself. So, honored that he is here, and has given his time 

to be able to be a part of this, as well. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And Mr. Strong will be joined by Ms. 

Trish Gilbert, who is the executive vice president of the National 

Air Traffic Controllers Association, Ms. Melissa Rudinger, the senior vice president of government affairs, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association. 

And we thank you all for the effort that went into preparing your 

testimony. We invite you to summarize it in about 5 minutes. And 

we will follow that with questions, and begin with Mr. Strong. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. STRONG, JR., A.A.E., CHAIR, POLICY 

BOARD, UNITED STATES CONTRACT TOWER ASSOCIATION, 

AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES; PATRICIA GILBERT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; AND MELISSA K. RUDINGER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AIRCRAFT 

OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. STRONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Costello, and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss 

FAA’s Contract Tower Program. I would also like to thank Mr. 

Lankford for that kind introduction. 

Our partnership with the FAA program on this program is exemplified by our mission statement, the government-industry partnership dedicated to air traffic safety. And in today’s challenging economic environment, I might also add the partnership dedicated to 

jobs and economic growth. 

Before we offer our thoughts on the many benefits of the program, I would like to raise a flag of caution about one current 

issue, that issue being the airport community’s concern about potential changes to FAA’s cost-benefit analysis, which determines 

participation in the program. 

While we are encouraged by FAA’s stated desire to work with the 

industry in a collaborative, balanced, and transparent manner, we 

hope FAA stays on that path to avoid changes to the program that 

would jeopardize air traffic safety, economic growth, and jobs. FAA 

should ensure that the process full accounts for the broad array of 

significant benefits that the program provides to individual communities, to the Nation as a whole. 

This program should not simply be about black and white numbers. It must be about the best interests of advancing aviation safety. Additionally, these potential changes could result in FAA shifting costs to local communities that have little, if any, ability to absorb additional costs in these challenging economic times. The end 

result could be the closure of many contract towers, nationwide. 

As do most airports in the program, Westheimer Airport in Norman, we support our tower operations with local funds for utility 

cost, equipment costs, both installation, maintenance, and repair. 

So even though the FAA pays for the cost to staff the tower, we 

provide significant local funding in partnership with the FAA to 

provide first-class air traffic services to our aviation community. 

Mr. Chairman, FAA’s Contract Power Program has a proven successful track record. Benefits include enhanced safety, improved air 

21 

traffic services, significant cost savings to FAA and taxpayers, economic growth and job creation. The DOT inspector general has repeatedly validated those facts, and the program enjoys strong bipartisan support in Congress. 

All contract controllers are FAA-certified and meet the same 

training standards as FAA controllers. Additionally, FAA controls 

and oversees all aspects of the program, including operating procedures and staffing plans. 

I recently read the National Transportation Safety Board had 

added general aviation safety to its most wanted list of transportation safety improvements. In a national air transportation system 

that needs to stay vigilant to reduce accident rates, we believe that 

the safety benefits provided by the program are not optional, but 

mandatory. 

Let me be clear. Without this program, hundreds of communities 

across our Nation would not receive the critical safety benefits that 

these controllers provide. 

To illustrate cost-effectiveness of the program to taxpayers, FAA 

contract towers in fiscal year 2011, handled approximately 28 percent of all tower operations, but accounted for just 14 percent of 

FAA’s overall tower budget. Now, that is a good deal for taxpayers. 

Also, of the 250 towers in the program, 136 were previously FAAstaffed low-activity towers that were converted to the contract operations in the 1990s. Based on anticipated cost information from the 

DOT IG, if FAA were still staffing those 136 towers, the additional 

annual cost to taxpayers would be approximately $200 million, 

which is $50 million more than the current budget to operate all 

250 towers. 

Also, many contract towers are represented by the National Air 

Traffic Controllers Association. The U.S. Contract Tower Association continues to have an open dialogue with NATCA, and cooperates on ways to work together effectively as part of a unified national air traffic control system. There is a clear role for both FAA 

and contract towers. 

In closing, airports deserve the safety and economic development 

benefits the FAA contract towers provide. We are encouraged by 

the highly effective partnership that airports, contract controllers, 

ATC contractors, and FAA have developed, and we urge Congress 

to continue its support of this critical program. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you. Ms. Gilbert. 

Ms. GILBERT. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing me to 

testify today. NATCA is in a very unique position to offer an objective assessment of the Federal Contract Tower Program, and to 

evaluate the difference between FAA and contract towers, because 

we represent controllers that work in both. 

NATCA proudly represents air traffic controllers at 63 contract 

towers, as well as controllers in the FAA and in some DOD facilities. As a controller myself, I can tell you that our priority is simple. And, regardless of employer, and regardless of the challenges 

we face, our job every day is to ensure the safety of the flying pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:23 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\7-18-1~1\75148.TXT JEAN
22 

lic, and continue to operate the world’s best air traffic control system. 

With that, NATCA does support the cost share component of the 

Federal Contract Tower Program. We believe it enables local communities that couldn’t otherwise support a tower to reap the economic benefits aviation brings to them. NATCA also supports 

building new towers where ones do not currently exist. But we are 

opposed to the transfer or conversion of FAA towers into the Federal Contract Tower Program. 

First and foremost, it is NATCA’s position that there is a fundamental flaw in comparing contract towers to FAA towers, in terms 

of safety, as defined by the number of incidents reported. The flaw 

derives from the fact that safety incidents, which include operational errors, deviations, and runway incursions, are unevenly reported. The GAO noted in 2003 that ‘‘comparisons of operational 

error rates alone are not sufficient to draw conclusions about the 

relative safety records of air traffic control facilities.’’ NATCA believes that a comparison of this type does the program a disservice, 

because safety at contract towers and FAA towers cannot be accurately compared through safety incident data at this time. That 

data is incomplete, and the baseline is different. 

Additionally, the FAA has moved to a true safety culture, where 

all controllers and employees are encouraged to report every safety 

issue, including errors. Contract towers are often driven by a punitive culture that discourages this reporting. 

As far as comparing costs, the FAA model was built on the 

premise of necessary redundancy to prioritize safety above all, 

whereas contract towers have incentive to prioritize to the bottom 

line. NATCA is not criticizing the fact that profit margins matter 

and are a factor. But our review of contract towers finds them to 

be understaffed with less support of their facilities and equipment, 

and also insufficient training for their controllers. These factors 

contribute to the contract tower’s bottom line when it comes to cost. 

Staffing amounts to the bulk of the operating cost in these facilities. This motivates contractors to reduce staff in order to lower 

costs when competing for a contract. That said, the contract towers 

can lack necessary redundancy, especially when it comes to staffing. The FAA requires two controllers on shift, while contract towers are not bound by that, and frequently staff with only one controller for extended links of time. 

In terms of equipment, some towers still use radios that are so 

old they cannot accommodate a headset, and controllers must use 

the hand-held devices to communicate. This can be problematic in 

a profession where clear two-way communication is key to safety. 

Additionally, due to cost sharing arrangement between the tower, 

the sponsor, and the FAA, all three entities often disagree on who 

is responsible for the cost to maintain and/or repair facilities and 

equipment. 

The temporary tower at Opa-locka, Florida, in southern Florida, 

is a prime example of the funding battle that results in unsafe 

working situations for controllers. Six years ago the old tower 

failed county fire suppression requirements and was deemed unsafe to occupy. When both the FAA and the county refused to correct the problem, the FAA provided a temporary tower located on 

23 

a closed runway in an old RV on top of eight large shipping containers. It still remains in that facility, 6 years later. Such a facility would not have been tolerated, had it been staffed by FAA personnel. It is only due to the exceptional dedication and skill of the 

controllers at Opa-locka that the facility has been able to provide 

the services that they do. 

Finally, NATCA believes that the 30-day training period that 

contract towers provide is insufficient, regardless of the controllers’ 

experience. FAA towers are trained under a much more specialized 

training program that includes training teams, on-the-job training, 

classroom instruction, and simulations. 

NATCA made five recommendations in our written testimony. 

We believe that implementing these recommendations will shift 

contract towers toward a true safety-based model. We recognize 

that implementation of these recommendations would come at a financial cost. But we believe the benefits far outweigh the cost savings contract towers currently have, when you compare them to the 

cost of FAA towers. 

Thank you for allowing me to be here today, and I will take any 

questions when appropriate. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Ms. Rudinger. 

Ms. RUDINGER. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and 

members of the committee, good morning. My name is Melissa 

Rudinger, and I am with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify and 

give the user’s perspective and the aircraft owner’s perspective on 

contract control towers. 

The Contract Control Tower Program has provided cost-effective 

and essential air traffic services to general aviation airports since 

1982. Of the 250 contract towers in the program, 89 serve general 

aviation airports exclusively. Your continued support of this critical 

program is important to aviation safety, economic development, 

and efficiency at airports and communities in this great Nation. 

My testimony today addresses three overarching points: first, 

contract towers enhance safety; second, contract towers are cost-effective; and third, contract towers help local economies. 

The Contract Power Program greatly enhances safety by providing vital air traffic service to communities that would not otherwise qualify for a federally funded tower. They enhance the safety 

of flight for all aircraft operating at an airport and in the surrounding airspace. For example, at a towered airport, all aircraft 

are required to establish and maintain two-way radio communication with the tower, unlike nontowered airports. 

Controllers also bring situational awareness and ensure the safe, 

efficient, and orderly flow of traffic. Additionally, airspace around 

airports with towers have higher weather minimums, which greatly 

increases the safety margin for all operators. 

As others have testified here, contract towers have consistently 

achieved good scores in every metric that you can measure a contract tower on. They are critical to the safety of local communities, 

such as Brown Field in San Diego, Palm Coast in Ormond Beach 

in Florida, and of course, Wittman Field in Oshkosh. All serve a 

very important role in enhancing safety at airports with robust 

general aviation activity. 

24 

Other contract towers, like Martin State, here in our local area, 

provide a significant safety enhancement for a broad mix of operations. This includes intensive flight training and support of the 

175th Wing of the Maryland Air National Guard. 

As far as costs are concerned, the FAA Contract Tower Program 

is one of the most cost-effective government-industry partnerships 

in the history of the agency. Virtually every performance metric of 

the program has a proven track record of sustained cost savings, 

efficiency gains, and economic value to local communities. 

In 2011, the 246 towers then in the program handled 28 percent 

of all tower operations, but only accounted for about 14 percent of 

the FAA’s tower budget. In contrast, the 264 FAA-staffed towers 

that handled the remaining 72 percent of operations used 86 percent of the FAA’s tower budget. Looking at it another way, the cost 

of operating a contract tower is roughly one-third the cost of operating an FAA-staffed tower. These numbers clearly highlight that 

the Contract Tower Program is of great value to the American taxpayer. 

Numerous studies have also shown that airports are economic 

engines for communities. And we also know that the establishment 

of an air traffic control tower drives even greater economic development through the creation of jobs, the growth of airport businesses, 

and other benefits. This was validated in a 2011 study by an independent contractor for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

This study showed that each dollar spent by an aviation business or an aviation-related business generated $1.52 in economic activity. It also showed that airport jobs are desirable, and the average 

wage of a job at a Virginia airport was 40 percent higher than the 

average Virginia salary. For every job at a Virginia airport, nearly 

three are created in its visitor-related economy. And aviation-related businesses and employees annually contribute $105 million to 

the local tax base. 

The study also indicated that construction projects like airport 

control towers are beneficial because dollars spent by the State and 

local governments are leveraged with Federal and private funds. 

This multiplier effect results in generating an additional $2 in economic activity for each dollar spent. 

In conclusion, I would like to say that the FAA’s Contract Power 

Program has a proven track record of providing cost-effective and 

essential air traffic safety services to general aviation airports, and 

they provide strong support to local economies. 

On behalf of the members of AOPA, I thank you for your leadership in examining this important program. This concludes my testimony. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. I do have a 

few questions. 

Mr. Strong, as the previous panel indicated, the FAA is in the 

process of revising the cost-benefit analysis for contract towers. 

And from what you know of their plans, do you believe they are 

considering the right cost and benefit factors? And if not, what 

would be more adequate or appropriate, in your opinion? 

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. We have 

been in consultation with the FAA. As Ms. Oettinger spoke earlier, 

we were in their offices just 3 or 4 weeks ago. 

25 

Some of the items that they intend to include in the cost-benefit 

analysis we believe are appropriate. Probably our biggest concern 

is that the world has changed from what we once knew it to be in 

the world of contract towers, and there are a lot of activities that 

may not be picked up in their current process. And we want to 

make sure that all of the benefits, all of the things, all of the items 

that go on at the airports are actually included. 

At Westheimer in Norman, we have a really broad program of 

what goes on there. The University of Oklahoma has a significant 

flight training program, where we train pilots that will come into 

the system and be your pilots on airplanes and commercial service 

in future years. Those folks generate 200 to 250 flights a week during the semesters. We also have the Governor that flies in and out 

of our airport. We have a tremendous amount of law enforcement 

activity at our airport. And we also have the business community 

that comes and goes. 

And, on top of that, when we play football in the fall, on game 

days there is a tremendous influx of business jet and single engine 

aircraft activity that comes to the airport. 

So we are not certain that the FAA really includes those complexities and all of those things that are included in their cost-benefit analysis. And that is what we really want to work with them 

on, and make sure that they are including those things. Because 

we don’t want to put any contract tower community in a position 

to even consider reducing services or closing a tower because they 

can’t afford the shifted costs in their direction. 

Mr. PETRI. The—I am sure you are aware—and I don’t know if 

this question is directed for you, or if others would care to respond. 

But we live in a world—and certainly it is true in aviation—of rapidly changing technology. And I talk often with general aviation pilots, and they show me their things where—we all have Garmins 

in our car and the satellite—the amount of data you can get as an 

automobile driver, let alone as an airplane pilot. 

And so, the world of air traffic control is—if it is not already— 

is rapidly about to change, and has for some of general aviation already. People have routes, they have information in the cockpit 

that enable them to dial in an airport and to get there. 

As that world evolves, could you discuss how—the contract towers and general FAA towers, the flight movements aren’t constant 

throughout the day, there—possibility of transferring to TRACON 

or to regional—and a lot—and they can control flights into airports, 

there are programs to put sensors of—ground equipment on airports so it will show in the cockpit for the pilot if anything is approaching. There are a lot of things that can be done now that minimize the need for expensive air traffic control for airports that— 

a lot of airports don’t have any towers, anyway. 

And could you discuss how the impact of this technology is on 

both the general FAA and the contract tower situation? 

Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I might characterize it in 

the following fashion. I am reminded of a day when I was at the 

Oshkosh event years ago, back in the 1990s, and I was talking to 

some FAA folks there. And there was a table in the tent that had 

NDB and ILS. And over on the end there was one young fellow 

26 

that was talking about GPS. And I thought, ‘‘I want to talk to him, 

because that is new technology, and it is coming at us.’’ 

And around the year 2000 I asked FAA—we needed an ILS for 

Westheimer Airport in Norman. And we were told, ‘‘You can’t have 

an ILS.’’ ‘‘Well, why can’t I have an ILS?’’ ‘‘Because you are not on 

the list.’’ ‘‘Well, why aren’t we on the list?’’ ‘‘Because we are going 

to have full implementation of GPS by the year 2000.’’ That was 

the answer that I got. I would submit to you that we are in the 

year 2012. And not to be overly critical with the FAA, but you are 

talking about new technologies that often take a tremendous 

amount of time to bring on board. 

So we did get our ILS. We still don’t have full implementation 

of GPS. We do use a lot of security cameras at our airport. If you 

are referring to NextGen and coming online, I have heard talk 

about virtual contract towers, or virtual towers, where you might 

have a controller in a room looking at video screens that are, you 

know, feeding camera data from an airport to a video screen, so 

they can control traffic at more than one tower. I would submit to 

you that cameras—I don’t think, personally, cameras are at that 

level of confident data. I just don’t think it is there. 

At night time, the data that you get from a camera is reduced. 

You won’t see a 12-point buck crossing the runway at night with 

a camera, where a controller with eyeglasses may see that. So 

while I believe new technology coming at us will make a benefit in 

the future, I think we are still a long distance off from that. And 

for the time being, I think we still need to work with the efficiencies that we have in the Contract Tower Program, and even the 

FAA tower program. I don’t think it is time yet to shift to air traffic 

management from air traffic control. 

That is personal opinion. I was a controller for 17 years. I have 

worked towers and radars and enroute traffic, so I am familiar 

with the process. And I just don’t think we are ready for air traffic 

management quite yet. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Strong, one of the 

issues that I have heard with some of the contract towers—in fact, 

one in my district—is that the FAA could do a better job of upgrading and maintaining their facilities and equipment. I wonder if you 

might comment on that. And I would ask the same question of Ms. 

Gilbert. 

Mr. STRONG. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I think we could all do a 

better job of upgrading our equipment. I know we have—for example, one of the comments earlier was old radios that are not used— 

you cannot use a headset with a radio. I will admit to you that we 

have a light gun in our control tower that is probably 30 years old. 

But it is functional. So do I need to go out and spend $15,000 or 

$20,000 to buy a new light gun, just so I can have a new light gun? 

I don’t think so. 

