U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–102 PDF 2015

PREVENTING ANOTHER MH370: SETTING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AIRLINE FLIGHT 

TRACKING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2015 

Serial No. 114–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

JAMES ROBERTSON, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Clerk 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC ASSETS

JOHN L. MICA Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 25, 2015 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Michael A. Lawson, American Ambassador, The U.S. Mission of 

ICAO 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

The Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Acting Chairman, National Transportation 

Safety Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Mr. Kevin Hiatt, Senior Vice President for Safety and Flight Operations, 

International Air Transport Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

APPENDIX 

Rep. David E. Price (NC–04) Statement ................................................................ 48 

Inmarsat statement for the record ......................................................................... 50 

NTSB responses to Rep. David Price (NC–04) Questions for the record ............ 55 

IATA responses to Rep. David Price (NC–04) Questions for the record ............. 60 

ICAO responses to Rep. David Price (NC–04) Questions for the record ............. 62 

(1) 

PREVENTING ANOTHER MH370: SETTING 

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AIRLINE 

FLIGHT TRACKING 

Wednesday, February 25, 2015, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC

ASSETS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Mica, Duncan, Amash, Duckworth, and 

DeSaulnier. 

Also present: Representative Price. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call this hearing of the 

House Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets, Subcommittee of Government Oversight and Reform Committee, to 

order. 

Welcome, everyone, this morning. We are pleased to have everyone with us, especially our ranking member. Congresswoman 

Duckworth is with us for her first hearing. Congratulations to her 

on arrival of her daughter and getting through her maternity leave 

and rejoining us here. I know she has been back a little while, but 

this is her first hearing with us, and I was delighted to hear when 

she was selected to be the ranking Democrat member on this important subcommittee and look forward to working with her. In 

just a minute, too, I will recognize her for an opening Statement, 

but we are very pleased to have you. I think we will have a very 

productive 2 years working together. 

But, again, welcome, everyone. The title of today’s hearing is Preventing Another Malaysia Air 370: Setting International Standards 

for Airline Flight Tracking. 

The order of business today will be, we will start with opening 

Statements, and usually the order is the chairman, the ranking 

member, other members who wish to be heard. Today we have sort 

of dueling hearings; there must be 10 of them going on right now 

all at the same time, so we will have members who may come and 

go or who want to be part of the hearing. We also are joined by 

Congressman Jimmy Duncan, and I think Mr. Price may be joining 

us, and we will have unanimous consent for those joining us who 

aren’t on the committee or the subcommittee to participate at the 

appropriate time. 
2 

So, with that, after opening Statements, we will turn to our 

panel of three witnesses and welcome them this morning. I will introduce them, I will swear them in and hear their testimony, and 

after we hear from all three, then we will go to questions. So that 

will be the order of business today. 

So, with that, my opening Statement. Let me begin. 

At today’s hearing we are going to look at recent work between 

international and domestic entities to close the tracking gap, as 

well as discuss future advancements in technology that will result 

in real-time tracking that can immediately alert authorities to any 

abnormalities during the flight of a commercial passenger aircraft. 

Let me say at the outset it is absolutely unacceptable that today 

we are unable to locate or properly track a commercial passenger 

aircraft. Today it is unacceptable that any passenger aircraft with 

239 people cannot be located in an accident that occurred some 

time ago. So I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that 

no commercial aircraft with passengers should be allowed to fly 

without a working and operable aircraft tracking device, and today’s hearing will focus on where we are in that process. 

There are great implications to the problem of not being able to 

track aircraft even after an accident. But also now, when I visited 

ICAO and met with some of their officials, one of the concerns they 

expressed is the expansion of the international conflict zone; to 

date, a couple years ago, fairly limited in some of the Middle Eastern States. Now it is greatly expanded over continents, over regions, and commercial passenger aircraft are flying in these areas. 

We should be able to know where they are. 

We are going to address today the shoot-down of another passenger aircraft. But if we don’t take steps to know where an aircraft is at all times and properly route them against danger, not 

just know where they are when they are lost, there will be consequences; and I predict that there will be additional shoot-downs 

of passenger aircraft because we don’t have these systems in place. 

A required and working global aeronautical distress and safety 

system standard is long overdue. Last year, after Malaysia Air 370, 

we had a hearing in the Transportation Committee. A number of 

issues were brought up that we had to address. One that I cited 

back then and brought attention to the committee and the Congress was the need for action in getting, again, tracking capability 

of passenger aircraft. This, I might remind everyone, is 2015, and 

the technology exists, the capability exists. What we are lacking is 

a standard for all of these operating passenger aircrafts across the 

globe. 

I was very pleased to meet last year with Michael Lawson. He 

is the United States Ambassador to ICAO. Upon our very first 

meeting, we discussed this issue and he is with us here today. Most 

folks don’t know what ICAO is. I was explaining it to staff. When 

I became chairman of aviation in 2001, I didn’t know what ICAO 

is, but ICAO is the primary and principal international aviation organization responsible for setting aviation standards, requirements, 

and protocols. That is for all aircraft flying across the globe. 

We have 191 nations who belong, and, if you visit their headquarters in Montreal, I think it is bigger than the United Nations 

operation in New York City. Every country sends Ambassadors to 
3 

ICAO representatives. They have a general assembly and then they 

have different layers of governance, and they set the standards for 

all aircraft. 

We have with us today Congressman Duncan, and he, with Mr. 

Price, has introduced U.S. legislation, and I have a copy of their 

legislation, H.R. 772, which actually, having read it just in the last 

day or so, it complies with the standards or refers to the standards 

as set by ICAO to require certain standards that the U.S. aircraft 

adopt; and we will turn to him for a better explanation shortly. But 

even if we can’t pass this U.S. law without having the ICAO standards, American passengers could be protected, say, domestically 

with a domestic commercial flight if we passed it for the United 

States. But once they get outside our borders, ICAO has the primary responsibility for standard setting. 

I have worked with IATA and met with their representatives, a 

very responsive international transport association, and that is an 

airline organization. They can set standards for their airlines, but 

they don’t set the global standards, and they can require compliance of their membership. So that is why it is important for ICAO 

to act. 

Interestingly enough, you may not know this, but the United 

States provides about 25 percent of the funding for ICAO, so we 

have an important stake there. We have a great representative 

who has been working with folks. And not too long ago, when I 

traveled to Montreal, arranged a meeting with the president of 

ICAO to express our concerns, on behalf of Congress, of adopting 

that standard, moving that process forward. 