There are times when we do need to be more effective and more 

efficient in adding new equipment. And the FAA, frankly, has put 

some new equipment in our control tower, because we are in the 

greater metropolitan area of Oklahoma City, and we have a reasonable amount of traffic. So they installed a radar system in our contract tower that quite a few contract towers don’t have. So we do 

27 

have some of those upgrades. But I wouldn’t throw out an old radio 

just because it is old. If it still functions, you can still talk to the 

pilots, you still get the job done. Does it need to have new bells and 

whistles? Might be a little bit better, maybe a little more efficient. 

Is it necessary? Maybe not. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Ms. Gilbert? 

Ms. GILBERT. I would agree that new doesn’t necessarily mean 

better. Our concern would be where the equipment isn’t functioning 

in a way that allows you to do the job, the very serious job, that 

air traffic controllers do in both Federal and contract towers. They 

are often distracted by maintaining equipment. Controllers are 

having to do it themselves, because there are not onsite technicians 

in the facilities. Then that distracts them from doing the job that 

they are there to do, which is the movement of air traffic in and 

out of the airport. 

As you well know, several years ago we didn’t have the relationship with the FAA that we do now. So we had a lot of involvement 

with many Members of Congress on behalf of the contract towers 

that we represent, to get them appropriate and proper equipment 

in the facilities. In Georgetown, just on the outskirts of Austin, 

Texas, we were able to get a DBRITE in that facility to help them 

move planes in and out of that airport, with the help of Congressman John Carter. 

Now, however, we have a relationship with the FAA that allows 

us to better communicate the needs of those facilities, as well as 

the FAA facilities, with regard to not necessarily new equipment, 

but certainly equipment that will enhance safety and equipment 

that will improve efficiencies. We support that in both facilities. 

I would like to also give you one more perspective with regard 

to the voluntary reporting system that we have in the FAA that we 

would like to see in the contract towers. With that in place, and 

the collection of a lot of data, you are able to better prioritize 

equipment issues that need to be put in place to enhance safety, 

versus what might just be nice to have. When you get that good, 

solid data, it enables us in tight budget times to prioritize appropriately what should be deployed and where. So that is another 

benefit of the voluntary reporting system, that we see it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You just answered my second question about nonpunitive reporting, voluntary reporting at contract towers. 

The final question, Ms. Gilbert, is you mention in your written 

testimony that the FAA and contract towers have different ‘‘safety 

cultures.’’ What do you mean by that? 

Ms. GILBERT. Well, in the FAA, as you well know, we voluntarily 

submit data to the agency so we can better assess where the risks 

are, how to mitigate them, how to prioritize them, and fund them 

appropriately to address the concerns. Rather than a punitive culture, where the blame would go on an individual, and there would 

be no real effort to correct what might be a true safety concern or 

issue. 

We do not have that in the contract towers, and we are hoping 

that we are able to get that very soon. We do represent controllers 

under all three employers, and we are at different levels of discussions with them. However, I believe at this point in time their idea 

28 

of a voluntary, nonpunitive reporting system and ours is very, very 

different. So we have a little ways to go there. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Lankford? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Strong, do you think it is—there is a greater risk, landing and taking off at a contract tower? 

Mr. STRONG. No. 

Mr. LANKFORD. What about in a—is there a difference in safety 

between a contract tower and an airport with no tower? 

Mr. STRONG. No. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. 

Mr. STRONG. And I pause because you have different humans 

working in different towers. And, to me, that is not whether it is 

a contract tower or if it is an FAA tower. That is a human issue. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. STRONG. If the human is capable, and the human is on their 

game, if the human is Barry Sanders, as Mr. Southerland spoke to 

earlier, of the air traffic control world, then the human will be on 

their game and there won’t be any difference. And we—typically, 

we don’t see any. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. GILBERT. Could I answer that, please? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Sure. 

Ms. GILBERT. I was a controller at Houston Center for 21 years. 

And in my airspace, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, there are three airports in close proximity in that community. And there are no towers there. We provided the service out of the enroute facility. And 

it was a completely safe operation. However, for us to do that and 

not have a tower onsite, we were only able to provide one in, one 

out type of service. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. GILBERT. So you are not able to efficiently move aircraft in 

and out of the facility. 

Mr. LANKFORD. But you are typically talking about a lower rate 

of in and out, as well. You are not talking about someone doing 

takeoffs and landings every 3 minutes in a no-tower airport. 

Ms. GILBERT. No, only one is in. As soon as they taxi and they 

call you and they tell you they are off the runway, then you are 

able to then put another one in. In the meantime, those waiting to 

get in are holding. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. And, as Mr. Strong said, you can’t see a 12- 

point buck at that point. 

Ms. GILBERT. Exactly. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So which—I would assume there would be multiple responses to a 12-point buck in most Oklahoma towers, if you 

looked at the window and saw that. 

Let me—ask a couple other questions on this, as well. How 

does—for Mr. Strong, there is a discussion about the cost sharing 

for the local municipality or the State or—how does that get covered? Now it is up to 20 percent. There are some recommendations 

up there to be up to 50 percent of the cost being a local cost. How 

does that get covered? What effect does that have? 

29 

Mr. STRONG. My concern, Mr. Lankford, is that it doesn’t get covered. If we get to a place where the FAA asks a community to— 

‘‘Your cost-benefit analysis has dropped to this place where we now 

want you to pony up to 50 percent of the cost to staff the tower 

on an annual basis,’’ the community may already be looking at we 

have got to deal with DEQ regulations, we have got to take care 

of stormwater, we need more firefighters, we need more police, we 

have already got—we are already strapped with all of these things, 

and now the FAA comes to us and says, ‘‘In order for you to remain 

fully functional, you are going to have to step up to $175, $200,000 

a year to staff the control tower.’’ 

It seems to me that we then put those community leaders—in 

our case, the University of Oklahoma—into a position of considering where do we get the money, if we don’t have the money now, 

where are we going to find it, and then they begin to consider 

maybe a reduction in services, or even closing the control tower. 

That is my concern. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. STRONG. We have come to a place where the control towers 

are in place, they are part of the NAS. Everybody that has testified 

so far today has all agreed that it is about safety, safety, safety. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. STRONG. And any kind of reduction or putting a community 

in a position where they say, ‘‘Well, we are going to have to shut 

this thing down,’’ is simply—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. Is there a possibility to give you more flexibility 

that reduces cost in other areas, to say—you brought up multiple 

different regulations, stormwater and all the different regulations 

that also come down from the Federal Government into a community or onto an airport itself. Are there ways to be able to say, ‘‘We 

will give you flexibility in these areas to take care of this, but you 

also have an increased cost, straight off’’? 

Mr. STRONG. I suppose that there might be, sir. I wouldn’t know 

the answer to that, because it doesn’t have wings, jet engines, or 

propellers on it. If it had one of those things, I might be a little 

bit better to answer it. But I suppose so. I don’t really know the 

answer. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Ms. Gilbert, you also mentioned that you 

were opposed to transitioning, or the organization was opposed to 

transitioning more airports from FAA to contract. In the mid-1990s 

was your organization also opposed to transitioning the 136 that 

are currently contract that used to be FAA? Was the organization 

opposed to that transition, as well? 

And if so—let me just get a chance to talk this through—do you 

think it was a mistake that they were moved from FAA to contract 

towers, based on the current position the organization now, that we 

shouldn’t have any more contract towers moved from FAA to that? 

Ms. GILBERT. We were opposed to the transfer and conversion of 

those towers. Just as our testimony says, our written testimony 

and the recommendations—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. GILBERT [continuing]. Our concern is about proper training, 

proper staffing, and proper equipment maintenance, regardless of 

whether it is a contract tower or an FAA tower. 

30 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. GILBERT. So that is our position. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Was it a mistake to move those? Has it proved 

to be unsafe? 

Ms. GILBERT. It hasn’t proved to be unsafe, but we have a concern about the margin of safety being stretched to accommodate 

the bottom line, versus safety first. Somebody has got to make 

money in a Contract Power Program, and that is our concern. And 

the way that they are able to do that is barebones staffing, the 

equipment issues that we have raised, and also, in a lot of cases, 

the hours of operations. A lot of those facilities reduced the hours 

that they provide service to their community when they transferred 

from FAA to contract tower. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield 

back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And—yes, sir? 

Mr. STRONG. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there is a couple of things 

that I would like to speak to: the proper training, staffing, and 

equipping of the control towers. I have been a part of the U.S. Contract Tower Association Policy Board for about 10 years. And in 

that time, I have been the chair for about 6. I have met with the 

contractors on a frequent recurring basis. And each and every one 

of them, when we come to our meetings, it is always about safety 

first. How can we do this the best way we can possibly do it? 

Training, they always step up to the highest levels of training, 

be it recurring training or initial training. There was talk about 

the difference between certified controller and the training only 

being 30 days, and then you might get fired if you didn’t make 

your—get your rating in 30 days. Controllers in the contract world 

come to the tower already certified by the FAA. They have a control tower operator certificate. So all they have to do is come to 

that tower, learn the particulars of the airspace at that airport, 

and then move forward. 

So, if there is something different about that facility that may require them to need a couple of extra days, I think the contractors 

would allow for that. 

There was comment about the punitive safety culture. That 

causes me great concern. Again, I have worked with these contractors for 10 years. I know what their heart is, I know what they are 

driven by, I know what their attention is. And they are not about 

punitive. Now, in the contract tower world, we do not yet have 

ATSAP. But the contractors are embracing that activity or that 

possibility. They want to move that forward. 

I would submit to you also, in the voluntary reporting of ATSAP, 

much like the NAS’s callback—pilots are familiar with that—NAS’s 

callback, if you make an error, you report it to callback, then you 

are not to be punished. And it seems to me that ATSAP is about 

the same thing for controllers. Even in NAS’s callback, even though 

it is a very good program, you will never get 100 percent reporting. 

You are talking about humans. If—some people, if they make an 

error, and they don’t think anybody saw it, they may not report it, 

whether it is a contract tower or an FAA tower. Unless we have 

some other nonhuman methodology of tracking the error, I don’t 

think you will ever get 100 percent. 

31 

But I would say this. I know the hearts and the minds and the 

intentions of these contractors. And they are dead set on having 

ATSAP or some functioning reporting system like that, as FAA 

does. And currently, I might add, they are serious about—the only 

time that you will get punished is for not reporting an error. If you 

have an error or a deviation in the system, if you don’t report it, 

then you have got a problem. If you do report it, we want to know 

about it, because we want to know what caused it, and how could 

we move forward, how can we learn from that and move forward 

in a safer condition. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. This 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

32 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75148.006

STATEMENT OF 

I : 

~~ V I 

THE HONORABLE JERRY F. COSTELLO 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF THE FAA's CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM" 

JULY 18, 2012 

y Mr. Chainnan, thank you for calling todays hearing on "A 

Review of the FAA's Contract Tower Program." 

y A control tower at an airport - either a Federal tower or a 

contact tower - enhances safety, panicularlyat busy times. The 

Federal Contract Tower program provides air traffic services at 

250 smaller aitpons, including three in my district. Many of the 

aitports served by contract towers nationwide might not have 

control towers if the program did not exist. 

y In speaking regularly with airport operators in my district, as 

well as other aviation stakeholders, the message I take away 

from these conversations is airports and general aviation pilots 

appreciate the safety benefits of the contract tower program, 
33 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75148.007

especially at aitPOlts where the alternative would be not to have 

a staffed tower. For many towers in the program, the safety 

benefits outweigh the costs. 

? To that end, I understand that the FAA is consulting with 

stakeholders as it updates its cost and benefit calculations for 

towers in the program. Some allport stakeholders have 

expressed concern that in the future, more towers could be 

required to pay a cost share or, in some cases, be forced to pay 

more. If they cannot afford do to this, they would have to leave 

the program. Although the FAA also proposed to increase the 

maximum local cost share for the program in its fiscal year 2013 

budget proposal, both the House and Senate appropriations bills 

have rejected this proposal. 

2 
34 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75148.008

>- Going fOlWard, I urge the FAA to work with stakeholders as it 

updates its calculations of costs and benefits. If the FAA finds 

any challenges with program costs and benefits as it recalculates 

those figures, we must be ready to address those issues in a 

manner that takes all stakeholders' views into account. 

>- With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing, 

and I look fOlWard to hearing from our witnesses. 

3 
35 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75148.009

Remarks of U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall, II 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on 

"A Review of the FAA's Contract Tower Program" 

July 18, 2012 

I would like to thank Chairman Petri for calling this hearing on the contract tower 

program of the Federal Aviation Administration. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses about the role of the program for airports in many smaller communities that 

might not otherwise have control towers. There can be little doubt that a control tower -

whether operated by the FAA or a contractor - enhances safety for pilots. 

The FAA has implemented a nationwide voluntary safety reporting program that 

actively encourages FAA controllers to report errors without fear of punitive action. The 

program shines a spotlight into the dark room of errors that may occur in FAA facilities, 

revealing safety issues that, otherwise, might have remained cloaked in the darkness. 

However, the FAA's safety program does not apply in contract towers. Peering 

into the dark room of errors that may occur in contract facilities, we have just a flashlight 

- the same flashlight that has always been used to find out about operational errors. 

Comparatively speaking, we know more about errors in FAA facilities, because the 

FAA's spotlight is bringing them out of the darkness. Without an equally broad view of 

errors in contract facilities, I think it is very difficult to draw absolute comparisons about 

safety. 

I would note that the Department of Transportation Inspector General observes 

that applying the FAA's voluntary reporting program to contract towers would ensure 

that errors are thoroughly reported. I understand that the FAA is encouraging its 

contractors to implement safety reporting programs, and I look forward to hearing more 

about these efforts. 

The Inspector General also found that contract towers cost less to operate than 

FAA facilities because, in part, they are staffed with fewer controllers. However, the 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which actually represents controllers at a 

quarter of all current contract towers, has raised safety concerns with lean staffing 

levels. For example, controllers may have to stay on duty for longer. They may have to 

multi-task at a greater risk of distraction. They may have to work alone, with no 

backup. Past accidents and incidents have taught us that there must be enough 

controllers on duty in towers to do the job safely. 

I am not suggesting that contract towers are not as safe as similar FAA facilities. 

Rather, I am saying we lack sufficient information to make a strong comparison, and 

contract towers have not adopted best practices that would allow us to fully evaluate 

and improve safety at these facilities. Contract towers should implement the same 
36 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75148.010

proactive reporting programs that have been implemented at FAA towers so that we can 

collect the best safety information. 

With that said, I again thank you, Chairman Petri, for calling this hearing, and I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

2 
37 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75148.011

Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

United States House of Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 

10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday 

July 18, 2012 

CC-2012-023 

Update on the Safety and 

Cost Aspects of the Federal 

Aviation Administration's 

Contract Tower Program 

Statement of 

The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Transportation 
38 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75148.012

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 

Contract Tower Program. There are currently 250 contract towers nationwide providing 

air traffic control services to a wide range of users, including general aviation, 

commercial and cargo carriers, and the military. Since its inception 30 years ago, the 

program has successfully served airports that otherwise would not have air traffic control 

services, thereby increasing the level of safety for those pilots and communities. 

Between 1998 and 2003, we completed four reviews of the Contract Tower Program.! 

Overall, we found little difference in the safety or quality of services provided by similar 

FAA and contract towers. We also found that the contract towers provided air traffic 

services to low-activitl airports at lower costs than the Agency could otherwise provide. 

At the request of the House Committee on Appropriations, we initiated a new review of 

the program. My testimony is based on our ongoing work and will focus on (I) the 

Contract Tower Program's safety aspects and overall user satisfaction, (2) whether the 

program remains cost-efficient, and (3) actions FAA can take to improve program 

oversight. Exhibit A provides a detailed explanation of our methodology. Exhibits Band 

C list the locations of all contract towers and 92 comparable FAA towers. 

IN SUMMARY 

Contract towers continue to provide safe air traffic services and are strongly supported by 

users. Our ongoing work has found that contract towers had a lower number and rate of 

reported safety incidents 3 than similar FAA towers and that Agency safety evaluations 

found fewer deficiencies with contract towers. Users did not raise any safety concerns 

regarding the services provided by contract towers and believe the services they receive 

from contract towers are comparable to those from similar FAA towers. Contract towers 

also continue to provide cost-efficient air traffic control services, with the average 

contract tower costing roughly $1.5 million less to operate annually than a comparable 

FAA tower--due largely to lower staffing and salary levels. However, FAA can take 

certain actions to improve its oversight of the program. These actions include 

implementing a voluntary safety incident reporting program at contract towers, 

I DIG Report No. A V-1998-147, "Federa1 Contract Tower Program," May 18, 1998; DIG Report No. A V -2000-079, "Contract 

Towers: Observations on FAA's Study of Expanding the Program," April 12,2000; OIG Report No. A V-2002-068, "Audit 

Report on Subcontracting Issues of the Contract Tower Program." December ]4. 2001; OIG Report No. AV-2003-057, 

"'Safety, Cost, and Operational Metrics of the Federal Aviation Administration'S Visual Flight Rules Towers," September 4, 

2003. OrG reports are available on Ollr Web site: hup://www.oig.dot.gov. 

2 Low activity towers are generally located at airports near smaller cities that are served by commuter airlines rather than major 

carriers. In many instances, there is no scheduled camer operating from the airport and the activity consists of private, 

business, and general aviation operations. 

3 Safety incidents include operational errors, operational deviations, and runway incursions. An operational error occurs when an 

air traffic controller docs not maintain minimum separation between two aircraft or between an aircraft and terrain or 

obstacles. An operational deviation occurs when a controller allows an aircraft to enter airspace managed by another controller 

without prior coordination and approval. A runway incursion is any incident involving an unauthorized aircraft, vehicle, or 

person on a runway. 

1 
39 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75148.013

implementing processes to regularly evaluate contract towers as required by Congress, 

and reviewing annual labor hours worked to determine if the contractors provide the level 

of service called for in the contract. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1982, FAA began the Contract Tower Program as a pilot program to contract air traffic 

services for five low-activity towers that were closed as a result of the Professional Air 

Traffic Controllers Organization strike. In 1994, Congress provided funding for a multiyear program to convert additional FAA low-activity towers to contract operations. The 

program was further expanded in 1998 when Congress provided funding for a costsharing program, which allows airports that would not normally qualify for the program 

access by permitting the airport sponsors to pay for a portion of the costs to operate the 

tower, with FAA providing at least 80 percent of the cost. 

Currently, there are 250 towers in the Contract Tower Program across 46 States 4 and 

4 territories; 228 towers are fully funded by FAA, 16 are part of the cost-share program, 

and 6 towers are used by the Air National Guard. 5 Three contractors provide staff to 

operate the towers in seven geographic areas. 6 The current contracts, which run from 

February 1, 2010, to September 30, 2014, are worth nearly $600 million. FAA's Contract 

Tower and Weather Group (CTWG) within the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) oversees 

the administrative functions of the program, and FAA's Aviation Safety Organization 

(AVS) provides safety oversight. FAA is requesting $138 million in fiscal year 2013 for 

the Contract Tower Program. 

CONTRACT TOWERS CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SAFE SERVICES AND 

ARE SUPPORTED BY USERS 

Overall, contract towers reported a lower number and rate of safety incidents, and FAA 

facility evaluations identified fewer deficiencies with contract towers than with similar 

FAA towers. In addition, users continue to support the program and are satisfied with the 

safety and quality of the services provided by contract towers. 

Contract Towers Have a Lower Number of Reported Safety Incidents and 

Deficiencies Than Comparable FAA Towers 

When compared with comparable FAA towers, contract towers reported both a lower 

number and lower rate of operational errors, operational deviations, and runway 

4 TIle four States without a contract tower are Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vennont. 

5 The six Air National Guard Towers are included in the Contract Tower Program under a special agreement with the 

Department ofDefeDse. 

6 The three contractors are Robinson Aviation (RVA) Inc., Midwest Air Traffic Control Service Inc., and Sereo, Inc. 

2 
40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75148.014

incursions in fiscal year 2010. 7 Table 1 shows our comparison of these safety incidents 

reported at 240 contract towers and 92 comparable FAA towers. 8 

Table 1. Number and Rate of Fiscal Year 2010 Safety Incidents at Comparable Contract 

and FAA Air Traffic Control Towers 

Total Number Incidents Incident Rate Per One·Miliion 

Towers Operational Operational 

Errors Deviations 

Runway 

Incursions 

Operational 

Errors 

Operational 

Deviations 

Runway 

Incursions 

240 Contract 18 12 167 1.24 0.83 11.55 

92 FAA 52 35 275 4.54 3.06 24.01 

Source: OIG analYSis of FAA data 

FAA's periodic evaluations of air traffic facilities' compliance with FAA directives also 

indicate that fewer procedural, training, and administrative deficiencies are found at 

contract towers. Facility evaluations for a sample of 30 contract towers conducted 

between May 2006 and September 2010 and a sample of 30 comparable FAA towers 

conducted between January 2007 and September 2010 identified a total of 

156 deficiencies at the 30 contract towers and 338 deficiencies at the 30 FAA towers. 

While none of the deficiencies cited were serious in nature, some of the most frequently 

identified deficiencies at both contract and FAA towers include outdated training records, 

inadequate quality assurance reviews by facility managers, incomplete supplemental 

controller training, and improper position relief briefings and radio communications by 

controllers. 

Users Are Satisfied With the level and Quality of Services Provided by 

Contract Towers 

As we have reported previously, pilots, flight instructors, airport officials, fixed-based 

operators, 9 and representatives from airport and general aviation organizations support 

the Contract Tower Program. Specifically, users at 12 contract towers and 7 FAA towers 

we visited during our current review were satisfied with the services provided by contract 

towers and the three contractors and believed the services they receive were comparable 

to similar FAA towers. In several instances, pilots were surprised to learn that towers 

they frequently interacted with were actually contract towers and described the services 

provided by FAA and contract towers as "seamless." 

National and facility officials from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

(NATCA), who represent controllers at 63 contract towers, support the cost-share aspect 

of the current program. However, they raised concerns that contract towers have much 

7 We began our review in June 201 1, and the fiscal year 2010 data were the most complete and updated yearly information 

available for our audit. 

8 Identified by FAA as comparable towers. 

9 Fixed-base operators are airport tenants that provide fueling, maintenance, or other aviation-related services. 

3 
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75148.015

lower staffmg levels than comparable FAA towers, are often staffed with only 

1 controller for portions of the day, and that controller certification training at contract 

towers can take as little as 30 days, while at an FAA facility it can take from 1 to 5 years. 

We discussed NATCA's concerns with FAA safety officials, local airport officials and 

pilots, and aviation associations that use contract towers. Overall, they stated that contract 

towers operate safely and did not have any concerns about staffing practices at contract 

towers. Contract tower controllers are required to meet the same certification 

requirements as FAA controllers and are certified by FAA. Additionally, most contract 

tower controllers are also former FAA or military controllers who must have a Control 

Tower Operator license in order to be hired and therefore generally require less time to 

become certified at their locations. Conversely, FAA generally hires controllers for its air 

traffic facilities with little or no air traffic experience who require more training in order 

to certify at its facilities. 

CONTRACT TOWERS CONTINUE TO PROVIDE COST-EFFICIENT 

SERVICES 

Contract towers continue to operate at lower costs than comparable FAA towers. Our 

comparison of costs 10 at our sample of 30 contract towers and 30 FAA towers with 

similar air traffic densities II found that the average operations costs in fiscal year 2010 

were about $537,000 for a contract tower and about $2.025 million for an FAA tower-a 

difference of $1.488 million, or 277 percent (see table 2). 

Table 2. Average Cost and Staffing Differences Between 30 Contract Towers and 30 

Comparable FAA Towers 

Average Air Traffic Average FY 2010 Cost Average Number of 

Density Air Traffic Personnel 

FAA Tower 15.55 $2,025,104 16.23 

Contract Tower 15.34 $536,911 6.03 

Average Difference 0.21 $1,488,193 10.20 

Source: OiG analysis based on data from FAA 

The difference in cost is primarily due to two factors. First, contract towers are staffed at 

lower levels than the comparable FAA towers. The 30 contract towers in our sample had 

an average of 6 air traffic personnel at the facility, while the sample of 30 comparable 

FAA towers had an average of 16 air traffic personnel. 12 Second, contract tower 

!O These costs included air traffic personnel compensation and benefits, travel and transportation, supplies, materials, and 

insurance. Infrastmcture, maintenance, and equipment costs for FAA and contract towers were not included in our analysis 

because, under terms of the contract, contractors are not responsible for these costs. In addition, FAA's FY 201 0 estimated cost 

to administer the Contract Tower Program ($2.23 million or about $9,000 per contract tower) was not mcluded in our cost 

calculation. 

!! Density is defined as the average number of operations at a tower per hour the facility is open. 

12 Air traffic personnel are defined as air traffic controllers, supervisors, and management. 

4 
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75148.016

controllers' salaries, which are based on Department of Labor wage rates, are lower than 

the salaries paid to FAA controllers. For example, based on current Department of Labor 

rates, an air traffic controller at the Albert Whitted Tower near Tampa, FL, would receive 

base pay of about $56,000 per year, whereas an FAA-employed air traffic controller in 

Sarasota, FL, an area with a similar cost of living, would receive base pay ranging from 

about $63,000 to $85,000 per year, depending on experience. 

FAA OVERSIGHT OF THE CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM COULD BE 

IMPROVED 

While the Contract Tower Program continues to provide cost-efficient air traffic services 

that are supported by users, there are opportunities for FAA to improve its oversight and 

strengthen program controls. These opportunities include implementing a voluntary 

safety incident reporting program at contract towers, implementing policies that require 

contract towers to receive regular safety reviews, and improving agency oversight over 

the contractual aspects of the program. 

Accurate Incident Reporting at Contract Towers Is Critical To Maintaining 

Safety 

Contract towers are required to follow the same process for reporting and documenting 

safety incidents as FAA facilities. However, according to two FAA studies that were 

conducted in 2009 and 2010, contract towers had a lower number of reported runway 

incursions than comparable FAA towers. The Agency determined that the main reasons 

for the difference were that contract tower controllers either did not know the current 

definition of a runway incursion or the criteria for classifying them. FAA also found that 

two-thirds of the contract towers reviewed had not submitted runway safety action plans 

for the previous 2 years. 

In light of these findings, managers from FAA's Runway Safety Program office met with 

contractors and emphasized the importance of runway incursion prevention and 

reporting. Subsequently, a 2010 FAA study showed runway incursions reporting at 

contract towers had increased sharply. 13 However, strong senior-level oversight and 

accountability by FAA and contractors, along with improved reporting mechanisms for 

all air traffic facilities, are needed to address ongoing concerns about the accurate 

reporting of runway incursions and other safety incidents. Additional oversight could 

help ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting of safety incidents at contract towers. 

This includes incorporating contract towers into a voluntary reporting system such as the 

Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP).14 

13 "Study of Runway Incursion Reporting at Federal Contract Towers," ATO's Office of Safety, December 2010. 

14 ATSAP is a voluntary, non-punitive safety reporting program that encourages controllers to report operational errors and other 

safety incidents. 

5 
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75148.017

New Oversight System Does Not Ensure That Contract Towers Receive 

Regular Safety Evaluations as Required by Congress 

Prior to October 2010, FAA conducted evaluations of all air traffic facilities, including 

contract towers, every 3 years. In January 2012, FAA transitioned to a new data-driven, 

risk-based oversight system as its primary method to oversee air traffic facilities. Under 

the new system, safety incident data are analyzed to identify specific safety problems or 

trends at air traffic facilities. Based on this analysis, the Agency will then focus its 

oversight efforts on those identified issues or trends. However, if data are unavailable due 

to a lower rate of occurrence, are umeliable, or there are no trends to analyze, some low 

risk towers, including contract towers, could go years without being evaluated. Should 

there be lengthy periods between reviews of contract towers under this risk-based system, 

FAA may not meet the intent of new legislation that requires the Secretary to "establish 

uniform standards and requirements for regular safety assessments" of contract towers. 15 

FAA Can Improve Its Contractual Oversight of the Program 

Finally, FAA has opportunities to improve its oversight of the contractual and operational 

aspects of the Contract Tower Program. This includes ensuring that the contractors are 

providing the level of service required by the contract. In 1998 we reported that contract 

towers were not staffed in accordance with contractor staffing plans. In response, FAA 

included a provision in subsequent contracts requiring contractors to submit a staffing 

plan that includes the number of controllers who will work at the tower and the total 

annual number of hours those controllers will work, exclusive of vacation, holiday, and 

sick leave. Once FAA approves the staffing plan, the contractors must comply with the 

staffing levels and hours of service called for in the plan, and actual hours worked must 

be within plus or minus 3 percent of the approved plan. 

However, we found that the effectiveness of this control is limited because FAA does not 

review the actual annual hours worked by contractors. Instead, the CTWG only reviews 

the monthly reports provided by the three contractors. As a result, FAA may be paying 

for services that have not been provided and is possibly missing opportunities to recoup 

funds. 

CONCLUSION 

The Contract Tower Program has successfully contributed to FAA's goal of ensuring the 

safety and cost-effectiveness of the air traffic control system. However, the continued 

success of the program will depend on effective follow through by FAA to enhance how 

it collects and uses safety data on contract towers so that they receive the appropriate 

level of oversight and to improve controls over the program's contractual aspects to 

protect against any potential misuse of funds. 

IS "FAA Modemization and Reform Act of2012," Sec. 147, Public Law 112-95, February 14,2012. 

6 
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75148.018

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to address any questions from the 

Chairman or Members of the Subcommittee at this time. 

7 
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75148.019

EXHIBIT A. OIG METHODOLOGY FOR SAFETY AND COST ANALYSES 

Universe of Contract and FAA Towers and Tower Samples Selected 

The universe of contract towers consisted of 246 towers that were included in the 

Contract Tower Program as of February 2011. This includes 224 fully funded towers, 16 

cost-share towers, and 6 towers that operated on behalf of the Air National Guard. The 

universe of FAA towers consisted of 92 towers that were selected by FAA as being 

comparable to contract towers. 

To determine our sample of 30 contract and 30 FAA towers, we utilized a universe of 

240 contract towers that were in the program as of February 2011 and excluded the 6 Air 

National Guard towers on the advice of the CTWG Program Manager because they were 

operated by the Department of Defense, not FAA. The OIG statistician, using FY 2009 

and FY 2010 numbers of operations and hours of service, calculated the average density 

for each of 240 contract towers and 92 FAA towers. The statistician then selected a 

random sample of 30 contract towers where a tower's selection probability was 

proportional to its average density, which we used to select 30 similar FAA towers by 

matching the average density of each contract tower to a FAA tower. 

Safety Analyses 

To determine the number and rate of safety incidents (operational errors, operational 

deviations, and runway incursions) at contract towers and comparable FAA towers, we 

reviewed FY 2010 safety incident data provided by ATO's Office of Safety (ATO-S) for 

the 240 contract towers (excluding the 6 Air National Guard towers) and 92 FAA towers. 

We determined the total number of incidents for two groups of facilities and calculated 

the rate of per million operations for each type of incident. 

To determine safety and other deficiencies identified by FAA at contract and FAA 

towers, we reviewed facility safety evaluations conducted by FAA between May 

12,2006, and September 29, 2010, for the 30 sampled contract towers and between 

January 24,2007, and September 29,2010, for the 30 sampled FAA towers from FAA's 

Facility Safety Assessment System (FSAS). We then identified the total number and type 

of deficiencies cited at each tower. 

Cost Analysis 

To determine the difference in cost between contract towers and comparable FAA 

towers, we reviewed the contractor's agreement with FAA to determine the contractor's 

responsibilities. We then compared similar FY 2010 costs for the sample of 30 contract 

towers and 30 FAA towers to determine the annual cost difference. These costs included 

air traffic personnel compensation and benefits, travel and transportation, supplies, 

materials, and insurance. Infrastructure, maintenance, and equipment costs for contract 

and FAA towers were not included in our analysis because, under terms of the contract, 

8 

Exhibit A. OIG Methodology for Safety and Cost Analyses 
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75148.020

contractors are not responsible for these costs. FAA's FY 2010 estimated cost to 

administer the Contract Tower Program, $2.23 million or about $9,000 per contract 

tower, was not included in our cost calculation. 