If we sometimes think that Congress or the Senate is slow, sometimes the international organizations, getting 191 countries to 

agree, that can also be a time consuming, difficult process, but I 

can’t say that we could have had better representation than our 

Ambassador has given us to that organization, or better cooperation. 

And I want to, today, hear an update. There was a recent meeting and I believe today we are going to have an announcement on 

some of the standards being proposed that just were released. We 

may hear more about the status of that. I think it is in draft. And 

then the important thing is the timeframe for implementation. 

The fact is the technology does exist. The fact is the technology 

is on most aircraft. What is lacking is a standard. There is an opportunity, I think Mr. Duncan’s bill provides for it, for enhancing 

some of the capability of the technology. 

I met with Mr. Hart, NTSB, and we will hear from them shortly. 

They are working with the industry to try to come up with a tracking device that is not only more reliable, but also has a longer life 

and a better ability to track, and we will hear the status of that. 

The long-term solution is, again, switching from a radar base to 

next generation air traffic control with global and GPS tracking so 

we know where every aircraft is that has passengers at every point 

on the Earth at all times, both for in the case of an accident and 

then also keeping the passengers safe in some of the zones I talked 

about that pose great risk. 

So we will learn today the status of the adoption of these international standards. We will look at the requirements for potentially 
4 

longer life tracking devices and better technologies. We will hear 

from NTSB and others, the industry also who have comments on 

standards should be set that are reasonable and workable and 

implementable as soon as possible. 

So Flight 370, although a tragedy with a loss of life of 239 individuals, from that horrible experience and still today not being able 

to locate that aircraft or those victims, we have a responsibility to 

move this process forward. Today there are approximately 90,000 

flights around the world. The FAA estimates there are around 

123,000 U.S. citizens boarding those planes every day, so while we 

can control domestic traffic and U.S. aircraft, it is important that 

international standard be there. We are looking at not just protecting citizens around the world, but our responsibility to U.S. citizens. 

Right now the international standard is to check every 30 minutes when outside of radar. Of course, the long-term is next generation air traffic control, but listen to this. At 35,000 feet, a Boeing 

747 has a cruising speed of 570 miles per hour. In 30 minutes, a 

plane can carry nearly 400 passengers, can travel nearly 300 miles 

before anyone knows where it is. That is not an acceptable standard today. 

So today we are going to look at, finally, the work between international, domestic entities, the industry, some of our safety organizations, and we will hear where we are, where we need to go, and 

how we need to get there. 

So, with that lengthy opening Statement, you will find that 

sometimes I use the chairman’s prerogative, which I also always 

extend to the minority. I have often told my staff that whatever 

time the other side of the aisle needs, they are going to get, even 

if it requires that we get Preparation H and sit here forever. That 

is an inside joke. 

Welcome, Ranking Member Duckworth. Congratulations, and 

look forward to working with you. You are recognized. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. And I thank the chairman. It is a joy to be 

here and I was especially pleased to see that you were the chairman of the committee, with your experience in transportation 

issue. 

So I get to have my first hearing back in Congress from maternity leave on an issue near and dear to my heart, which is airspace 

issue. I have flown as a pilot myself on four different contingents; 

I have flown in Egypt, I have flown in Guyana, Iceland, and, of 

course, the United States, and I found airspace and the control of 

that airspace to be very different in each of those areas depending 

on the sophistication of the system, the capabilities of the host governments in that area. 

So I again would like to thank the chairman for holding this 

hearing today. The hearing is critically important to determine 

what steps are being taken to improve the tracking of commercial 

international flights to ensure that all flights can be tracked in the 

event of an emergency. 

With Malaysian Airlines Flight 370’s disappearance after almost 

a year of what was the most expensive search operation in aviation 

history, the aircraft still has not been located, and I find this event 

to be especially tragic and upsetting. First, of course, our hearts, 
5 

all of us, go out to the families of the 239 people that lost their 

lives. Not only did they lose a loved one, but they have been denied 

any level of closure because the aircraft and even its remnants 

have yet to be found. I can only imagine the pain these family 

members feel and continue to suffer each and every day. 

In addition to the disappearance of MH370, the weaknesses of 

international flight tracking system has become very visible. Again, 

as a pilot, as a frequent flier, Member of Congress, O’Hare is my 

eastern border. I don’t actually have O’Hare Airport in my district. 

Well, I have the fence and the grass where the geese that get in 

the flight path land and hang out, but I don’t have the gift shops 

or any of the revenue-generating portions of O’Hare. 

I find it unacceptable that in 2014 an aircraft can go completely 

missing for such an extended period of time without any answers 

or explanations. With all the technology available to us, with GPS 

satellite phones, the public wants to know how can this happen in 

2014. Pilots understand it a little bit better, but for the general 

public, they don’t understand, and these are people getting on airliners and entrusting that the system will be safe to carry their 

loved ones to their destination. 

Today I hope to receive some answers. Our witnesses include organizations that have been on the front lines of improving flight 

tracking systems, as well as creating a unified system for international flight tracking. 

Now, I always called it ICAO, which is how we pronounce it in 

the Army. Is it ICAO or is it ICAO? 

Ambassador LAWSON. ICAO. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. ICAO. OK. See, we were saying it wrong in the 

Army the whole time. Well, we were just a bunch of helicopter pilots. What did we know? 

So ICAO, the International Air Transport Association, the NTSB 

have all been active participants in trying to find a solution to this 

problem, and I really want to thank you for the work you are 

doing. I look forward to fully examining this issue at great lengths 

today. 

I thank the chairman for his very kind and generous remarks, 

and I continue to look forward to working with him to monitor 

these issues in the future. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Now, again, I refer to his proposed legislation and one of the experts in Congress on aviation, former chair of the Aviation Subcommittee in the House, Mr. Duncan, the gentleman from Tennessee. You are welcome. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing, and thank you for your very supportive comments 

about my legislation. As you mentioned, I did chair the Aviation 

Subcommittee for 6 years, from 1995 to 2001, and then you followed me in that position and, of course, later chaired the full committee, and you always have had a great interest in and concern 

about aviation issues, and certainly that is evident here in your 

calling this early hearing in your chairmanship of this subcommittee. 
6 

This is an issue that I have been interested in for a long time. 

In 1999, under the chairmanship of Jim Hall, the NTSB issued a 

safety recommendation calling for two sets of black boxes on commercial aircraft, and I am pleased that former Chairman Hall is 

here today. As late as the week before last, a working group of the 

ICAO organization issued a recommendation that deployable recording boxes be put on commercial aircraft in the very near future, and that is exactly what my bill, H.R. 772, calls for as well, 

and certainly one of the lead witnesses here today is our Ambassador to ICAO, Ambassador Lawson; and we are pleased to have 

all the witnesses here. 