9 

Exhibit A. OIG Methodology for Safety and Cost Analyses 
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75148.021

EXHIBIT B. LIST OF CONTRACT TOWERS (AS OF MAY 2012) 

State Airport Name Tower 

10 State Airport Name Tower 

ID 

AK Bethel BET CT Tweed-New Haven HVN 

AK Kenai ENA CT Waterbury OXC 

AK King Salmon AKN FL Albert Whitted SPG 

AK Kodiak ADO FL Boca Raton BCT 

AL Brookley BFM FL Cecil Field VOO 

AL Dothan DHN FL Charlotte County Airport PGD 

AL Tuscaloosa Municipal TCL FL Flagler County Airport XFL 

AR Fayetteville FYV FL Gainesville GNV 

AR Northwest Arkansas Regional XNA FL Hollywood/North Perry HWO 

AR Rogers Municipal-Carter Fld (CS) ROG FL Jacksonville/Craig CRG 

AR Springdale Municipal (CS) ASG FL Key West EYW 

AR Texarkana MunilWebb Fld TXK FL Kissimmee Municipal ISM 

AZ. Chandler CHD FL Lakeland Municipal LAL 

AZ. Flagstaff Pulliam FLG FL Leesburg Regional LEE 

AZ. Glendale GEU FL Melbourne MLB 

AZ. Goodyear GYR FL Naples APF 

AZ. Laughlin International IFP FL New Smyrna Beach Municipal Arpt EVB 

AZ. Ryan Field RYN FL Ocala Airport OCF 

AZ. Williams Gateway IWA FL Opa Locka OPF 

CA Castle MER FL Ormond Beach Municlpal OMN 

CA Chico Municipal CIC FL Page Field FMY 

CA Fullerton FUL FL Panama City/Bay County ECP 

CA Hawthorne HHR FL Pompano Beach PMP 

CA Mather MHR FL St Augustine SGJ 

CA Modesto MOD FL StuartiWitham SUA 

CA Oxnard OXR FL Titusville/Cocoa TIX 

CA Palmdale PMD GA Anthens Municipal AHN 

CA Ramona RNM GA Fulton County FTY 

CA Redding RDD GA Gwinnett County LZU 

CA Riverside RAL GA Macon MCN 

CA Sacramento Executive SAC GA McCollum RYY 

CA Salinas Municipal SNS GA SW Georgia/Albany-Dougherty ABY 

CA San Carlos SOL GU Agana, Guam GUM 

CA San Diego Brown Field SDM HI Kalaeloa (John Rogers Field) (ANG) JRF 

CA San Luis Obispo SBP HI Keahole-Kona KOA 

CA Santa Maria SMX HI Lihue LlH 

CA Victorville VCV HI Molokai MKK 

CA Whiteman WHP IA Dubuque DBO 

CA William J. Fox/Lancaster WJF 10 Friedman Memorial/Hailey SUN 

CO Eagle County EGE ID Idaho Falls IDA 

CO Front Range FTG 10 Lewiston-Nez Perce County LWS 

CO Grand Junction GJT ID Pocatello Municipal PIH 

CT Bridgeport BDR IL Bloomington/Normal 8MI 

CT Danbury Municipal DXR IL Decatur DEC 

CT Groton- New London GON IL So. Illinois/Carbondale MDH 

CT Hartford-Brainard HFD IL S1. Louis Regional ALN 

10 

Exhibit B. List of Contract Towers (as of May 2012) 
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75148.022

State Airport Name Tower 

10 State Airport Name Tower 10 

IL Waukegan Regional UGN MS Hawkins Field HKS 

IL Williamson County (CS) MWA MS Meridian/Key Field (ANG) MEl 

IN Monroe County/ Bloomington (CS) BMG MS Olive Branch OLV 

IN Columbus Municipal BAK MS Stennis HSA 

IN Gary Regional GYV MS Tupelo Regional TUP 

IN Muncie/Delaware County (CS) MIE MT Gallatin Field/Bozeman BZN 

KS Forbes Field FOE MT Kalispell/Glacier Park GPI 

KS Garden City Regional Airport (CS) GCK MT Missoula MSO 

KS Hutchinson Municipal HUT NC Concord JQF 

KS Johnson County Executive OJC NC Hickory HKY 

KS Manhattan Regional MHK NC Kinston ISO 

KS New Century IXD NC New 8ern EWN 

KS Philip Billard Municipal TOP NC Smith Reynolds (Winston Salem) INT 

KS Salina Municipal SLN ND Minot MOT 

KY Barkley Regional PAH NE Central Nebraska/Grd Island (CS) GRI 

KY OwensborofDaviess County OWB NH Boire Field/Nashua ASH 

LA Acadiana Regional ARA NH Lebanon Municipai LEB 

LA Alexandria International (ANG) AEX NJ Trenton TTN 

LA Chennault CWF NM Double Eagle II AEG 

LA Houma Terreborne HUM NM Farmington Municipal FMN 

LA Shreveport-DT DTN NM Lea County/Hobbs (CS) HOB 

MA Barnes Municipal BAF NM Santa Fe County Municipal SAF 

MA Beverly BVY NV Henderson HND 

MA Hyannis HYA NY Francis F. Gabreski FOK 

MA Lawrence LWM NY Niagara Falls lAG 

MA Martha's Vineyard MVY NY Rome-Griffiss RME 

MA New Bedford EWB NY Stewart SWF 

MA Norwood OWD NY Tompkins County ITH 

MA Worcester ORH OH Burke Lakefront BKL 

MD Easton ESN OH Cincinnati Muni/Lunken LUK 

MD Frederick FDK OH Columbus Airport (Bolton Field) TZR 

MD Martin State MTN OH Cuyahoga County CGF 

MD Salisbury-Wicomico County SBY OH Ohio State University OSU 

MD Washington Co, Reg'l/ Hagerstown HGR OK Ardmore Municipal (CS) ADM 

MI Battle Creek BTL OK Enid Woodring Muni WDG 

MI Detroit City DET OK Lawton Municipal LAW 

MI Jackson (CS) JXN OK Stillwater SWO 

MI Sawyer Gwinn SAW OK Univ of OklahomalWestheimer OUN 

MN Anoka ANE OK Wiley Post PWA 

MN St Cloud Regional STC OR Klamath Falls (ANG) LMT 

MO Branson Airport BBG OR McNary Field SLE 

MO Columbia COU OR Medford MFR 

MO Jefferson City Memorial (CS) JEF OR Pendleton Municipal PDT 

MO Joplin Regional (CS) JLN OR Redmond RDM 

MO Rosecrans Mem'I/St. Joseph (ANG) STJ OR Southwest Oregon Regional OTH 

MP Saipan International GSN OR Troutdale TTD 

MS Golden Triangle Regional Airport GTR PA Arnold Palmer Regional LBE 

MS Greenville Municipal GLH PA Capital City CXY 

11 

Exhibit B. List of Contract Towers (as of May 2012) 
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75148.023

State Airport Name Tower 

10 

PA Lancaster LNS 

PA University Park UNV 

PA Williamsport/Lycoming Co. (CS) IPT 

PR Isla Grande SIG 

PR Rafael Hernandez (Aquadilla) BON 

SC Donaldson Center GYH 

SC Grand Strand/Myrtle Beach CRE 

SC Greenville Downtown GMU 

SC Hilton Head Airport HXD 

SD Rapid City Regional RAP 

TN McKeller-Sipes MKL 

TN Millington NOA 

TN Smyrna MOY 

TX Arlington Municipal GKY 

TX Brownsville Inti BRO 

TX Denton Municipal DTO 

TX Easterwood Cll 

TX Fort Worth-Spinks (CS) FWS 

TX Georgetown GTU 

TX Grand Prairie (CS) GPM 

TX laredo lnt'l lRD 

TX Lonestar Executive Airport CXO 

TX McAllen MFE 

TX McKinney Municipal TKI 

TX New Braunfels Municipal BAZ 

TX Redbird RBD 

TX Rio Grand Valley (Harlingen) HRL 

TX San Angelo/Mathis Field SJT 

TX San Marcos HYI 

TX (Galveston) Scholes Int'l GLS 

TX Stinson Municipal SSF 

ANG: Air National Guard Tower; CS: Cost...share Tower 

Source: FAA 

State 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

UT 

UT 

VA 

VA 

VI 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WV 

WV 

WV 

WV 

WY 

WY 

Exhibit B. List of Contract Towers (as of May 2012) 

Airport Name Tower 

10 

Sugarland SGR 

Tyler TYR 

Victoria VCT 

Wacc CNW 

Ogden-Hinckley Municipal OGD 

Provo Municipal PVU 

Charlottesville-Albemarle CHO 

Lynchburg lYH 

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport STX 

Bellingham Inti BLI 

Felts Field SFF 

Olympia OLM 

Renton RNT 

Tacoma Narrows TIW 

Wal.la Walla Regional (CS) AlW 

Yakima YKM 

Appleton ATW 

Centra! Wisconsln CWA 

Chippewa Valley (Eau Claire) EAU 

Kenosha Muni ENW 

La Crosse LSE 

Rock County JVL 

Timmerman MWC 

Waukesha County UES 

Wittman Regional OSH 

Greenbrier Valley LWB 

Morgantown MGW 

Parkersburg/Wood County PKB 

Wheeling Ohio County HLG 

Cheyenne (ANG) CYS 

Jackson Hole JAC 

12 
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75148.024

EXHIBIT C. LIST OF 92 COMPARABLE FAA TOWERS 

State Tower Name Tower 

10 Siale I Tower Name 

AK Juneau Tower JNU IL Aurora Tower 

AK Merrill Tower MRI IL Chicago Executive Tower 

AZ Falcon Tower FFZ IL Downtown Tower 

AZ Grand Canyon Tower GCN IL Dupage Tower 

AZ Prescott Tower PRC IN Lafayette Tower 

AZ Scottsdale Tower SDL KY Bowman Tower 

CA Brackett Tower POC LA Lakefront Tower 

CA Burbank Tower BUR MA Hanscom Tower 

CA Camarillo Tower CMA MA Nantucket Tower 

CA Chino Tower CNO MD Andrews Tower 

CA Concord Tower CCR MI Ann Arbor Tower 

CA EI Monte Tower EMT MI Pontiac Tower 

CA Gillespie Tower SEE MI Traverse City Tower 

CA Hayward Tower HWD MI Willow Run Tower 

CA Livermore Tower LVK MN Crystal Tower 

CA Monterey Tower MRY MN Flying Cloud Tower 

CA Montgomery Tower MYF MN St Paul Tower 

CA Napa Tower APC MO Downtown Tower 

CA Ontario Tower ONT MO Helena Tower 

CA Palm Springs Tower PSP MO Spirit Tower 

CA Palo Alto Tower PAO ND Grand Forks Tower 

CA Palomar Tower CRO NE Eppley Tower 

CA Reid-Hillview Tower RHV NE Lincoln Tower 

CA Sacramento Tower SMF NH Manchester Tower 

CA San Diego Tower SAN NJ Caldwell Tower 

CA San Jose Tower SJC NJ Morristown Tower 

CA Santa Monica Tower SMO NJ Teterboro Tower 

CA Sonoma Tower STS NV North Las Vegas Tower 

CA Stockton Tower SCK NY Farmingdale Tower 

CA Torrance Tower TOA NY Islip Tower 

CO Broomfield Tower BJC NY Poughkeepsie Tower 

CO Pueblo Tower PUB NY Westchester Tower 

CT Bradley Tower BDL OR Hillsboro Tower 

DE Wilmington Tower ILG PA Allegheny Tower 

FL Fort Lauderdale Executive Tower FXE PA Northeast Philadelphia Tower 

FL Orlando Executive Tower ORL PR San Juan Tower 

FL Pensacola Tower PNS TX Addison Tower 

FL Sarasota Tower SRO TX Alliance Tower 

FL St Lucie Tower FPR TX Beaumont Tower 

FL St Petersburg Tower PIE TX Hooks Tower 

FL Tamiami Tower TMB TX Meacham Tower 

FL Vera Beach Tower VRB VA Manassas Tower 

GA Columbus Tower CSG VA Patrick Henry Tower 

GA DeKalb - Peachtree Tower PDK VA Richmond Tower 

HI Maui Tower OGG VI St Thomas Tower 

ID Twin Falls Tower TWF WA Paine Tower 

Tower 

10 

ARR 

PWK 

CPS 

DPA 

LAF 

LOU 

NEW 

BED 

ACK 

ADW 

ARB 

PTK 

TVC 

YIP 

MIC 

FCM 

STP 

MKC 

HLN 

SUS 

GFK 

OMA 

LNK 

MHT 

CDW 

MMU 

TEB 

VGT 

FRG 

ISP 

POU 

HPN 

HIO 

AGC 

PNE 

SJU 

ADS 

AFW 

BPT 

DWH 

FTW 

HEF 

PHF 

RIC 

SIT 

PAE 

ThIS list was provIded by FAA for companson purposes only, Currently FAA has no plans to expand the Contract Tower Program to 

additional F AA~operated towers. 

Source: FAA 

13 

Exhibit C. List of 92 Comparable FAA Towers 
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75148.025

STATEMENT OF DAVID GRlZZLE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC 

ORGANIZATION AND JULIE OETTINGER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT 

ON THE SAFETY AND COST OF THE FAA'S CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM, 

JULY 18,2012. 

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the status of the Federal 

Aviation Administration 's (FAA) contract tower program. Since its inception in 1982, 

this program has been part of how FAA delivers safe and cost-effective air traffic control 

management to the users of the national airspace system (NAS). There is a general 

consensus that the program has been successful and it has created measurable efficiencies 

in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators, while delivering safety 

benefits to the traveling public. The FAA, the users of the system and the IG are 

confident that the contract controllers are competent and maintain the highest degree of 

safety. 

The program has grown significantly over the years. It began as a pilot program to 

contract for air traffic control services for five Level I, lower activity towers that were 

closed as a result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike in 198 I. 

The program grew to 27 towers by 1993. In 1994, Congress provided funding for a 

multi-year program to convert additional FAA-operated Level I towers to contract 

operations. The Program was further expanded by including towers at airports that never 

had an FAA-operated tower. Today there are 250 contract towers in the program across 

49 states and territories. 

1 
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75148.026

As this program has developed over the years, it has been the subject of great interest 

and, at times, controversy. There were fears that this was the first step toward 

privatization of air traffic control. There were fears that contact towers would not 

provide the same level of safety as those staffed by federal government employees. 

There were fears that cost savings would overrule safety in the execution of this program. 

I think the good news is this program has evolved in way to be a valuable component of 

how the FAA manages the NAS. 

As you consider this program today, let me note a number of factors that are shaping the 

program. 

First, the NAS is going through some significant changes. The economic downturn that 

hit the U.S. in 2008 had a profound impact on the general aviation system, and the airport 

operations where many contract towers are located. There has been a decline in 

commercial operations at contract towers by 13%, and an overall decrease in operations 

at those towers by 23%. Critically, looking forward, our forecasts do not see operational 

levels returning to those seen prior to the economic downturn anytime soon. So we need 

to make sure we are managing a program that delivers the safety and efficiency benefits 

to deal with this changing pattern of aviation activity. 

Second, Congress has spoken in consistent support of this program, including how to find 

creative public-private partnerships to foster this program. In 2000, Vision-l 00 

2 
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75148.027

authorized a cost share program so some communities that had an airport that did not 

meet the required cost-benefit ratio to qualify as a contract tower could instead qualify for 

a contract tower where the costs are shared between the FAA and the community based 

on the cost-benefit ratio. Last year, the consolidated appropriations measure for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (PL 112-55) included a provision that capped the amount any community 

could be required to pay toward the operating costs of a contract tower in the cost share 

program at 20% of the total cost of the tower's operation. We agree with the Congress 

about the importance of the cost share program and are committed to working in an 

effective fashion with stakeholders to optimize how this program can contribute to our 

optimal management of the NAS. 

Third, as the latest IG update on the status of this important program demonstrates, 

towers operated by individuals who do not work directly for the federal government 

generally function safely and cost-effectively. The program creates measurable 

efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators while 

ensuring a high-level of safety in the NAS. 

Fourth, in light of the economic realities, the FAA's ability to maximize its resources to 

benefit the overall needs of the NAS is extremely important. That is why we proposed in 

our FY 2013 budget request to recover up to 50%, rather than the 20% currently imposed, 

of costs for towers that are not fully cost-beneficial. The FAA is always investigating 

ways to operate more cost-effectively by reviewing and adjusting, as necessary, staffing 

levels, operating hours, and deployment of system enhancements. We welcome 

3 
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75148.028

opportunities to safely incorporate best practices from the contract tower program into 

FAA tower operations. 

Fifth, we are updating the cost-benefit analysis for this important public-private 

partnership. We last did an update of the cost-benefit analysis in 2008. We delayed a 

new update for a couple of years given our uncertainties about the direction of activity 

levels and pending legislation that might change the program. We are now moving 

forward, as existing operational trends appear to represent the new normal and 

Reauthorization has been enacted. We continue to use the same basic model for our 

current cost-benefit work while updating inputs including traffic changes, revision to the 

Department of Transportation's valuation for avoiding fatalities and injuries, and data 

from the FAA's maturing cost accounting system. We are discussing our approach to 

incorporating this new information with the U.S. Contract Tower Association to ensure 

that FAA is considering all pertinent factors in its calculations of individual towers. FAA 

is determined not to make any final decisions until we have had a full and informed 

discussion with interested parties. 

Finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a well-grounded longer term 

approach. The FAA's Aviation Safety organization is currently conducting a study to 

compare safety data between airports with manned control towers (federal or contract) 

and airports that are unmanned. This information will provide the FAA with important 

infonnation about the future investment in air traffic control facilities and risk 

management. 

4 
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75148.029

We also need to make sure the contract tower program is well integrated into our 

NextGen endeavors. How we manage air traffic, how we use technologies, and how we 

organize our facilities and infrastructure will all change over time as we bring NextGen 

technologies into the system. 

In closing, I think we all recognize we live in challenging times and are dealing with a 

dynamic aviation system. Taking a static view of equipment and services that are in a 

given place at a given time will not deliver the system the traveling public requires. As 

new technologies emerge and are integrated into the system, the needs of the NAS. 

including those of contract towers, may change in order to take the best advantage of 

safety and efficiency opportunities. 

"One size fits all" never has. and never will, be an effective way to make safety and 

efficiency decisions that affect the NAS and the travelling public. FAA is the guardian of 

a system that has achieved a safety level that is envied around the world. We remain 

committed to the contract tower program as an important component of how we deliver 

safety and efficiency in the NAS. While fiscal realities must playa role in aviation 

investments, the FAA will not tolerate any degradation in safety, and we recognize that 

Congress and the traveling public share that view. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. I am happy to answer any questions 

you might have at this time. 

5 
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75148.030

Statement of 

Mr. Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E. 

Administrator, Max Westheimer Airport 

Norman, Oklahoma 

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

"A Review of the FAA Contract Tower Program" 

July 18,2012 

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello and members of the House Aviation Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to discuss FAA's Contract Tower Program, 

I am Walt Strong, Administrator of the University of Oklahoma's Max Westheimer Airport in Norman, 

Oklahoma, and chair of the Policy Board of the U.S. Contract Tower Association (USCTA), an 

affiliated organization of the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE). AAAE represents 

the men and women who manage nearly 900 air catrier, reliever and general aviation airports 

nationwide, AAAE created the USCTA in 1996 to represent the FAA Contract Tower Program from the 

perspective of public airport officials, Also, I currently serve on the AAAE Board of Directors and was 

an air traffic controller in the U.S. military early in my aviation career. 

Our partnership with FAA on the contract tower program is exemplified by AAAE'sfUSTCA's mission 

statement -- "The Government/Industry Partnership Dedicated to Air Traffic Safety," And, in today's 

challenging economic environment, we might also add "The Government/Industry Partnership 

Dedicated to Jobs and Economic Growth." 

We would like to begin by thanking this subcommittee for including provisions in the recently enacted 

FAA reauthorization bill that enhance the contract tower program. Your support is critical to the 

continuation of a program that is vitally important to aviation safety, job creation, and economic 

development in our country, and all of our airport members are very grateful for your assistance. 
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75148.031

Contract Tower Benefit/Cost Calculations Under Review 

Before we offer our thoughts on the many benefits of the contract tower program, we want to raise a flag 

of caution about one current issue, Potential changes to FAA's benefit/cost (Btc) analysis that 

determines participation in the program have caused concern in the airport and user community. We are 

encouraged by FAA's stated desire to work with the industry in a collaboratively, balanced, fair and 

transparent manner to resolve this issue. And we hope FAA stays on that path to avoid changes to the 

program that would jeopardize airtraffic safety, economic growth and jobs across the country. 

We need to make sure that updated BtC information for the contract towers takes fully into account the 

broad array of significant benefits the program provides to individual communities and to the nation as a 

whole in terms of enhanced safety, cost savings, economic development and other factors. This program 

is not about black and white numbers - it is about what's in the best interest of advancing aviation safety 

throughout the nation. 

AAAE and USCTA are working closely with FAA as the agency prepares to update the BIC analyses 

for all 250 contract towers. However, absent a collaborative, balanced and transparent approach by 

FAA, we are concerned these potential changes could potentially lead to closure many of the 250 

contract towers across the country - a fact that alarms airport executives, general aviation operators, 

regional airlines and other stakeholders. Additionally, these changes could result in FAA shifting 

significant costs to local communities that have little, if any, ability to absorb additional shows in these 

challenging economic times. 

Also, it is important to note that, just like our tower in Norman, airports with FAA contract towers 

already pay some of the total costs to operate and maintain the tower, including maintenance, utilities, 

janitorial and other expenses. Additionally, many of the recent non-federal towers added to the program 

over the past 10 to 15 years have provided substantial local and state funds to construct state-of-the-art 

towers. We believe we communities will continue to participate in the cost share program if the process 

is fair and transparent and has a balanced approach that gains buy-in from the stakeholders. 

Max Westheimer Airport's FAA Contract Tower Experience 

Next, I would like to start by describing how important this program is to Max Westheimer Airport. I 

also want to point out that we have another FAA contract tower just thirty minutes up the road at Wiley 

Post Airport in Oklahoma City. 

Our contract tower operation is not unlike any of the other 249 participating airports across our country. 

Max Westheimer Airport, home to the University of Oklahoma, logs approximately 54,000 annual air 

traffic operations. 

Our airport joined FAA's Contract Tower Program in 1991. The tower has never been staffed with FAA 

controllers. In 1941, the U.S. Navy acquired the University airport and invested $4.5 million to develop 

the facility into a training center for U.S. Navy fliers. When the U.S. Navy returned the airfield and its 

improvements to the University in 1946, the control tower was closed. From that time until the 

University reopened the tower in 1982, U.S. Air Force controllers from Tinker Air Force Base in 

Oklahoma City occasionally would occasionally operate a mobile tower at Westheimer. 

2 
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75148.032

The presence of a control tower is vital to our community for economic growth, jobs and aviation safety. 

The University of Oklahoma has a vibrant flight-training program that generates as many as 200 flights 

a week during the summer and 240 flights per week in the spring and fall semesters. These students are 

in training for Private Pilot (entry level) to Airline Transport Pilot (very experienced with mUlti-engine 

and complex aircraft). The department of aviation has the capacity to add 100-plus flights per week. 

Further, we are a reliever airport for Oklahoma City's Will Rogers Airport. Since we are located on the 

edge of a major metropolitan area, we receive a significant amount of corporate and general aviation 

aircraft. Business aviation traffic mix varies from single-engine and light twin-engine aircraft to 

business jets of all sizes up to a Gulfstream V's. The corporations that use these aircraft vary widely 

from retail to oil and gas businesses. 

We also accommodate a mix of state and local law enforcement activity. The Oklahoma Highway 

Patrol bases four fixed-wing aircraft at our airport that are used for patrol and search and rescue 

operations. The highway patrol also has several helicopters. The Oklahoma Department of Public 

Safety bases a Beech King Air 350 at the airport that is used for executive transport of state officials, 

including the Governor. 

The Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (OBNDD) uses Max Westheimer as its home 

base of operations for its aviation unit. Westheimer turns into a beehive of activity each summer when 

the OBNDD focuses its attention on central Oklahoma to shut down facilities that grow marijuana and 

house meth labs. 

We also support medical emergency aircraft that transport persons with life-threatening conditions. 

Often we accommodate Angel Flights and aircraft carrying human organs to be used in transplants. 

Angel Flights transport patients needing to be taken to or from the heartland region for surgery, 

chemotherapy, dialysis and other treatments. Angel Flights also transport blood products for the 

Oklahoma Blood Institute and Red Cross in emergency situations. 

Due to the University's involvement in major NCAA sporting events, we experience a diverse mix of 

traffic year-round for these events. Aircraft that move these athletes vary from lighter twins to heavier 

turbine-powered aircraft. In addition, media helicopters, pipeline patrol, military units flying fixed wing 

and helicopters, and active U.S. Air Force operations come and go daily. 

The airport frequently receives letters of praise from our users. For example, Ken Carson, director of 

the Oklahoma University Department of Aviation, wrote that: 

3 

"I wanted to just take this time to acknowledge our partnerships and relationships here at Max 

Westheimer and what I believe to be your key roles in the successful execution of our education 

mission of our over 300 flight students each year -- additionally, to thank you for your steadfast 

participation and partnership in our department's "Operational Risk Management (ORM) = Safety" Safety Management System (SMS). Ifirmly believe it is through our participation along 

with the participation of our partners of airport management, OU Real Estate and OU Security 

Police, that our planned and responsive processes of participative and open communications 

within our SMS program proactively addresses risk mitigation before incidents and accidents 

happen. We may never know how many incidents were prevented with our working group and 

hazard ID processes, but one thing is certain, through our collective working group efforts of 

assessment, evaluation and taking management actions goes a great way towards improving our 
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75148.033

training and operations. I am certain our collective efforts benefit our flying educational and 

your air traffic control missions. The results are tangible and real. " 

While it is difficult to project exactly what would happen to our airport if we didn't have an air traffic 

control (ATC) tower, I would speculate that without the presence of controllers providing for the "safe, 

orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic," the University's department of aviation would soon close 

and the diverse aviation programs I outlined earlier would be in jeopardy. Everything we do at the 

airport is focused on safety. I simply can't imagine the university continuing to support a flight training 

program in an unstable/unsafe air traffic environment. FAA and DOT constantly preach safety, safety, 

safety ... and we're absolutely on hoard with that. Our objective, pure and simple, is to provide the safest 

ATC environment possible. 

As do most of the airports in the contract tower program, our airport also supports the tower operations 

with local funds. Beyond paying monthly utility costs for the tower, repairs and maintenance, we have 

installed a new console in the tower, as well as new radio transmitters/receivers and antennas. We 

bought new carpeting, painted the tower cab inside and out, put in new shades, replaced two heat pumps 

and security cameras, and renovated the manager's office and training room. So even though FAA pays 

for controllers' costs to operate the tower, we provide significant local funding in partnership with FAA 

to provide first class air traffic control services to our aviation community. 

FAA's Contract Tower Program Promotes Safety and is Cost-Effective for Taxpayers 

FAA's Contract Tower Program, which began 30 years ago, has a proven successful track record by all 

measures. It provides for FAA to contract A TC services to the pri vate sector at visual flight rule 

airports. The primary advantages of this program are enhanced safety, improved ATC services, 

significant cost savings to FAA and taxpayers, and economic growth and job creation in local 

communities. Today the program includes 250 airports in 46 states (234 in the fully funded program 

and 16 in the cost-share program; see attached list of all 250 FAA contract towers nationwide). 

FAA's Contract Tower Program is accurately described as one of FAA's most effective 

government/industry partnerships dedicated to aviation safety. It is a shining example of an industrygovernment alliance that reall y works for the taxpayers and traveling public. Airports in the program 

also have a superb working relationship with the contract tower program office in FAA's Air Traffic 

Organization, resulting in a highly effective partnership among FAA, airports, and the ATC contractors. 

As a result of this 30-year government/industry partnership, the FAA Contract Tower Program: (1) 

enhances aviation safety at smaller airports that otherwise would not have a tower; (2) provides 

significant cost savings to FAA and taxpayers; (3) helps small airports with retaining and developing 

commercial air service and general aviation; (4) promotes economic development and sustains and 

creates jobs locally; and (5) consistently receives high marks for customer service from aviation users 

(pilots, airlines, FBOs, flight schools and corporate flight departments). The bottom line is that, absent 

this highly successful federal/industry partnership program, many local communities would not receive 

the significant safety benefits of ATC services. And, importantly, local economic growth and jobs would 

be severely impacted in cities across the country without the contact tower program. 

4 
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75148.034

The program has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress in recognition of the enhanced 

safety, improved air traffic control services, and FAA cost savings these towers provide - results that 

have been validated repeatedly by the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General (IG) since 

the late 1990s, 

Furthermore, the greater aviation community is very supportive of the program, In a letter earlier this 

year to leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees, signed by AAAEIUSCTA and a 

broad group of aviation associations, the groups urged Congress to provide full funding for the FAA 

Contract Tower Program in the Fiscal Year 2013 DOTIFAA appropriations bill, 

Signers of these letters were AAAE/U,S, Contract Tower Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association, Regional Airline Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, National 

Business Aviation Association, Air Carrier Association of America, Regional Air Cargo Carriers 

Association, Airports Council International-North America, National Association of State Aviation 

Officials, Air Traffic Control Association, National Air Transportation Association and Cargo Airline 

Association (see attached letter), The aviation community is also very concerned about potential 

devastating cuts to the program if the automatic budget sequester goes into effect on January 1. We urge 

Congress to make sure these cuts to a valuable ATC safety program do not occur, 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2011 added "General Aviation Safety" to its Most 

Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements, This is important since contract towers serve a 

large portion of general aviation traffic nationwide, 

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman on June 19-20 this year convened a general aviation safety forum in 

Washington, "Each year, hundreds of people are killed in general aviation crashes, and thousands more 

are injured," said Hersman, "Tragically, the circumstances leading to these accidents are often repeated 

over and over, year after year. If we are going to prevent future fatalities and injuries, these common 

causes must be addressed." 

NTSB has stressed that general aviation accident rates are stagnant. In a national air transportation 

system that needs to stay vigilant to reduce the accident rate, AAAElUSCTA believe that safety benefits 

provided by the FAA's Contract Tower Program are not optional, but mandatory. 

To illustrate the cost-effectiveness of the program to taxpayers, the 246 towers in the FAA Contract 

Tower Program in Fiscal Year 2011 handled approximately 28 percent of all U.S. tower operations (14.8 

million operations), but accounted for just 14 percent (approximately $133 million) of FAA's overall 

budget allotted to air traffic control tower operations. In contrast, the 264 FAA-staffed towers that 

handled the remaining 72 percent of total tower operations (38.9 million operations), consumed 86 

percent (approximately $851 million) of the FAA's budget dedicated to that purpose. 

Also, of the 250 towers currently in the program, 136 were previously FAA-staffed VFR towers that 

were converted to the FAA Contract Tower Program in the 1990s, in large measure as part of Vice 

President Al Gore's National Performance Review. Based on anticipated cost information from the 

DOT IG, if FAA were still staffing those 136 towers, the additional annual costs to taxpayers, based on 

fiscal year 2010 figures, would be approximately $200 million, which is $50 million more than the 

current budget to operate all 250 current contract towers across the entire country. 

5 
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75148.035

In addition to the unquestioned safety benefits the program provides, these numbers clearly highlight 

that the contract tower program is a great value to the American taxpayers and aviation users from a cost 

perspective. 

Contract Tower Controllers Meet All FAA Safety, Training Standards 

All FAA contract controllers are FAA-certified air traffic controllers who meet the identical training and 

operating standards as FAA controllers. The vast majority of federal contract controllers have FAA or 

military air traffic control experience. 

FAA controls and oversees all aspects of the contract tower program, including operating procedures, 

staffing plans, certification and medical tests of contract controllers, security and facility evaluations. 

Equally important, federal contract towers operate together with FAA-staffed facilities throughout the 

country as part of a unified national air traffic control system. 

It should also be noted that many FAA contract towers are represented by the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association (NATCA). USCTA continues to have an open and positive dialogue with 

NA TCA and cooperates with NATCA on ways contract towers and FAA-staffed towers can work 

together effectively and efficiently for the benefit of the traveling public. There is a clear role for both 

FAA-staffed towers and contract towers in the nation's air transportation system. 

Contract Towers Serve a Variety of Aviation Operations 

Contract towers operate together with FAA-staffed facilities throughout the country as part of a unified 

national air traffic control system and serve a wide variety of aviation users. For instance, many 

contract towers also handle significant air carrier operations. These include Kona and Lihue in Hawaii; 

Bethel, Kenai, and Kodiak in Alaska; Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport; Appleton, Wisconsin; 

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, Flagstaff and Bullhead City in Arizona; San Luis Obispo, Redding and Santa 

Maria in California; Redmond and Medford in Oregon; Stewart, New York; Branson and Columbia in 

Missouri; Latrobe, Pennsylvania; Lewisburg, West Virginia; Bloomington and Marion in Illinois; 

Hyannis, Massachusetts; Charlottesville, Virginia; Key West, Panama City, Gainesville, and Melbourne 

in Florida; Bozeman, Missoula, and Kalispell in Montana; Hailey, Lewiston, and Idaho Falls in Idaho; 

Harlingen, Laredo, and Brownsville in Texas; Eagle and Grand Junction in Colorado; Jackson Hole and 

Cheyenne in Wyoming, Rapid City, South Dakota; SI. Croix; and even Guam. 

Additionally, many contract towers across the country provide the only link a rural community has to 

the national transportation system. Other towers serve as busy reliever airports and are vital to the 

movement of general aviation traffic in major metropolitan areas such as Chandler, Goodyear and 

Glendale in Phoenix; North Perry in Ft. Lauderdale; Opa Locka in Miami; Ryan Field in Tucson; Brown 

Field in San Diego; Whitman in Los Angeles; Arlington, McKinney, Grand Prairie and Spinks in Dallas; 

Martin State Airport in Baltimore; Timmennan in Milwaukee; Fulton County in Atlanta; Burke 

Lakefront in Cleveland; Waukegan in Chicago; Troutdale in Portland, Oregon; Lunken Field in 

Cincinnati, and Anoka in Minneapolis. 

6 
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75148.036

Without FAA's Contract Tower Program, many American communities would not enjoy the safety and 

economic development benefits provided by air traffic control towers. Further, since many insurance 

policies require that businesses with flight departments only operate into towered airports, the loss of the 

contract tower program would be highly detrimental to economic development in many communities. 

Contract Towers are Critical to National SecuritylDefense 

The U.S. military is a long-time advocate and user of FAA contract control towers. Since the 1980s, the 

U.S. Army, U.S Air Force, U.S. Navy and Air National Guard have recognized contract ATC as a costeffective and reliable solution. 

Among the airports with extensive military operations are: 

Cecil Field, Florida, works primarily with the Navy out of Jacksonville and the north Florida; 

Mobile Downtown, Alabama, works with transient military operations from North Florida and 

Southern Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi: 

Millington, Tennessee, works primarily with Navy operations; 

Dothan, Alabama, works with Army aircraft from Cairns AAF; 

Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, works with U.S. Coast Guard aircraft stationed at Aguadilla; 

• Golden Triangle, Mississippi, works with Columbus Air Force Base aircraft; 

Enid, Oklahoma, works with Vance Air Force Base aircraft and is located on the base; 

Stillwater, Oklahoma, works with Vance Air Force Base; 

• Lawton, Oklahoma, works with Ft. Sill AAF aircraft and is located adjacent to the base; 

• Victoria, Texas, works with Navy Corpus Christi aircraft; 

San Angelo, Texas, works with aircraft from Navy Corpus and from Randolph Air Force Base; 

Topeka Forbes Airport works with Air Force Reserve KC-135 Tanker Squadron; 

New Century Air Center works with Kansas National Guard CH-47 Squadron; 

• Battle Creek, Michigan, works with Air National Guard C-lls; 

• Martin State Airport, Maryland, works with Air National Guard A-lOs; 

• Stewart Airport, New York, works with Air National Guard C -17s, and 

• Bames-Westfield, Connecticut, works with Air National Guard F-15s. 