My bill is entitled The SAFE Act, and it requires that manufacturers install deployable recorders on all aircraft ordered after January 2017, and these deployable recorders would contain both voice 

and data information. They would automatically eject from an airplane upon a crash and thus could save untold millions of dollars 

in searching costs and would certainly be a great step forward in 

trying to solve the problems related to various aircraft crashes and 

so forth. 

We are really way behind the times on this. I have a report here 

that says deployable recorders have been used in military and over 

water helicopter applications since the 1960’s and are currently 

available from several manufacturers. They combine traditional 

FDR and CDR functions into one unit and are capable of providing 

a comparable amount of flight data. So I think that we are well 

past the time that this should have been done and I am encouraged 

by all the support that is coming both here nationally and internationally for my legislation. 

Congressman Price, one of our most respected members, has introduced companion legislation, H.R. 753, which goes right along 

with the bill that I have introduced, and hopefully we can get some 

progress in this Congress in that regard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and for allowing me to make these brief comments. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Amash, did you have an opening Statement? 

Mr. AMASH. I do not. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Any other members? 

Recognize Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a Statement 

from Congressman Price for the record and I would like to submit 

it. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, it will be made part of the record. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. We will leave the record open for a period of 10 legislative days for additional comments or questions to the witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

All right, if there are no further opening Statements at this 

point, I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses. We are very 

fortunate today to have with us the United States Ambassador to 

the United States Mission of ICAO, Ambassador Michael A. 

Lawson. We have the Honorable Christopher Hart. He is the Acting Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board. And we 

have Mr. Kevin Hiatt, and he is the Senior Vice President for Safe-
7 

ty and Flight Operations for the International Air Transport Association. 

Some of you have been before us before. If you haven’t, this is 

an oversight and investigative panel. We do swear in our witnesses, so if you would stand, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony before this subcommittee of Congress is the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. MICA. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

Again, welcome to each of you. Be seated. 

What we do, we don’t have multiple panels and we don’t have a 

huge number of witnesses, so we can be flexible on the 5-minute 

rule. We do want to hear your Statement. If you have lengthy information or background that you want to submit to the record, 

just a simple request to the chair and we will make certain it is 

inserted in the record appropriately. 

With that, let me welcome and again thank our Ambassador, 

Ambassador Lawson, who has been great to work with on this 

issue. We will hear his testimony today. Welcome, sir, and you are 

recognized. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. LAWSON 

Ambassador LAWSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and other distinguished members of this subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of this committee regarding efforts to accelerate the establishment of international standards relating to 

the tracking of commercial airliners over oceanic areas in response 

to the recent loss of Malaysia Flight 370. 

As U.S. Ambassador to the International Civil Aviation Organization, this issue is one of my highest priorities. International responses to complex challenges have historically been frustratingly 

slow. However, in the aftermath of the MH370 tragedy, the international aviation community has responded with an appropriate 

sense of urgency. 

Weeks after the MH370 disappearance, ICAO convened a special 

multi-disciplinary meeting to study issues related to global airline 

flight tracking. The meeting concluded that there was a need to accelerating the existing time table to track aircraft effectively and 

globally, and that the solution would have to involve more than the 

introduction of technology. A comprehensive approach that involves 

the coordination of airline industry practices, air traffic control procedures, search and rescue capabilities, and accident investigation 

processes would be required. 

In our following months, an industry-led task force was formed 

to focus on what airlines could do to support flight tracking in the 

near-term while the ICAO working group developed an overarching 

concept of operations. 

The ICAO concept broke the tracking problem down into four 

items: normal tracking, abnormal tracking, distress tracking, and 
8 

retrieval of accident data. These two groups, industry and ICAO, 

worked to harmonize their proposals and, on February 3d, presented their recommendations to a high level safety conference attended by more than 850 delegates from over 120 States. The ICAO 

conference endorsed the operational concept. 

I would like to call your attention to the progress made in two 

key areas, normal aircraft tracking and retrieval of accident data. 

Normal aircraft tracking. An international standard for normal 

aircraft tracking has progressed rapidly. The normal tracking 

standard seems basic, but it will create the foundation upon which 

additional requirements will be built. ICAO’s proposed normal 

tracking standard clearly assigns responsibility for tracking to the 

airline. It requires that every operator track the location of the aircraft every 15 minutes when the aircraft are flying over oceanic 

airspace unless air traffic control is providing surveillance, but also 

requires that airlines develop procedures to coordinate with air 

traffic control facilities in the event a position report is missed. 

We believe that these basic procedures would significantly improve search and rescue responses in the event another tragedy 

were to occur. 

The standards proposed by ICAO did not contain specific tracking technologies. Through collaboration with industry, an array of 

current and emerging technologies capable of meeting the proposed 

normal tracking standard have been identified. ICAO will be distributing their proposal to member States for review this week. 

ICAO will incorporate comments received from the States and offer 

the standard for adoption by the ICAO Council during November 

of this year. The planned global applicability date is November 

2016. A copy of ICAO’s letter has been provided for the record. 

For the United States, FAA regulations already require some 

level of centralized tracking, and U.S. airlines have fairly sophisticated operational control centers capable of meeting this challenge. 

However, other regions of the world may find this standard more 

challenging. For this reason, ICAO will conduct a normal aircraft 

tracking initiative in Asia later this year. The initiative is designed 

to assist in identifying challenges with technology and procedures, 

and help the industry gain operational experience. The FAA will be 

providing assistance and guidance and advice, and we expect U.S. 

airlines will participate. 

With respect to the retrieval of accident data, the proposed 

standards to address the recovery of cockpit voice and flight data 

recorders are also progressing rapidly. The standards will target 

the recovery of data following an accident. One possible method to 

facilitate recovery of post-accident data would be to mandate 

deployable flight recorders. However, during the recent high-level 

safety conference, industry and regulators from around the world 

urged ICAO to draft performance-based standards that would leave 

the door open to other emerging technologies such as streaming 

data, which may be easier and possibly quicker to implement. 

ICAO has drafted the initial performance-based standards for accident data recovery. The standards will likely require changes or 

additions to aircraft equipment, and for this reason it may take 

several years to implement them. The standards will also require 

the development of extensive guidance materials. Depending on the 
9 

technological solutions, the changes to aircraft equipment would be 

phased in beginning in 2019 or 2021. The proposal is not scheduled 

for adoption by the ICAO Council until March 2016. 