Looking Ahead -Together 

Airports that participate in FAA's Contract Tower Program are important contributors to the economic 

growth of their respective communities. They provide the vital elements of safety, economic stimulus 

and dependability to vast segments of the American population that otherwise would not have the 

opportunity to expand their business and travel needs. In an increasingly global marketplace, we cannot 

afford to take a step backward. Our communities desire and deserve the benefits that FAA contract 

towers provide. We are encouraged by the successful and highly effective partnership that airports, 

contract controllers, the ATC contractors, and FAA have developed over the past three decades, and we 

urge Congress to continue its critical support of this program. 

Thank you very much for your time and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

7 
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75148.037

FAA Contract Tower List as of May 11, 2012 

Airport Name State Airport Name §!l!!! KODIAK AK NAPLES FL 

KING SALMON AK BOCA RATON FL 

BETHEL AK JACKSONVILLE/CRAIG FL 

KENAI AK PANAMA CITY!BA Y COUNTY FL 

BROOKLEY AL NEW SMYRNA BEACH MUNt ARPT FL 

DOTHAN AL KEY WEST FL 

TUSCALOOSA MUNICIPAL AL PAGE FIELD FL 

SPRINGDALE MUNICIPAL' AR GAINESVILLE FL 

FAYETTEVILLE AR HOLL YWOOD/NORTH PERRY FL 

ROGERS MUNICIPAL-CARTER FLD' AR KISSIMMEE MUNICIPAL FL 

TEXARKANA MUNIiWEBB FLD AR LAKELAND MUNICIPAL FL 

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL AR LEESBURG REGIONAL FL 

CHANDLER AZ MELBOURNE FL 

FLAGSTAFF PULLIAM AZ OCALA AIRPORT FL 

GLENDALE AZ ORMOND BEACH MUNICIPAL FL 

GOODYEAR AZ OPALOCKA FL 

LAUGHLIN INTERNATIONAL AZ CHARLOTTE COUNTY AIRPORT FL 

WILLIAMS GA TEW A Y AZ POMPANO BEACH FL 

RYAN FIELD AZ ST. AUGUSTINE FL 

CHICO MUNICIPAL CA ALBERT WHITTED FL 

FULLERTON CA STUARTIWHITHAM FL 

HAWTIIORNE CA TITUSVILLE/COCOA FL 

CASTLE CA CECIL FIELD FL 

MATHER CA FLAGLER COUNTY AIRPORT FL 

MODESTO CA SW GEORGIA/ALBANY-DOUGHERTY GA 

OXNARD CA ATIIENS MUNICIPAL GA 

PALMDALE CA FULTON COUNTY GA 

RIVERSIDE CA GWINNETT COUNTY GA 

REDDING CA MACON GA 

RAMONA CA MCCOLLUM GA 

SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE CA AGANA,GUAM GU 

SAN LUIS OBISPO CA KALAELOA (JOHN ROGERS FIELD) HI 

SAN DIEGO BROWN FIELD CA KEAHOLE-KONA HI 

SANTAMARIA CA LIHUE HI 

SALINAS MUNICIPAL CA MOLOKAI HI 

SAN CARLOS CA DUBUQUE IA 

VICTORVILLE CA IDAHO FALLS ID 

WHITEMAN CA LEWISTON-NEZ PERCE COUNTY ID 

WILLIAM J.FOXJLANCASTER CA POCATELLO MUNICIPAL ID 

EAGLE COUNTY CO FRIEDMAN MEMORIAL /llAILEY ID 

GRAND JUNCTION CO ST LOUIS REGIONAL IL 

FRONT RANGE CO BLOOMINGTONINORMAL IL 

BRIDGEPORT CT DECATUR IL 

DANBURY MUNICIPAL CT SO. ILLINOIS/CARBONDALE IL 

HARTFORD-BRAINARD CT WILLIAMSON COUNTY' [L 

GROTON-NEW LONDON CT WAUKEGAN REGIONAL IL 

TWEED-NEW HAVEN CT COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL IN 

WATERBURY CT MONROE COUNTY !BLOOMINGTON • IN 
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75148.038

FAA Contract Tower List as of May 11, 2012 

Airport Name State Airport Name State 

GARY REGIONAL IN OLIVE BRANCH MS 

M1JNCIE/DELAW ARE COUNTY * IN TUPELO REGIONAL MS 

FORBES FIELD KS GALLA TIN FIELD/BOZEMAN MT 

GARDEN CITY REGIONAL AIRPORT' KS KALISPELLIGLACIER PARK MT 

HUTCHINSON MUNICIPAL KS MISSOULA MT 

NEW CENTURY KS NEWBERN NC 

MAl\'HATTAN REGIONAL KS HICKORY NC 

JOHNSON COUNTY EXECUTIVE KS SMITH REYNOLDS (WINSTON SALEM) NC 

SALINA MUNICIPAL KS KINSTON NC 

PHILIP BILLARD MUNICIPAL KS CONCORD NC 

OWENSBORO/DA VIESS COUNTY KY MINOT ND 

BARKLEY REGIONAL KY CENTRAL NEBRASKA/GRD ISLAND * NE 

ALEXANDRIA INTERNATIONAL LA BOIRE FIELDINASHUA NH 

ACADIAN A REGIONAL LA LEBANON MUNICIPAL NH 

CHENNAULT LA TRENTON NJ 

SHREVEPORT·DT LA DOUBLE EAGLE II NM 

HOUMA TERREBORNE LA FARMINGTON MUNICIPAL NM 

BARNES MUNICIPAL MA LEA COUNTY/HOBBS * NM 

BEVERLY MA SANTA FE COUNTY MUNICIPAL NM 

NEW BEDFORD MA HENDERSON NV 

HYANNIS MA NIAGARA FALLS NY 

LAWRENCE MA TOMPKINS COUNTY NY 

MARTHA'S VINEYARD MA ROME·GRIFFISS NY 

WORCESTER MA STEWART NY 

NORWOOD MA FRANCIS F. GABRESKI NY 

EASTON MD BURKE LAKEFRONT OH 

FREDERICK MUNICIPAL MD CUYAHOGA COUNTY OH 

WASHINGTON CO. REG'LlHAGERSTN MD CINCINNATI MUNIILUNKEN OH 

MARTIN STATE MD OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY OH 

SALISBURY· WICOMICO COUNTY MD COLUMBUS AIRPORT (Bolton Field) OH 

BATTLE CREEK MI ARDMORE MUNICIPAL' OK 

DETROIT CITY MI LAWTON MUNICIPAL OK 

JACKSON' MI UNIV OF OKLAHOMAIWESTHEIMER OK 

SAWYER GWINN MI WILEY POST OK 

ANOKA MN STILLWATER OK 

ST. CLOUD REGIONAL MN ENID WOODRING MUNI OK 

BRANSON AIRPORT MO KLAMATH FALLS OR 

COLUMBIA MO MEDFORD OR 

JEFFERSON CITY MEMORIAL * MO SOUTHWEST OREGON REGIONAL OR 

JOPLIN REGIONAL * MO PENDLETON MUNICIPAL OR 

ROSECRANS MEM'LlST. JOSEPH MO REDMOND OR 

SAIPAN INTERNATIONAL MP MCNARY FIELD OR 

GREENVILLE MUNICIPAL MS TROUTDALE OR 

GOLDEN TRIANGLE REGIONAL CAPITOL CITY PA 

AIRPORT MS WILLIAMSPORTILYCOMING CO. * PA 

HAWKINS FIELD MS ARNOLD PALMER REGIONAL PA 

STENNIS MS LANCASTER PA 

MERIDIAN I KEY FIELD MS UNIVERSITY PARK PA 
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75148.039

Airport Name 

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ (AQUADILLA) 

ISLA GRANDE 

GRAND STRANDIMYRTLE BEACH 

GREENVILLE DOWNTOWN 

DONALDSON CENTER 

HILTON HEAD AIRPORT 

RAPID ClTY REGIONAL 

MCKELLER-SIPES 

SMYRNA 

MILLINGTON 

NEW BRAUNFELS MUNICIPAL 

BROWNSVILLE INTL 

EASTERWOOD 

WACO 

LONESTAR EXECUTIVE AIRPORT 

DENTON MUNICIPAL 

FORT WORTH-SPINKS * 

(GALVESTON) SCHOLES INT'L 

GRAND PRAIRIE * 

ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL 

GEORGETOWN 

RIO GRAND V ALLEY (HARLINGEN) 

SAN MARCOS 

LAREDO INT'L 

MCALLEN 

REDBIRD 

SAN ANGELO/MA THIS FIELD 

SUGARLAND 

STINSON MUNICIPAL 

MCKINNEY MUNICIPAL 

TYLER 

VICTORIA 

OGDEN-HINCKLEY MUNICIPAL 

PROVO MUNICIPAL 

CHARLOT'IESVILLE-ALBEMARLE 

LYNCHBURG 

HENRY E. ROHLSEN AIRPORT 

WALLA WALLA REGIONAL * 

BELLINGHAM INTL 

OLYMPIA 

RENTON 

FELTS FIELD 

TACOMA NARROWS 

YAKIMA 

APPLETON 

CENTRAL WISCONSIN 

CHIPPEWA VALLEY (EAU CLAIRE) 

KENOSHA MUNI 

FAA Contract Tower List as of May 11,2012 

State Airport Name 

PR ROCK COUNTY 

PR LACROSSE 

SC TIMMEfu'V[AN 

SC WITTMAN REGIONAL 

SC WAUKESHA COUNTY 

SC WHEELING OHIO COUNTY SD MORGANTOWN TN PARKERSBURGI WOOD COUNTY TN GREENBRIAR V ALLEY TN CHEYENNE TX JACKSON HOLE TX 

TX 

TX Total FAA Contract Towers (250) TX 

TX 

TX • Cost Share Facility 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

TX 

UT 

UT 

VA 

VA 

VI 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WA 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

State 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WI 

WV 

WV 

WV 

WV 

WY 

WY 
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75148.040

March 16,2012 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Chairman 

House Appropriations Committee 

2406RHOB 

U.S. House of Represematives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Fax 202/225-0940 

Dear Chairman Rogers: 

Similar letter sent to Congressmen Latham, 

Dicks and Olver, and Senators Inonye, Murray, 

Cochran and Collins 

As Congress begins work on the Department of TransportationlFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) fiscal year 2013 

appropriations bill, the organizations listed below urge you to support funding of $136.1 million for the regular FAA 

Contract Tower Program, as well as an additional $10.35 million authorized for the continuation of the contract tower 

cost-sharing program. Full funding of the contract tower program will permit continuation of this important FAA safety 

program and allow additional non-towered airports to receive the vital safety benefits of a control tower. 

The FAA Contract Tower Program has provided cost-effective and essentiai air traffic safety services since 1982. 

Currently, 249 smaller airports in 46 states participate in the program, including two in Kentucky, Together these 249 

towers handle approximately 28 percent of all air traffic control tower (ATCT) aircraft operations in the U.S, but account 

for just 14 percent of FAA 's overall budget allotted to total ATCT tower operations, Most importantly, the safety and 

efficiency record of the FAA Contract Tower Program has been validated numerous times by the DOT Inspector General 

(IG) and FAA safety audits, as well as by the National Transportation Safety Board, 

All federal contract controllers are FAA-certified air traffic controllers who meet the identical training and operating 

standards as FAA-employed controllers. The vast majority of federal contract controllers have FAA or military air traffic 

control experience. FAA controls and oversees all aspects of the federal contract tower program, including operating 

procedures, staffing plans, certification and medical tests of contract controllers, security and facility evaluations. 

Moreover, federal contract towers operate together with FAA-staffed facilities throughout the country as part of a unified 

national air traffic control system. 

As a result of this 30-year government/industry partnership, the FAA Contract Tower Program: (1) enhances aviation 

safety at smaller airports that otherwise would not have a tower; (2) provides significant cost savings to FAA and 

taxpayers; (3) helps small airports with retaining and developing commercial air service and general aviationj (4) 

promotes economic development and creates jobs locally; and (5) consistently receives high marks for customer service 

from aviation users and pilots. The bottom line is that, absent this highly successful federal program, many local 

communities and smaller airports would not receive the significant safety benefits of A TC services. 

We thank you for your continued support of this importaor ATC safety program and look forward to working with you 

and your staff to ensure its future success. 

Sincerely yours, 

J. Spencer Dickerson 

Senior Executive Vice President 

American Association of Airport Executives 

Craig L. Fuller 

President and CEO 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(continued on next page) 
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75148.041

Letter to Chairman Rogers 

Page 2 

March 16,2012 

Roger Cohen 

President 

Regional Airline Association 

Henry M. Ogrodzinski 

President 

National Association of State Aviation Officials 

Peter J. Bunce 

President and CEO 

General Aviation Manufacturers Association 

James K. Coyne 

President 

National Air Transportation Association 

Edward P. Fabennan 

Executive Director 

Air Carrier Association of America 

Ed Bolen 

President & CEO 

National Business Aviation Association 

Greg Principato 

President 

Airports Council International - NA 

Pete Dumont 

President 

Air Traffic Control Association 

Stephen A. Alterman 

President 

Cargo Airline Association 

jl::;q 7 !f?:3f~ Stanley Bernstein 

President 

Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association 
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75148.042

National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

AFt·CID 

Testimony of 

Patricia Gilbert, Executive Vice President 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

Before the 

House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

July 18,2012 

"A Review of the 

FAA's Contract Tower Program" 

1325 Massachusetts Ave" N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 12021628-5451 12021628-5767 FAX www.natca.org 
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75148.043

INTRODUCTION 

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NA TC A) is the exclusive representative of 

over 15,200 air traffic controllers serving the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and the private sector. In addition, NATCA represents FAA's 

Alaska flight service specialists and approximately 1,200 FAA engineers, 600 traffic 

management coordinators, 500 aircraft certification professionals, agency operational support 

staff, regional personnel from FAA's logistics. budget, finance and computer specialist divisions. 

as well as agency occupational health specialists, nurses and medical program specialists. 

NA TCA also represents air traffic controllers at 63 towers that are part of the Federal Contract 

Tower Program (FCT). 

Air traffic controllers, whether they work at private or FAA facilities, are dedicated to ensuring 

that our National Airspace System (NAS) is the safest and most efficient in the world. In order to 

maintain that safety and efficiency, our controllers work to modernize the NAS, promote new 

technology, and improve safety procedures. We have professional controllers involved in nearly 

every modernization and NextGen related program on which the FAA is currently working. 

Controller skills are put to work every day as they handle an impressive volume of flights air 

traffic controllers monitor takeoff and landing for more than 70,000 flights each day, safely 

moving nearly two million passengers through our skies daily. Air traffic controllers handle these 

flights in the busiest and most complex airspace in the world with roughly 5,000 planes in the 

sky at any given moment. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

As the representative of air traffic controllers at 63 contract towers, NA TCA is in a unique 

position to offer an objective assessment of the Federal Contract Tower program (FCT) and to 

evaluate the similarities and differences between FAA and contract towers. NA TCA 's goal in 

this testimony is to show that comparing FAA towers and contract towers is problematic because 

the two programs are significantly different. Any discussion comparing the FCT program to 

FAA towers needs to be reviewed carefully. Additionally, NA TCA is offering recommendations 

that we believe will make contract towers safer and provide a better working environment for the 

air traffic controllers who staff those towers. 

To be clear, NATCA supports the cost share component of the FCT program because it enables 

local communities that couldn't otherwise support an air traffic control tower to reap the 

economic benefits aviation brings. NATCA also supports the fact that the contract tower 

program allows for the building of a new tower where one does not already exist and there is not 

an FAA presence in the airport. NA TC A does not support the expansion of the FCT program to 

existing FAA towers. By expansion, we mean the transfer or conversion of FAA towers into the 

FCT program. 

There is a fundamental difference between an FAA tower and a contract tower. The FAA model 

was built on the premise of redundancy to prioritize safety above all, whereas a contract tower 

has incentive to prioritize the bottom line. NATCA is not criticizing the fact that profit margins 

are a factor, but we must keep this reality in mind. In addition to the different motivations, there 
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75148.044

exists a stark difference between a contract tower and a FAA tower's support systems, including 

equipment and facility maintenance and staffing. 

An FAA tower prioritizes safety and relies on redundancy as key to maintaining a safe and 

efficient air traffic system. Where FAA towers rely on redundancy, contract towers lack 

redundancy, frequently relying on single controller operation for extended lengths of time, even 

during busy periods. The FAA requires two controllers on shift. Contract towers, are not bound 

by that regulation and are free to, and frequently do, staff shifts with only one controller. 

It is NA TC A . s position that there is a fundamental flaw in comparing contract towers to FAA 

towers in terms of safety as defined by the number of safety incidents. Thc flaw in any 

comparison derives from the fact that safety incidents, which include operational errors, 

operational deviations, and runway incursions, are unevenly reported - the FAA has moved to a 

true safety culture, where all controllers and employees are encouraged to report all safety issues, 

including errors, while contract towers are driven by a punitive culture that discourages 

controllers and their supervisors from reporting errors. NA TCA believes that contract towers are 

understaffed, have less support for their facilities and equipment, and provide insufficient 

training for their controllers. This testimony will outline each area and describe how FAA towers 

differ from contract towers. 

FAA TOWER AND CONTRACT TOWERS: AN APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISON 

IS FLAWED DUE TO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, 

Contract towers are inherently different from FAA towers, and these differences make an applesto-apples comparison impossible. The differences range from staffing standards and equipment 

minimums to training and safety. Contract towers operate with fewer resources and support, and 

different challenges. We will outline these significant differences below in order to provide the 

Committee with a more nuanced explanation of why a fair comparison between contract and 

FAA towers is not possible. 