Mr. Chairman, ICAO, with the support of the United States and 

the international community, has responded quickly to the challenge of global flight tracking. Standards that would normally take 

years of deliberation have been developed in months. The FAA and 

U.S. airlines are recognized leaders when it comes to the issue of 

aircraft tracking and, as you know, the FAA has, for years, provided assistance to other regions of the world in their efforts to 

adapt their operations to accommodate air traffic management, and 

now they are being asked to assist with aircraft tracking. This is 

a great example of America’s global leadership that should be encouraged and continued. 

It is my hope that the United States will continue to apply its 

substantial expertise toward the development and maturation of 

global aircraft tracking standards, and that any new U.S. regulations will be harmonized with the international standards that 

emerge as a result of our collective efforts. 

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your concerns and answering any questions you may have. 

[Prepared Statement of Ambassador Lawson follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

We will go to our next witness. 

Before we do that, I see Mr. Price, the gentleman from North 

Carolina, joining us, and I would ask unanimous consent that he 

be permitted to participate in the panel, and he would be recognized after other members. 

Welcome, sir. Please take a seat, and you will be recognized. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Now let me introduce and again thank also for his hospitality 

Mr. Christopher Hart, the Acting NTSB Safety Board Chair. 

And if members and staff have not gone down to their operations, I went down actually to look at some of the retrieved equipment from the site of the Metro arcing incident where one person 

was killed and they bring some of the parts and debris to their lab 

downtown here. But I also got a chance to visit upstairs several of 

the labs where they have airline crash black boxes, the remains 

from different crashes, even a bus tire in another lab, and the sophisticated equipment and work that NTSB does in investigating 

a whole host of accidents. If staff or members have not gone, please 

go down and see the incredible job that they do. 

But thank you for your hospitality. I know I was there and some 

of our staff, but, again, on the work you do. So welcome, Mr. Hart, 

and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER A. HART 

Mr. HART. Thank you, Chairman Mica. The pleasure was ours to 

have you come and see what we do because we are proud of it and 

we love to show it off. 

Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, 

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

testify today on behalf of the NTSB. 

From the start of the Air Safety Board and the Civil Aeronautics 

Act of 1938, Congress directed that the Board ‘‘reduce accidents by 

conducting studies and investigations on matters pertaining to 

safety and air navigation and the prevention of accidents.’’ 

In the history of aviation, recorders and the wealth of data they 

provide are the technology that has most helped the NTSB and our 

international counterparts achieve this objective of preventing accidents and improving safety. Without them, we are unable to determine what really happened, as was the case during the 2-years 

that the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder remained under water after the crash of Air France Flight 447. Recorders significantly enhance our ability to determine what happened, and from that to make recommendations to prevent 

recurrences. 

From the early days of the NTSB, we have recommended that recorders be more robust because of the lessons learned in our safety 

investigations, and today, more than 40 years later, we are again 

asking for more improvements to recorder technology. Last month 

we asked the FAA to require that commercial aircraft operating 

more than 50 nautical miles from shore be equipped to transmit 

their location within 6 nautical miles in the event of a crash and 

to require that these aircraft be equipped with a low-frequency location device that will transmit their underwater location for 90 
15 

days. We also recommended a way to recover data without requiring underwater retrieval and that all of these requirements be harmonized internationally. 

Also, accidents such as SilkAir and EgyptAir remind us that seeing what is happening in the cockpit would help us know much better the totality of what happened, so the NTSB also recommended 

that cockpits have image recorders to capture that information for 

2 hours. These recommendations are not about gotcha moments, 

they are about learning and improving safety. 

Earlier this month I participated in the high-level safety conference at ICAO that has been referred to previously with my colleagues who are here today. At this meeting, the ICAO member 

States considered a way forward to dealing with the issue of tracking aircraft in real time. The tragic events over the last year have 

focused the entire international aviation community in developing 

new standards. 

The conference proposed the development of performance-based 

standards to improve tracking, locating, and data recovery, as you 

have already heard, and similar to what the NTSB proposed in our 

recent recommendations. The ICAO proposals are a critical step toward the option of a performance-based standard. More work needs 

to be done and the NTSB will continue to provide its guidance and 

counsel as informed by our investigation experience to our ICAO 

Ambassador as that process moves forward. 

The NTSB and its international counterparts have concluded 

that in this day and age lost aircraft and lost data from those aircraft should be a thing of the past. 

Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic to advance aviation safety worldwide. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Hart follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will hear next from Kevin Hiatt. He is the Senior Vice President for Safety and Flight Operations of IATA. Welcome, sir. 

Thank you also for your past cooperation, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN HIATT 

Mr. HIATT. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Chairman Mica, Ranking 

Member Duckworth, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 

250-plus members of the International Air Transport Association, 

IATA, on this very important issue of aircraft tracking. 

IATA’s mission in the 70 years of its existence has been to represent, lead, and serve the global air transport industry. Our members account for 84 percent of global air traffic. IATA and its member airlines are committed to maintaining a safe and efficient international air transportation system. IATA member airlines have an 

exemplary safety record, with 0.3 accidents per one million flights 

in 2013. Aviation is safe and remains safe because its culture is 

one of seeking continuous improvement. 

In 2003, IATA advanced global aviation safety with its introduction of the IATA Operational Safety Audit, known as IOSA, which 

is an internationally recognized and acceptable evaluation system 

designed to assess the operational members and management and 

control of systems and airlines. All IATA members are IOSA registered and must remain registered to maintain IATA membership. 

From 2009 through 2013, the accident rate for airlines on the 

IOSA registry was 2.5 times better than that for a non-IOSA registered airline. As such, IOSA has become the global standard, recognized well beyond IATA membership. As of October 2014, 154, or 

38 percent, of the 402 airlines that are IOSA registered were nonIATA members. 

In 2014, commercial aviation experienced tragedies that remind 

us that we cannot rest on our safety record and that we must do 

all our best to anticipate the unanticipated, even if the possibilities 

are deemed extremely remote. We are nearing an infamous first 

anniversary of the unexplained loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight 

370, a State-of-the-art commercial aircraft operating in radar-controlled airspace. 

Soon after the disappearance of Flight 370, IATA brought together partners from across the aviation industry, including airlines, air navigation service providers, pilots, manufacturers, the 

civil aviation organization, and many other key stakeholders to undertake a critical review of current and future aircraft tracking capabilities, and identify near-term options to improve these capabilities. 

Throughout the summer and fall of 2014, this task force reviewed today’s technologies, procedures, and best practices in terms 

of aircraft tracking. The task force found that most airlines track 

their fleets through a variety of means, including the vast majority 

who track through air traffic surveillance services, where they 

exist. We also verified that there are existing technologies, services, 

and procedures that can enhance aircraft tracking in the near-term 
25 

and that a performance-based approach must be employed. There 

is no one-size-fits-all solution. Established procedures must be followed and, where needed, improved to ensure clear, consistent, and 

timely communications between air navigation service providers 

and the airlines. 