Measuring Safety 

In 2003 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that "the determination of real 

differences in the rate of operational errors (OEs) between different types of air traffic control 

facilities is difficult, and comparisons of operational error rates alone are not sufficient to draw 

conclusions about the relative safety records of air traffic facilities:' The GAO noted that 

operational elTor data is never complete and it is impossible to detennine if a facility has underrepOlied el1'OJ"s. In addition, they note that in order to make a valid comparison between facilities, 

a number of factors that affect the rate of operational errors should be accounted for, such as the 

traffic density. number of flights. age and experience of the controllers, and weather conditions 

when the enor occurred. Without that data, no comparison is valid. 

NATC A continues to agree with the GAO's assessment. A comparison of safety records between 

FAA and contract towers is fundamentally flawed because the two have very different safety 

environments, making it impossible to compare safety incidents between the two. The FAA has 

instituted a safety culture that encourages reporting of all safety incidents, creating an 

environment where controllers repOli without fear of punitive measures. This leads to increased 

3 
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75148.045

reporting, allowing the FAA to collect as many data points as possible in order to proactively 

work to prevent and reduce en-ors, which has led to concrete changes. For example, the FAA has 

been able to identify and address areas where pilots and controllers do not have the same 

understanding of the specific weather deviation phraseology or related procedures. Previously, 

the reporting of these types of events was routinely treated punitively even though the procedures 

were not clearly articulated. In the current environment, reports concerning these events are 

being utilized to help reduce confusion between controllers and pilots through training and 

clarification of the procedures and phraseology. 

On the other hand, contract towers still have a punitive environment where reporting errors could 

result in tennination. This incentive to avoid reporting errors persists at contract towers. 

Conversely, the FAA has moved forward to proactively collect, record, and analyze as many 

safety incidents as possible. 

Contract towers have several disincentives to reporting errors. The first, mentioned above, is that 

individual controllers may face punitive action, including telmination, for reporting errors. The 

second is that the contractor companies themselves are interested in reducing the number of 

reported safety incidents because en'ors hurt them for their next competitive bid. In that sense, 

the privatization of towers and competitive bidding system actually creates a disincentive for 

reporting errors and allows competition and cost to supersede safety. 

Due to this important difference in the safety culture, it is impossible to compare incidents at 

FAA and contract towers. NA TCA believes that understanding this fundamental operating 

difference will help Congress understand why it is a flawed method to assess safety by 

comparing the number of safety incidents within the FAA and within contract towers. 

Staffing Discrepancies 

It is NA TCA' s position that the margin of safety is stretched thin when redundancy is reduced to 

bare bones staffing levels at contract towers. Because staffing amounts to the bulk of the 

operating cost at any facility, contract companies have an obvious incentive to reduce staff in 

order to reduce costs when competing for a contract. 

The FAA sets the minimum staffing for all FAA towers and publishes staffing numbers each 

year. Contract tower staffing numbers are set between the FAA and the contract company that 

manages the tower. While those staffing numbers are considered confidential and not made 

available to the public, we know that many contract towers operate with three controllers and one 

manager, frequently relying on one controller per shift. Earlier this year at Rogers Tower (ROG) 

in Benton County, Arkansas, we saw the danger of staffing with only one controller when the 

only controller on duty had a hemi attack, while on duty. He was able to call 911 for assistance. 

but had he not made it to the phone, nobody would have known that he was having a medical 

emergency. 

With reduced staffing, controllers at contract towers are required to divide their time between 

controlling traffic and perfonning administrative and supervisory duties. This could include 

filling out Unsatisfactory Condition Reports (UCR) to report faulty equipment, or administrative 

duties such as entering traffic counts or changing voice tapes. FAA controllers are also required 

4 
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75148.046

to perfonn administrative tasks, but the FAA properly staffs each shift to allow two controllers to 

handle position relief and administrative duties, thus safely and efficiently allowing the 

administrative tasks to be completed. 

Bare bones staffing also means that controllers at contract towers may be forced into longer time 

on position without a break or a meal due to single-controller staffing. Controllers at contract 

towcrs have reported regularly going three or four hours without a break. This single staffing 

also results in controllers working while ill because they may be subject to disciplinary action if 

they call in sick and no backup is available to fill their shift. 

The FAA requires breaks away from the operation to allow controllers to regroup before 

continuing what can at times be mentally exhausting work. There is a scientific reason why the 

FAA limits controllers' time on position: separating traffic requires complex multi-tasking and 

absolute concentration that is impossible to maintain for long periods of time. Thc FAA, along 

with safety experts, has detennined that after two hours of continuous work, controllers are at 

greater risk of making mistakes. 

Equipment and Facility Discrepancies 

A contract tower receives equipment and support fi'om the FAA if the FAA, an airport authority, 

or local municipality owns the tower. Towers that are owned by other entities divide the 

equipment and support responsibilities between the local entities. Regardless of who owns the 

tower, the FAA sets a minimum equipment list for all contract towers, but mandates that they be 

supplied only in new towers. The existing towers have "a reasonable time" period in which to 

update equipment to meet the FAA' s standards. The result is a split set of standards for FAA and 

contract towers. 

The FAA has a list of the FCT minimum equipment requirements for all FCT towers. For 

example, in contract towers, only two radio frequencies are required and the emergency 

frequency is not one of the two. The required backup radios are frequently handheld and have 

limited range and clarity, not extending past a runway, as compared to a FAA backup radio, 

which has its own antenna and can have up to a 50-mile range. 

Contract towers also suffer from sub-par equipment that is old, in poor condition or of poor 

quality. For example, at San Marcos Tower (HYI) in Texas, the voice recorders repeatedly failed 

to load tapes in the morning, leading to periods of time when no position recordings were made 

while the controllers attempted to get the equipment back on line. This forced controllers to deal 

with the recorders instead of focusing on controlling traffic. They also suffered a loss of backup 

recordings. At that same tower, controllers noted that their chairs were of poor quality and 

quickly began deteriorating. The process of getting new chairs from the sponsor organization is 

lengthy and costly. At Springdale Tower (ASGl in Arkansas, the mandatory headsets specified in 

the FAA's minimum equipment list are not available because the radios are so old that they do 

not accommodate headsets. As a result, controllers are required to listen to a radio speaker and 

are subject to interruptions and background noise. 

The Springdale Tower also had an issue with their window shades, which exist to reduce glare 

and haze. An FAA inspection discovered the shades were unsatisfactory (controllers could not 

5 
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75148.047

see through them), and recommended they be replaced. However, the contractor and city argued 

over which entity should fund the replacement window shades and finally the city stepped up. 

The result was new shades, but the trade-off was that the city stopped providing bottled water for 

the controllers that for whom they had previously provided bottled water, due to the poor quality 

of tap water in the area. An FAA tower would have both adequate window shades and potable 

water. 

These differences in equipment put controllers in the difficult position of having to control traffic 

with sub-par tools that add additional and unnecessary challenges to the already difficult and 

complex job of separating traffic. N A TC A believes that failing to provide controllers with 

adequate equipment necessary for their job may be detrimental to the safety of the National 

Airspace System (NAS). 

Maintenance of Equipment Discrepancies 

The FCT program involves a relationship between the FAA, the tower and the local city or 

airport authority, which is responsible for equipment maintenance and facility conditions at nonFAA owned facilities. Due to this arrangement between the tower, sponsor and FAA, all three 

entities often disagree on who is responsible for the cost to repair facilities or equipment, leading 

to periods of reduced service, or non-existent service. 

Unlike FAA facilities, contract towers have no on-call maintenance or technicians when 

equipment, computers or structures need repair. The equipment is generally purchased iTom a 

company across the country, and controllers may spend long periods of time on the phone with 

an off-site technician trying to learn how to reset a communications panel, reboot the voice 

recorders or fix malfunctions in the Automatic Terminal Infonnation Service (ATIS), Automated 

Weather Observation System (A WOS, the weather reporting system), etc. In towers that are not 

owned by the FAA, controllers have an informal process for reporting maintenance requests: 

they call the FAA or the vendor and wait for a response. The FAA may respond in a day or two, 

but the vendor may take weeks to schedule a trip. 

For example, the Mobile Downtown Tower (BFM) in Alabama did not have heat from 

December 2009 until March 20 I O. This was an issue of funding and it took time for the contract 

company to bid out the contract to fix the heat. 

FAA-supported equipment, such as instrument approaches and some weather reporting systems, 

rely on technicians who must also schedule a trip to the contract facility to conduct routine 

maintenance or emergency assistance. Their travel time and scheduling difficulties create delays 

in getting systems back on line. 

For example, BFM, a FAA-owned tower, has been without its wind reading indicators for at least 

eight years. The controllers there have filed Unsatisfactory Condition Reports (UCRs), but the 

FAA, who is responsible for this piece of equipment, has declined to spend the money to fix the 

equipment. 

At Opa Locka Tower (OPF) in Florida the original 40-year-old tower was attached to an 

abandoned, condemned hanger owned by the county, and the process of replacing it with a new 

tower has taken over six years. Six years ago, the old tower failed county fire suppression 

6 
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75148.048

requirements and was deemed unsafe to occupy. When both the FAA and the county refused to 

correct the problem, the FAA provided a "temporary tower" located on a closed runway. The 

county that owns the airport has moved slowly to plan for, fund and contract-to-build a new 

tower. There have also been significant local politics at play in the bid for a new tower. In the 

meantime, for over six years controllers have been working in truly dangerous conditions in a 

temporary tower that amounts to a dilapidated RV on top of eight large shipping containers. 

Among many of its drawbacks, the low height and inadequate windows make it difficult to sec 

some runways and taxiways. It is flimsy, it leaks. it is cramped inside and it is poorly located. 

Equipment failures occur frequently at the facility. While the FAA technically owns this 

temporary tower. the fact is that such a facility would not be tolerated if staffed with FAA 

personnel. It is only due to the exceptional dedication and skill of the controllers at this facility 

that the services are provided at all. 

We know that FAA facilities suffer from equipment maintenance issues as well. so it may seem 

unfair to expect contract towers. with inferior maintenance support. to operate as smoothly as 

their FAA counterparts. The bottom line is the more they rely on outside entities to provide 

support and funding. the greater the risk of costly delays in service and the greater the risk of a 

safety event. 

Training Discrepancies 

One of the biggest differences between the FAA and contract tower training processes is the 

amount of time it takes to certify. Controllers at contract towers are required to train for a mere 

30 days before becoming fully certified with the FAA. NATC A believes that the 30-day training 

period at contract towers is insufficient and results in controllers being given the minimum 

amount of preparation for working at their new tower. Thirty days is simply not sufficient to 

train a controller. regardless of experience. 

NA TCA has been informed that managers are instructed to tenninate any controller who does 

not certify within the 30 days. Timing is important because when a contract tower hires a new 

controller. it means they are replacing someone. As noted earlier. most contract towers begin 

with bare bones staffing levels. so the loss of one controller is a great concern and training the 

replacement is of utmost urgency. This approach undermines safety. 

The second issue with training at contract towers is that it is far less comprehensive. The FAA 

requires training teams and on-the-job training (OJT) by veteran controllers who devote a 

specific portion of their time to training new hires. The FAA also provides classroom instruction 

and simulation practice time. Contract towers simply do not have the staff or resources to offer 

this kind of comprehensive training. 

NATCA supports a comprehensive training approach that fully prepares controllers for their 

position at a tower. Although the FAA' s training process is not perfect either. it is far superior at 

preparing controller when compared to the process at contract towers. 

CONCLUSJON 

NA TC A understands that neither the FAA nor ConbJfess is currently discussing expansion of the 

Federal Contract Tower program. Again. for the record. NATCA is opposed to expanding the 

7 
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75148.049

contract tower program. Contract towers have their place, but under the current system they push 

the responsible limit of the margin of safety with short staffing, unreliable equipment, and a lack 

of technical support for the equipment. As a result of understaffing, controllers are required to 

tend to administrative duties while on position, as well as the responsibility for on-the-spot 

maintenance of any equipment malfunctions. These distractions mean that contract towers are 

approaching the responsible limit of the margin of safety. 

Recommendations 

Based on our knowledge of conditions at contract towers, NA TC A makes the following 

recommendations: 

I. Staffing: Contract towers should be held to the same staffing standards as FAA towers. 

2. Equipment: All contract towers should be requircd to meet the minimum equipment list 

standards comparable to FAA towers. 

3. Equipment Maintenance: There should be a streamlined process for determining responsibility 

for maintenance of equipment at contract towers in order to avoid dangerous delays and 

chronically faulty equipment. 

4. Safety: Contract towers should model the FAA's safety culture that allows controllers to 

report incidents without fear of punitive retaliation. 

5. Training: Contract towers should be required to provide more comprehensive training to all 

contract tower controllers, including adequate tools and resources. 

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to provide our input on the 

Contract Tower Program. We also welcome opportunities to work with the FAA in a 

collaborative manner to provide the safest and 1110st efficient air traffic control system in the 

world. Thank you. 

8 
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75148.050

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOClAnON 

421 Aviation Way· Frederick, MD 21701-4798 

Telephone (301) 695-2000' FAX (301) 695-2375 

www.aopa.org 

Statement of Melissa K. Rudinger, Senior Vice President 

. Government Affairs for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

Before the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Concerning 

A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Contract Tower Program 

July 18, 2012 

Good morning. My name is Melissa Rudinger and I am the Senior Vice President of 

Government Affairs for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a not-for-profit 

individual membership organization representing more than 400,000 members, which is nearly 

three-quarters of the nation's pilots. AOPA's mission is to effectively represent the interests of 

its members as aircraft owners and pilots. These interests include the economy, safety, utility 

and popularity of flight in General Aviation (GA) aircraft. 

The United States has the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. With 

more than 170 million passengers flying in GA aircraft annually, the equivalent of one of the 

nation's major airlines, they contribute more than $150 billion to the U.S. economic output, 

directly and indirectly, and employ nearly 1.3 million people whose collective annual earnings 

exceed $53 billion. 

I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony at this hearing on the Federal Aviation 

Administration's (FAA) Contract Tower Program. The Contract Tower Program has provided 

cost-effective and essential air traffic safety services to General Aviation airports since 1982. 

Of the 250 FAA Contract Control Towers, 89 locations serve General Aviation exclusively (list 
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75148.051

of locations is attached). Your continued support of this critical program is important to aviation 

safety and economic development in this great nation. 

AOPA testimony on the FAA's Contract Tower Program makes three overarching points. 

1. The FAA Contract Tower program greatly enhances safety of the air transportation 

system by providing vital air traffic service to communities that would not otherwise 

qualify for a federally funded control tower. There are 250 contract towers in 46 states 

and the safety statistics have consistently shown that these towers achieve equal to or 

better than safety statistics as FAA-staffed towers. 

2. The FAA Contract Tower program is one of the most cost effective government/industry 

partnerships in the history of the agency. This program is vitally important to hundreds 

of General Aviation Airports and virtually every performance metric associated with the 

program has a proven track record of sustained cost savings, safety enhancements, 

efficiency gains, and economic value to local communities. 

3. An air traffic control tower serves as an economic engine for airports - enhancing their 

value, which drives job creation, expansion of airport business and commerce. 

Maintaining funding for this program along with preserving current tower locations is 

vital to aviation safety and the economic viability of countless communities. 

FAA Contract Control Towers Enhance Safety 

Establishment of an FAA Contract Control Tower at a General Aviation airport enhances the 

safety of flight for all aircraft operating at the airport and in the surrounding airspace. For 

example, unlike non-towered airports, in order to operate into and out of an airport with a 

control tower, pilots are required to establish and maintain two-way radio communications with 

the Air Traffic Control (ATC) facility providing air traffic control services. The air traffic 

controllers bring situational awareness to the airport and ensure the safe, efficient and orderly 

flow of traffic to and from the airport. Additionally, airspace around airports with established 

control towers have higher weather minimums that Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft are 

required to operate under, which increases the margin of safety for both Instrument Flight 

Rules (IFR) and VFR aircraft operating at the airport. In fact. there are many insurance 

policies that require businesses with flight departments to only operate into towered airports 

because of the safety benefits that a control tower brings to an airport. Without the Contract 

Tower Program, hundreds of communities would lose the significant safety benefits of air traffic 

services. 

The safety record of the FAA Contract Tower Program has been validated numerous times by 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General (IG), FAA safety audits, and the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Contract towers have consistently achieved 

safety scores as good as or better than FAA staffed towers and AOPA anticipates that the 

pending IG audit of the FAA Contract Control Tower program will reaffirm this stellar safety 

record. 

Federal contract towers operate together with FAA staffed facilities throughout the country as 

part of a unified national air traffic control system. Without this federal program that sets safety 

and training standards, certifies operations and monitors all aspects of contract tower facilities, 

2 
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75148.052

many of these towers would be forced to close - facilities that are critical to the safety of many 

local communities. Towers at locations such as Brown Field in San Diego, CA, Palm 

Coast/Flagler County, Ormond Beach in FL and the tower at Wittman Field in Oshkosh, WI all 

serve a very important role in enhancing safety at airports that host a high density of training 

and General Aviation activity. Other contract towers like Martin State Airport right here in our 

local area serve as a significant safety enhancement due to the broad mix of operations 

ranging from intensive flight training, local traffic operations and medical missions as well as 

hosting the 175th wing of the Maryland Air National Guard. 

FAA Contract Tower Program is Cost Effective 

Implemented in 1982, the FAA's Contract Tower Program is very successful no matter how 

you measure it. The program currently includes 250 airports in 46 states and can be accurately 

described as one of the most effective partnership programs in the history of the agency. 

Contract towers provide air traffic services to smaller General Aviation airports that would 

otherwise not have control towers at a significant cost savings over FAA staffed towers. 

In FY2011, the 246 towers in the program handled 28 percent of all U.S. tower operations 

(14.8 million operations), but only accounted for 14 percent (approximately $133 million) of the 

FAA's overall budget for air traffic control tower operations. In contrast, the 264 FAA staffed 

towers that handled the remaining 72 percent of total tower operations (38.9 million 

operations), used 86 percent (approximately $851 million) of the FAA's budget dedicated to 

that purpose. These statistics illustrate the phenomenal cost-effectiveness of the Contract 

Control Tower Program. 

Looking at it another way, the cost of operating a contract tower is roughly one- third of the 

cost of operating an FAA-staffed control tower with a comparable level of activity. These 

numbers clearly illustrates that the contract tower program is a great value to the American 

taxpayers and aviation users from a cost perspective. 

The aviation community continues to express broad support for the program. In a letter earlier 

this year to leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees, signed by AOPA and 

a broad group of aviation associations, the groups urged Congress to provide full funding for 

the FAA Contract Tower Program in the Fiscal Year 2013 DOT/FAA appropriations bill. 

FAA Contract Tower Program Supports Strong Local Economies 

Numerous studies have validated what we in General Aviation know to be true, that airports 

are economic engines for communities. We also know that the establishment of an air traffic 

control tower drives even greater economic development through the creation of jobs, 

supporting the growth of the airport businesses and other benefits. General Aviation airports 

produce identifiable economic benefits over and above the tax dollars spent on operating and 

maintaining the facilities, and benefits over the intangible benefits inherent with access to the 

nation's air transportation system. 

A study of airport economics was recently completed by an independent international 

consulting firm for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The study clearly shows that General 

Aviation airports produce economic returns which far exceed the amounts spent to operate 

and maintain those facilities. The basis of this information was the U.S. Department of 

Commerce's Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), which admittedly does not 

3 
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75148.053

encompass ALL economic benefits. The study also used a very conservative dollar multiplier 

of 2.8. Many experts believe that a multiplier of 4 or even 5 is realistic. 

The Virginia study also concludes that: 

• Each dollar spent by aviation and/or aviation-dependent businesses generates an 

additional $1.52 in economic activity. 

Airport jobs are desirable, and the average airport wage was 40 percent higher than the 

average Virginia salary. 

• For every job at the airport, nearly three are created in the visitor-related economy. 

• Aviation-related businesses and their employees annually contribute $105 million in local 

taxes. 

• Aviation facilities attract new industry to the commonwealth. 

• Many visitors arriving by air spend about $70 per day in this geographical area. 

The study also indicated airport construction projects are particularly beneficial because dollars 

spent by state and local governments are highly leveraged with federal and private funds. The 

multiplier effects of construction spending are especially strong because each dollar spent on 

construction generates an additional $2 in economic activity. Together these two factors mean 

that airport development projects, like contract control towers, produce an impact on the 

State's economy that is more than 25 times the amount contributed by State and local funds. 

Conclusion 

The FAA's Contract Tower Program has a proven track record of providing cost-effective and 

essential air traffic safety services to General Aviation airports and provides strong support to 

local economies. On behalf of the members of AOPA, thank you for your leadership in 

examining the importance of the FAA's Contract Tower Program. Your continued support of 

this critical program is important to aviation safety and economic development in this great 

nation. 

This concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions. 

4 

Insert offset folio 54 here 75148.054

10 FAA Contract Tower-GA Only (89 total) State Zip HouseMOC Senator 

"Towers in the Cost-Sharing Program 

1 ROO "Rogers Municipal-Carter Field AR 72756 Steve Womak (R-3rd-AR) Mark Pryor (D) John Boo

2 ASG 'Spnngdale AR 72764 Steve Womak (R-3rd-AR) Mark Pryor (D) John Boo

3CHD Chandler AZ 85249 Jeff Flake (R-6th-AZ) John Mccain Jon Kyl 

4 GEU Glendale AZ 85307 Trent Franks (R-2nd-AZ) John McCain JonKyl 

5GYR Goodyear (Phoenix) AZ 85338 Trent Franks (R-2nd-AZ) John Mccain Jon Kyl 

6 RYN Ryan (Tucson) AZ 85735 Raul Grijalva (D-7th-AZ) John McCain JonKyl 

7 MER Castle CA 95301 Dennis Cardoza (D-18th-cA) Dianne Feinstein (D) Barb.ra 

8 FUL Fullerton CA 92833 Edward Royce (R-4Oth-CA) Dianne Feinstein (O) Barbara 

9 HHR Hawthorne CA 90250 Maxine Waters (D-3Sth-cA) Dianne Feinstein (D) Barbara 

10 RNM Ramona Airport CA 92055 Duncan Hunter (R-S2nd-CA) Dianne Feinstein (0) Barbara 

11 RAL Riverside CA 92503 Ken Calvert (R-44nd-cA) Dianne Feinstein (0) 8arbara 

12 SAC Sacramento Executive CA 95622 Doris Matsui (D-Sth-cA) Dianne Feinstein (D) Barbara 13 SNS Salinas Municipal CA 93905 Sam Farr (D-17th-CA) Dianne Feinstein (O) Barbara 14 saL San Carlos CA 94070 Jackie Speier (D-12th-CA) Dianne Feinstein (0) 8arbara 15 SNM Brown Field (San Diego) CA 92154 Bob Fllner (D-S1st-cA) Dianne Feinstein (D) Barbara 

16WHP WMeman (Los Angeles) CA 91331 Howard Berman (D-28th-cA) Dianne Feinstein (0) Barbara 

17 WJF William J. Fox (Lancaster) CA 93536 Kevin McCarthy (R-22nd-CA) Dianne Feinstein (O) Barbara 

18 FTG Front Range CO 60137 Ed Perlmutter (D-7th-CO) Mark Udall (D) Michael 19 DXR Danbury CT 05810 Christopher Murphy (O-Sth-CT) Joseph Lieberman (I) Richard B

20 HRD Brainard (Hartford) CT 08114 John Larson (D-1st-CT) Joseph Lieberman (I) Richard B

210XC WaterburylOXford CT 05478 James Himes (D-4th-CT) Joseph Lieberman {I} Richard B

22 SPG Albert Whitted (51. Petersburg) FL 33701 Bill Young (R-1Oth-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R

23 BCT Boca Raton FL 33431 Theodore Deutch (D-l9th-FL) 8i11 Nelson (D) Marco R24 HWO Hollywood FL 33023 Frederica Wilson (D-17th-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R25 ISM Kissimmee FL 34741 Bill Posey (R-15th-Flj Bill Nelson (D) Marco Ru

26 LEE Leesburg International FL 3474B Richard Nugent (R-Sth-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R27 EVB New Smyma Beach Mun. FL 3216B Sandy Adams (R-24th-FL) Bill Nelson (D) MarcaRu28 OPF Opa Locka (Miami) FL 33054 Frederica Wilson (D-17th-Fl) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R

290MN Onnond Beach Mun. FL 32174 John Mica (R-7th-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco Ru

30 FMY PsgeFleld FL 33907 Connie Mack (R-14th-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco Ru

31 XFL Palm CoastIFlagler County FL 32164 John Mica (R-7th-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R

32 PMP Pompano Beach FL 33050 Alien West (R-22nd-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R33 SUA StuartlWrtham FL 34996 Thomas Rooney (R-16th-FL) Bill Nelson (D) Marco R34 FTY Futton County GA 30336 John lewis (O-Sth-GAI Saxby Chambliss Johnny Is35 LZU Gwinnett County GA 30045 Rob Woodall (R-7th-GA) Saxby Chambliss Johnny Is36 RVY McCollum GA 30144 Phil Glngrey (R-llth-GA) Saxby Chambliss Johnny Is

37 UGN Waukegan Regional IL 6ooB7 Joe Walsh (R-Sth-IL) Dick Durbin (D) Mark Kirk 

380JC Johnson Co. Exec. KS 66082 Kevin Yoder (R-3rd-KS) Pat Roberts JenyMor

391XD New Century Air Center (Olathe) KS 68051 Kevin Yoder (R-3rd-KS) Pat Roberts Jerry Mor

40 TOP Philip Billard Mun. (Topeka) KS 55616 Lynn Jenkins (R-2nd-KS) Pat Roberts Jerry Mo

41 HUM Houma LA 70363 Jeff Landry (R-3rd-LA) Mary landrleu (D) David Vil

Insert offset folio 55 here 75148.055

42 DTN Shreveport Downtown LA 71111 John Fleming (R-4th-LA) Mary Landrieu (D) David 

43 BVY Beverty MA 01915 John Tierney (D-5th-MA) John Kerry (0) Scott B

44 LWM Lawrence MA 01845 John Tierney (l).Gth-MA) John Kerry (OJ Scott B

45 ewe New Bedford MA 02745 Barney Frank (D-4th-MA) John Kerry (D) Scott B460WD NofWood MA 02062 Stephen Lynch (D-9th-MA) John Kerry (D) Scott B

47 ESN Easton MD 21601 Andy Harris (R-lst-Mo) Barbara Mikulski (0) Ben Ca

48 MTN Martin State (Banimore) MD 21220 C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-2nd-MD) Barbara Mikulski (D) Ben Ca

49 DET Detroit City MI 48234 Hansen Clarke (D-13th-MI) Carl levin (0) Debbie 

60 JXN -Jackson MI 49202 Tim Walberg (R-7Ih-MI) Carl Levin (D) Debbie 

51 ANE Anoka (Minneapolis) MN 55449 Michele Bachmann (R-6th-MN) Amy Klobuchar (D) AI Fran

52 JEF -Jeffemon cny MO 65043 Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9!h-MO) Clair MCcaskill (D) Roy Bl53 HKS Hawkins Field (Jackson) MS 39213 Bennie Thompson (D-2nd-MS) Thad Cochran Roger 54 OLV Olive Branch MS 38654 Alan Nuonelee (R-lst-MS) Thad Cochran Roger 

55 ASH Boire Field (Nashua) NH 03063 Charlie Bass (R-2nd-NH) Jeanne Shaheen (D) Kelly A58AEG Double Eagle II NM 87121 Martin Heinrich (D-lst-NM) Jeff Bingaman (D) Tom U

57 HOB *lea CountylHobbs NM B8240 Stevan Pearce (R-2nd-MN) Jeff Bingaman (D) Tom U

58 HND Henderson (Las Vegas) NV 89052 Joseph Heck (R-3rd-NV) Harry Reid (D) Dean H59 TZR Bollon Field (Cotumbus) OH 43228 Steve Stivers (R-1Sth-0H) Sherrod Brown (D) Rob Po

60 CGF Cuyahoga Country {Cleveland} OH 44143 Marcia Fudge (D-llth·OH) Sherrod Brown (D) Rob Po

61 ADM "'Ardmore Municipal OK 73401 Tom Cole (R-4th-OK) James lnhafe TomCo

62 OGN Univ. of OklahomSiWestheimer OK 73069 Tom Cole (R-4th-OK) lames Inhafe Tom C

63 PWA Wiley Post OK 73008 James Lankford (R-Sth-OK) James Inhofe Tom C

64 TID Troutdale (Portland) OR 97080 Earl Blumenauer (D-3rd-0R) Ron Wyden (D) Jeff Me

65 KXY Capitel cny (Harrisburg) PA 17070 Todd Russell Platts (R-l9th-PA) Bob Casey (D) Pat Too58 SIG Isla Grande PR Pedro Pieriulsl (o-PR) N/A N/A 67 BON Rafael Hernandez Airport PR Pedro Pierlulsi (D-PR) N/A N/A 

68 CRS Grand StrandlMyrtle Beach SC 29582 Tim Scott (R-lst-Se) Undsey Graham JlmOe69GMU Greenville Downtown SC 29607 Trey Gowdy (R-4th-SC) lindsey Graham Jim De

70 GKY Arlington Municipal iX 76018 Joe Barton (R-6th-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C

710TO Denton Municipal iX 76207 Michael Burgess (R-26-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C

72 FWS -Fort Worth-Spinks iX 76028 Joe Barton (R-6th-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison JohnCo

73 GLS Galveston iX 77SS4 Ron Paul (R-14th-TX) Kay Baney HutchIson JohnCo

74 GTU Georgetown iX 75828 John carter (R-3lst-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C

75 GPM 'Grand Prairie iX 76052 Kenny Marchant (R-24th-TX) Kay Sailey Hutchison JohnCo

76 CXO Lone Star executive (Conroe) iX 77303 Kevin Brady (R-Sth-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C

77 TKI McKinney Municipal iX 7S059 Sam Johnson (R-3rd-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C

78 RBO Redbird iX 75237 Eddie Bernice Johnson (o-30th-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C79 HYI San Marcos iX 78658 lloyd Doggett (D-25th-TX) Kay Sailey Hutchison john C

80 SSF Stinson Municipal (San Antonio) iX 78214 Francisco Canseco (R-23rd-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison John C

81 SGR Sugar Land iX 7747B Pete Olson (R-22nd-TX) Kay Bailey Hutchison JohnCo

82 SFF Felis Field (Spokane) WA 99212 Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-5th-WA) Patty Murray (D) Marla C

83 RNT Renton WA 98055 Adam Smith (D-9th-WA) Patty Murray (0) Marla c84TIW Tacoma Narrows WA 98335 Norman Dicks (o-6th-WA) Patty Murray (D) Maria C

Insert offset folio 56 here 75148.056

85 ENW Kenosha Municipal WI 53144 Paul Ryan (R-lst-WI) Herb Kohl (D) Ron Johmon 

86 MlNC Timmerman (Milwaukee) WI 53225 Gwen Moore (D-4th-WI) Herb Kohl (D) Ron johnson 

87 UES Waukesha County Airport WI 53188 Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Sth-WI) Herb Kohl (D) Ron Johnson 

880SH WiHman Regional (Oshkosh) WI 54902 Tom Petri (R-6th-WI) Herb Kohl (D) Ron Johnson 

89 HLG Wheeling Ohio Co. WI 26003 David McKinley (R-lst-Wl) John D. Rockefeller IV (D) Joe Manchin (D
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75148.057

AMERICAN OF EXECUTIVES 601 Mod sot) S1reet 111 Suite .100 111 Aiexandno, VA II 70J824-DSOO 1M Fox 703 82(} 13C1,5 II WVv'W.oooe org 

July 30, 2012 

The Honorable Thomas Petri 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2251 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of AAAE and the U.S. Contract Tower Association, thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify at the subcommittee's July 18 contract tower hearing. I would like 

to provide additional information on three items that were discussed during the hearing. 

First, I would like to clarify an answer I gave to Congressman Lankford during the 

hearing. He asked whether an airport with a FAA contract tower was safer than having no 

tower at an airport. There are many airports that do not have control towers. Absence of a 

tower at these airports does not mean these facilities are unsafe. However, there 

absolutely is an increased level of safety where an operational tower is in place (FAAstaffed or contract) based on level and type of air trafflc activity, as well as other local 

operational issues. 

Second, I would like to reiterate that there is not a punitive culture in the contract 

controller environment that discourages reporting of operational errors. FAA contract 

tower (FCT) facilities operate in an environment in which employees are required to 

report safety deficiencies with confidence that management will be fair and responsive. 

FCT contractors implement and support the use of a non-punitive safety reporting system 

that promotes continual safety improvement through timeJy action and provides feedback 

to employees. 

FCT contractors have a well-documented history of their non-punitive environments, 

which encourages reporting of all air traffic (AT) incidents. FCT controllers only face 

punitive action as a result of an AT incident if they intentionally do not report it or if 

gross negligence is involved. All three FeT companies have been in business for 

decades and, as a matter of self-preservation, must continually evaluate and refine their 

processes and procedures to promote safety and eliminate risks. They recognize that 

knowledge of mistakes made and awareness of hazards in the system are critical to their 

prevention efforts. For that reason, they adamantly encourage employees to report AT 

incidents and hazards before they result in accidents. FCT companies have a proven 

record of being very proactive and responsive to safety concerns. 
84 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75148.058

Letter to Chairman Petri 

Page 2 

July 3D, 2012 

Finally, any assumption that contractors do not report operational incidents for fear that 

they will not win future contracts is not correct. There simply is not a direct or indirect 

relationship between the number of reported AT incidents and the ability of an FCT 

company to be competitive. The FAA awards FCT contracts through the evaluation of 

several factors, none of which involves a company's past history of repOlted AT 

incidents. Rather, the agency evaluates and awards contracts based on the company's 

Quality/Safety Assurance Plan, Staffing Plans, Contingency Plan, Training Plan, etc. 

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to respond for the record. 

Sincerely, 

Mr. Walter Strong, A.A.E. 

Airport Administrator - Max Westheimer Airport, Nonnan, Oklahoma 

Chair, U.S. Contract Tower Association Policy Board