While the focus of the industry group was on the near-term, it 

was recognized that emerging technologies will create new capabilities in the global air navigation infrastructure, including an improved ability to track aircraft. 

The task force report was provided to ICAO in early December. 

ICAO incorporated its findings into their Global Aeronautical Distress Safety System document, known as GADSS. GADSS is a consent of operation for routine, non-routine, emergency, and search 

and rescue situations. While these various stages are well defined 

in the GADSS document, IATA is concerned with suggestions that 

our industry should implement unnecessary solutions in the nearterm that would be more effectively addressed as more effective 

technology solutions are implemented over the next years. For example, any deployment of automatic deployable flight recorders 

would be redundant for some airlines that implement real-time 

data streaming. 

On February 2d through the 5th, 2015, ICAO held a high-level 

safety conference. The agenda from that conference addressed several key areas, including aircraft tracking, risks to commercial 

aviation in conflict zones, and sharing and protection of safety information. ICAO member States concluded that, one, international 

standards for aircraft tracking are needed; and, two, that a performance-based approach was appropriate when implementing 

these standards. 

IATA, along with other key stakeholders, will participate in an 

implementation initiative that will evaluate the feasibility of these 

proposed standards and provide guidance to both government and 

industry in terms of procedural gaps that may exist. IATA called 

on ICAO and its member States to move forward in such a way 

that does not result in premature, redundant, or unnecessary regulation. 

There are some who believe that new equipment is needed on 

board air today to enhance aircraft tracking. IATA believes that 

the immediate focus should remain on leveraging the equipment already installed on aircraft. More importantly, IATA believes that 

there is an urgent need to ensure adherence to the existing, clearly 

defined roles and responsibilities of air navigation service providers 

for airlines. 

Airlines are responsible for safely and efficiently carrying passengers. Air navigation service providers are responsible for maintaining safe separation and monitoring their airspace at all times. 

Furthermore, the air navigation service provider is the controlling 

authority managing routine and non-normal situations. As an example, an aircraft may deviate off track for a number or reasons, 

such as weather avoidance, vectoring for traffic, or for situations 

far more serious. In all cases, this responsibility and resulting 

timely action remains with the air navigation service provider. Air 

navigation service providers are also responsible for initiating 

alerts and search and rescue activities. 
26 

We believe that strict adherence to these roles and responsibilities will advance aviation safety more effectively and efficiently 

than layers of overly redundant mitigation. We also underscore the 

importance of these roles and responsibilities and procedural compliance not only throughout the implementation initiative, but as 

we continue to work with governments and other stakeholders to 

ensure the safety of global aviation. 

IATA and its member airlines recognize that commercial aviation 

is not sustainable if the public does not have confidence in the safety of the global air traffic system. The credibility of our industry 

is at risk when a modern commercial aircraft vanishes while under 

air traffic control and that, in absence of the facts, speculation defines the accident. 

What the airline industry will never allow is speculation about 

it’s No. 1 priority, the safety of its passengers and crew. Airlines 

remain committed to ensuring the safe and efficient operations of 

some 100,000 flights every day, and IATA will remain a vocal leader and strong voice in taking whatever steps are needed to honor 

this commitment. 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, on behalf of IATA, thank you again 

for the opportunity to speak today. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Hiatt follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and thank you to all of our witnesses for 

their testimony. We will now turn to some questions. 

First of all, Mr. Ambassador, I heard some timeframes cited as 

to when ICAO would actually institute a standard. Now, probably 

the most basic standard, and we just heard Mr. Hiatt talk about 

a requirement—well, first of all, about 95 percent of the aircraft already have equipment, that has a transponder so we can identify 

where the aircraft is, or some type of equipment where we have a 

transmitting device, is that correct? 

Mr. Hiatt, is that correct? 

Mr. HIATT. Not for the exact number, but you are correct, a vast 

majority having tracking equipment. 

Mr. MICA. The vast majority. OK, so we have that. But the most 

simple thing would be to have a requirement in place as soon as 

possible that that be deployed, that that equipment be deployed. I 

think on 370 it was not deployed; it was on the aircraft, but not 

deployed. Is anyone aware of that, whether 370 had that equipment? I am sure it did; it was the most modern. 

Mr. HIATT. MH370 was a Boeing 777, and it did have a transponder on board. 

Mr. MICA. OK, so we will go back to the Ambassador. My initial 

question is, when will we have in place even the most basic requirement that this equipment be deployed and kept operational? 

Ambassador LAWSON. Certainly. Let me go back and talk a little 

bit about what ICAO is trying to do and what the U.S. mission is 

trying to support. 

What we have put forth for discussion among the member States 

is a performance-based standard. 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Ambassador LAWSON. We are not prescribing any particular type 

of equipment. Why? Because, as you said, there are a lot of different technologies that meet this requirement; not all airlines 

have the same, but they basically have the ability to track their 

airlines. 

Mr. MICA. So if they have it, the question is making certain they 

use it. We had an aircraft with 239 people that had it, and it 

wasn’t operational. 

Ambassador LAWSON. It is not that it wasn’t operational. We 

don’t know. The problem is we really don’t know what happened 

with MH370. 

Mr. MICA. Well, that is true. 

Ambassador LAWSON. But the fact of the matter is what we believe is that it is not just the technology that we have to focus on, 

it is the technology and the coordination of the industry and the 

airlines and the air traffic control procedures. 

Mr. MICA. But they weren’t able to track the aircraft in a time 

in which we knew where it was when it went down. Then, when 

it went down, we weren’t able to locate the aircraft because is it 

the transponder? 

What do you have there? 

Ambassador LAWSON. Well, as—go ahead. 

Mr. MICA. What do you have there, Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. This is the cockpit voice recorder. But is pretty much 

the same—— 
32 

Mr. MICA. Is that what pings? 

Mr. HART [continuing]. As the flight data recorder, and, yes, that 

is what pings underwater. 

Mr. MICA. OK. But we didn’t know where it went down and we 

couldn’t locate it; it wasn’t either operational or it didn’t operate 

long enough. 

Ambassador LAWSON. And it is precisely because we don’t know 

exactly what went wrong that we are not prescribing specific fixes. 

Mr. MICA. Again, I have to go back. We are stuck with all of us 

have to go back and say when will there be some action by ICAO 

to institute something. I heard some different dates. First I heard 

a date of later November this year, then November 2016. I heard 

another date of March. What is going to take place when as far as 

some standards? 

Ambassador LAWSON. What is happening this week is that ICAO 

is sending out to its member States the proposal with respect 

to—— 

Mr. MICA. That is this? 

Ambassador LAWSON. Yes. With respect to the performancebased standards that we want to have implemented. That is going 

out this week. We expect comments back from the member States 

and we are scheduled to take this up at the council level to make 

this formal in November of this year. 

Mr. MICA. Not until November. 

Ambassador LAWSON. Not until November of this year. We have 

to get responses back. But, in the meantime, we are not waiting 

on the formal responses to start an initiative to test out what will 

work and what doesn’t work. It is not just the technology; it is how 

the technology is integrated with the processes that we have in 

place, and we are setting up an initiative in Asia that is going to 

be started late summer. FAA is going to be involved. 

Mr. MICA. So we will be well into 2016 before that? 

Ambassador LAWSON. Into 2015. Late summer 2015. 

Mr. MICA. But well into 2016 by the time the standard is adopted. 

Ambassador LAWSON. No. November 2015 is when we propose to 

adopt the standard. 

Mr. MICA. OK. OK, I am sorry. 

Ambassador LAWSON. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. I kept hearing 2016. 

Ambassador LAWSON. I understand your confusion, because this 

is like light speed. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And, again, you said we are moving a lot faster 

than they have previously. Well, that is good. OK, well, that was 

my major question for you. 

Mr. HART. May I add a point to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. In fact, O was going to ask you again not only 

this short-term solution. We heard about data streaming as another solution and global position satellites, which are soon, I 

guess, with Arion, 2017 will be in place. 

Mr. Hart, could you tell us where we are there? 

Mr. HART. Well, as Ambassador Lawson noted that we don’t 

know why we stopped being able to see where that airplane was, 

and that is part of the reason why our recommendations included 
33 

exploring ways to make the systems tamper-proof, because we don’t 

know whether they failed or were turned off intentionally. But that 

is why we have our recommendation. 

Mr. MICA. So we don’t know if it was a terrorist act; we don’t 

know if it was mechanical failure; we don’t know natural disaster 

due to storm or something like that. We really don’t know. 

Mr. HART. That is correct. 

Mr. MICA. And you told me, I think, the other day when I visited, 

the long-term solution for identifying where an aircraft is in the 

global network. And I believe Arion is about, let’s see, Iridium was 

going to launch these satellites and now Arion has 81 of them 

going up, and they should be launched globally, 81 of them, I believe, in 2017. And that would solve part of the problem? 

Mr. HART. That would aim at the tracking problem. We also 

would like to get more data so that, if we lose an airplane underwater, we don’t have to go underwater to find out what went 

wrong. So it is several aspects. 

Mr. MICA. One of the problems we have is that usually the 

pinging device goes out after 30 days. Are you recommending that 

that be changed so we would have a longer period to search for 

these aircraft? 

Mr. HART. Yes. We included recommendations not only to increase the time from 30 days to 90 days, but also to change the frequency to a frequency that can be tracked for a much greater distance than this pinger. 

Mr. MICA. And data streaming, are there existing tracking capabilities over sea and land to have data streaming work now or does 

that rely on a global network, satellite network? 

Mr. HART. Sort of all of the above. The ability to track is very 

good if you can’t turn it off. That was our problem with MH370, 

we lost the signal and we don’t know why. So that is one of the 

challenges, is, was it turned off intentionally. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, that is interesting. But you could make 

changes to the equipment, I know nothing about the technology, 

that would not allow it to be disarmed or disabled? 

Mr. HART. Our recommendations have asked for the FAA to explore ways to make those systems tamper-proof, that is correct. 

Mr. MICA. OK. OK. And you have a total membership in IATA 

of about 84 percent of the airlines globally, is that correct? 

Mr. HIATT. Pretty close, yes, 250 members. 

Mr. MICA. Now, Malaysia Air was obviously a member. 

Mr. HIATT. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. So I can’t say that the problem is just among the 16 

percent, because here we have an example of a sophisticated aircraft, a member of the highest level operation I would consider 

your membership of airline operators, and we still have a problem. 

The only other thing is I understand there is some dispute about 

the size of the aircraft, the number of passengers. Was the proposal 

at 16 or something? 

Ambassador LAWSON. The proposal that ICAO is setting forth is 

that these rules would apply to any aircraft with more than 19 passengers. 

Mr. MICA. Nineteen passengers. OK, very good. Well, most informative. Thank you all. 
34 

Let me turn now to our ranking member, Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So I know just enough about this issue to be of danger to myself 

and others, and I am getting a little bit confused. 

Mr. Hiatt, could you just address the different issues of, just very 

briefly, the different transponders? You know, we are talking about 

here in the U.S. we are going to 80 SB. I understand what you are 

saying about there is no need to spend more money on equipment 

if you already have something that is capable of doing it or that 

is redundant. I own a 1959 Piper Comanche that my husband and 

I bought. We paid more for our 2006 F–150 than we did for the airplane, just to give folks an idea of how old this aircraft is. 

And it was, when we bought it, it was fully, fully, I mean, it was 

a sweet, sweet panel for 1972. It had LORAN and all that good 

stuff, but there is still equipment in there. My six-pack is still perfectly good. I don’t need to upgrade that into a glass cockpit; it 

works just fine. We did just now invest in ADS-B Out in our nav 

com. 

I guess what I am trying to ask you is all of your membership 

have some form, right, of ADS-B Out, an extended squidder or 

1090ES, or something along those lines, is that not correct? 

Mr. HIATT. Your analogy with your aircraft is very accurate, especially when you talk about LORAN. I learned on LORAN; but we 

are dating ourselves. Anyway, to go back to your question, your assumption is that, yes, all of our carriers do have a transponder. 

There are updated transponders that are now coming into effect. 

Not to get too technical, but they will allow the ADS-B, ADS-C, 

which is contract information out. 

Now, not all airlines have the same equipment and the availabilities worldwide. If we think about in the United States, it is very 

sophisticated. But when you get into other regions of the world, it 

is not quite as sophisticated, and those airlines have adapted their 

operation to the region that they are in, so it dictates what type 

of equipment they would have onboard. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So there would actually conceivably be airlines, 

say throughout the Pacific Islands or throughout Asia, that don’t 

have a 1090ES or some level of a squidding position reporting system? 

Mr. HIATT. Potentially, yes. But most of them all have the transponder. But there is the transponder with the 1096 squidding 

availability that will be put into place that will allow you to take 

advantage of the ADS-C, ADS-B type operation. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Is your organization supportive or are you taking a wait and see or are you opposed to ICAO saying that we 

should have that squidding capability in all aircraft that are carrying passengers in international airspace? 

Mr. HIATT. What IATA is in favor of and is very strongly for our 

airline members is a performance-based approach, as the Ambassador had said, and that performance-based approach will allow us 

to develop what is the best in technology and utilize several different technologies. You know, we are talking about ADS-B, ADSC. We also have other technology that is available, and what we 

want to do is make sure that there isn’t a regulation that might 
35 

come out that would specify exactly what you need, because you 

may be able to take advantage of better technology along the way. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Oh, I absolutely agree with you on that. But 

I think I am speaking to a capability here. 

Mr. Ambassador, would it not make sense to have a performancebased standard that says that all aircraft that carry passengers, especially in international airspace, over international waters, as in 

the case of Malaysian Airlines, have some sort of system, whatever 

that technology is, that is capable of squidding or extending 

squidding, which is sending out bursts of position data continuously, without having the aircraft to be interrogated by radar first? 

Ambassador LAWSON. That is exactly what we are proposing. The 

specific terms that you are using are not in the document that has 

gone out this week, but that is the concept; that you figure out 

what kind of technology you have, what kind of technology is available, and we coordinate the processes with the air navigation service providers and others, search and rescue, so on and so forth, so 

that we all know how to work these things together. But that is 

exactly the process that we are embarking on at this point in time, 

that is exactly right. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. And I don’t know who would answer this, 

whether Mr. Hiatt or the Ambassador. With military aircraft that 

would be launched or sent out there, you know, radar basically 

tells you where to go. Say you are trying to intercept an aircraft, 

for example, a non-responsive aircraft or something, and you are 

sending military aircraft. 

In the U.S., radar would tell you where to go to find these guys, 

but if you are over international waters out there where you are 

in, I mean, none of it is uncontrolled, but do they have the capability of receiving the data in some of these aircraft in the military 

so that they can go find an unresponsive aircraft or an aircraft that 

is gone missing, as in the case of Malaysian Airlines? 

Ambassador LAWSON. You are talking about a level of analysis 

that we are not at yet. Right now we are talking about getting everybody on the same page in terms of normal tracking and abnormal tracking, and you are talking about distress tracking at that 

point. 

We are working on all three of these levels, and, again, this is 

a performance-based standard that we are trying to use and we are 

going to utilize every, or as the Ambassador to the U.S. mission, 

I will do what I can to push ICAO to utilize all of these technologies and make sure that we don’t leave any space uncontrolled, 

if you will. Not controlled, but that we identify the various possibilities that you have identified and say what would we do in this 

situation, what would we do in that situation. The first such initiative, the first such test will take place in the summer of this year 

in Asia. The FAA will be involved. We are going to involve IATA, 

NTSB. We are going to make sure that everybody who would have 

a hand in an actual situation has a hand in figuring out what the 

procedures should be. So the questions that you ask are the questions that are going to be asked, and hopefully we will get some 

answers. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous. 
36 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. DeSaulnier, the gentleman from California, you are recognized. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am slightly more 

dangerous, I suppose, than the ranking member, or maybe more, 

because I know really nothing about this other than the fact that 

I am flying a lot more often, so I am more concerned about this 

issue coming back and forth from the San Francisco Bay area most 

every weekend. 

Mr. Hart, nice to see you again. 

Mr. HART. Thank you. The pleasure is mine. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Well, it is mutual. Maybe it is like Claude 

Rains and Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca; I hope this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. 

So as someone who is not familiar with the technology, but is 

from an area that prides itself on new innovation, it seems to a 

layperson that it is sort of hard to believe that we don’t have more 

refined technology. In January you mentioned that it really 

shouldn’t be, if I am reading the question properly, to obtain critical flight data faster, you really shouldn’t have the need for immediate underwater retrieval. 

So this is directed at you, but if either of the other panelists 

want to chime in. So are there constant technological improvements? Have these crashes, including the 2009 Air France Flight 

447 crash, has this started to encourage or incentivize new technologies and how close are we? You have mentioned near-term, medium-term, long-term. Maybe a little more specific as to how we get 

to the long-term as quickly as possible so you don’t have to spend 

all these resources trying to actually get the box back. 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. New technologies are developing rapidly. The issue, as you have already heard several 

times today, is the implementation internationally, because not 

only does it need to be approved by the regulators in the significant 

countries, but then they have to harmonize that so that the borders 

are transparent. So the challenge is getting 191 countries to agree 

to where to take this, and that is one of the reasons that we stress 

performance-based, because there are so many different scenarios 

depending on the situation. 

Mr. HIATT. I will just add, Congressman, that the industry is 

very onboard with looking at streaming data. We do recognize, 

though, that the automatic deployable flight recorder will go into 

effect, but we also feel that the technology is moving so fast that 

it will help the NTSB and in accident investigation to have that 

streaming data. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And just incentivizing from the private sector’s 

perspective, are there liability issues? I mean, obviously, there is 

good will and the confidence of the flying public, but are there 

other things that are impelling more R&D to make the technology 

be deployable faster, or is it mostly just getting multiple jurisdictions and countries to agree to the technology, as you just Stated? 

Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. It is some of all of the above, because the incentives, 

ultimately the incentives are that, as the technologies advance, 

they are going to help the airlines be able to operate more effi-
37 

ciently through continuous knowledge back and forth. That is going 

to be, ultimately, a very strong incentive. But certainly getting everybody to agree is a major, major challenge. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Welcome and recognize Mr. Price. Mr. Price, Ms. Duckworth put 

your full Statement in the record, but you are recognized for questions. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance to 

sit in on this hearing today on a matter of long-term interest for 

myself and Mr. Duncan. 

I want to congratulate Ms. Duckworth on her assuming the leadership role she has and also, of course, welcome her back to the 

Congress. 

I do appreciate your hospitality here today and the chance to ask 

a couple questions. I know my full Statement was submitted in the 

record. This Statement reflects work that Representative Duncan 

and I have done for many years, and the two bills that address 

flight tracking and data recovery, the SAFE Act, which would require the use of deployable recorders, and the SAFE-T Act, which 

would much more broadly require FAA to take a close look at all 

the technologies on the table and develop domestic requirements in 

line with international standards. 

Ambassador, I understand, before I arrived, you talked about the 

unaccustomed speed with which ICAO was acting on this matter 

to act post-Malaysia 370, but I do have to note that this is not a 

new matter in this body, and the discussions have been going on 

for years, including discussions in your organization. 

At least since Air France 417 these discussions have been going 

on. Representative Duncan and I have introduced these bills multiple times; we have had report language in appropriations bills, 

most recently 2014, then again in the current year, encouraging 

the FAA to consider the costs and benefits of deployable recorder 

technology to work with the NTSB to support U.S. and international initiatives in this area. 

So this isn’t new, but fortunately it does seem to be reaching a 

heightened level of attention, so hopefully we can sort through the 

different proposals and do something that actually makes a difference in something that does seem, to the layman, I think, seems 

just obsolete that we cannot deal with these aircraft that go down, 

that we never find in some cases, or in any case have these expensive, heart-wrenching searches that, surely, given the technology 

we have and have actually deployed on some of our military aircraft, surely this isn’t necessary. 

Now, I am pleased to see that ICAO’s tracking recommendations 

are coming in conjunction with or viewed as a complement, let’s 

say, to automatic deployable flight recorders. That is a proven technology. I understand that you are currently moving forward to 

make the use of the deployable flight recorders a recommended 

practice. Is that accurate? And the timetable you gave earlier, does 

that apply to this recommendation in particular? 

Ambassador LAWSON. The recommendation that we have on the 

table is performance-based. Deployable flight recorders is a possible 
38 

solution that would meet that standard. Currently, the letter that 

has gone out does not specify any particular type of technology, but 

that is clearly part of the technology that we would expect to be 

implemented. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, that leads me to our other two witnesses, 

and since I have limited time, let me just explore this a little further with them, the complementarity of these systems. 

Mr. Hiatt, you actually Stated that deployable recorders would 

be redundant for airlines that planned to implement real-time data 

streaming. I wonder about that. Could you clarify? Are airlines 

that use real-time data streaming transmitting exactly the same 

number of flight data and cockpit voice parameters that a standard 

or deployable black box is required to record for accident investigations? What happened to triggered data or real-time streaming if 

onboard satellite equipment suddenly loses power or if the aircraft 

loses its lock on the satellite? 

And then, Mr. Hart, of all the technologies being discussed, 

which ones work after the crash has occurred: automatic distress 

tracking systems, real-time data streaming, deployable recorders? 

Clearly, that is available after the crash has occurred; it ejects on 

impact, it is right there. Does equipping aircraft with automatic 

tracking capability guaranty that it will provide the actual position 

of the aircraft after it goes down? 

You see what I am getting at? What are the distinctive features 

and distinctive strengths of these different technologies? Are they, 

in fact, redundant and, in particular, what are the capabilities of 

the deployable recorders. That is obviously what I am getting at. 

And I would appreciate both of you responding. 

Mr. HART. The specific recommendation that we made regarding 

finding aircraft that have crashed is that they, when in distress, 

are doing something that makes it possible to locate them within 

six miles after they crash. There are so many ways to do that. We 

didn’t specify specifically a way to do it, we just said we want to 

be able to find the aircraft within six miles of where it crashed so 

that we are not searching the entire Indian Ocean. 

Mr. HIATT. On the equipment and, as you would say, the redundancy, it would actually be duplicative in terms of the fact that we 

already know that the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder will remain on the aircraft. What we are looking at is the 

technology to harvest that information sooner in order to be able 

to analyze what happened in the particular event. 

Now, as far as locating the aircraft, streaming data is a byproduct of tracking and could be utilized by the airline itself. 

Mr. PRICE. That is the point, though, isn’t it? Yes, the recorder 

is there, but the recorder is at the bottom of the sea. 

Mr. HIATT. So, with the streaming data, it already starts to point 

to what has taken place while the recorders are being recovered. 

If you go back and look at the history on the Air France 447 accident, there was a lot of information that was harvested within the 

last, really, 20 minutes of that flight that helped to find out where 

that aircraft was while, unfortunately, the flight data recorder and 

the cockpit voice recorder were still trying to be located. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. And what I am asking you is are these kinds of 

data, the kind of streaming data you are describing and the data 
39 

that would hypothetical be available had the black box ejected and 

floated, are those literally redundant? 

Mr. HIATT. It would depend upon the parameters that we are actually required to provide to the authority, such as, in this case, 

the FAA, as far as the number of parameters that we would have 

tracked on the aircraft, which then goes back to the NTSB or the 

investigative authority as to the usefulness of the data. There are 

certain amount of parameters. We have progressed over many 

years, as you well know, with going from basically 10 parameters 

that you are looking at a tin disk now to volatile data and all the 

other things that can be harvested. So there are the basics and 

then there are those in addition to. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time has 

expired. The bills that Mr. Duncan and I have put forward certainly anticipate and would promote the consideration of this full 

range of techniques and gathering methods. But I think we also obviously are motivated by a conviction that the proven technology 

that would instantly provide location of a downed aircraft, there is 

a certain burden of proof on those who would say they could replicate that or render it redundant. 

Yes, sir? 

Ambassador LAWSON. I just wanted to say that these are specifically the types of questions and concerns that I will bring back to 

ICAO through our mission as we progress through our initiative 

and see what works and the procedures that will be in place. These 

are exactly the types of questions we are going to make sure that 

we get some answers to. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Price, just a question, if you would yield. Your 

proposed legislation you and Mr. Duncan put together really is 

triggered by ICAO, isn’t it, by ICAO action? 

Mr. PRICE. The short answer is yes. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. PRICE. We have had these concerns for a long time. The National Transportation Safety Board in our own Country, for years, 

has had this under advisement, has explored this. But, yes—— 

Mr. MICA. But you still had to wait for them to—— 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. We are latching on to the ICAO process, 

yes, that is true. 

Mr. MICA. And one of my concerns is I was trying to get the 

timeframe, and even if we get to November and they adopt it, I 

saw this document that came from the ad-hoc working group from 

ICAO, and it says how long would it take for States, that would 

be the countries, and industries to implement this proposal. And 

then the chart says there are two to 5 years. That is just aircraft 

tracking. And more than 10 years for ADT and ADFR. 

Is that accurate? I guess that is their estimate. So even if we are 

adopt it at the end of the year 2016, we are looking at two to 5 

years, 18 onto 20, 2023 or something before this is implemented. 

Ambassador LAWSON. That is the current timetable that is in 

this document. We are at the beginning of this stage. We are at the 

beginning of the process. 

Mr. MICA. So, Mr. Price, we still have a long way to go. 
40 

Mr. PRICE. Well, let me just, in response to the way you put the 

question, though, our legislation does not depend on ICAO action; 

it is action that our Country would take. And we have urged repeatedly our own FAA to move forward in considering this. But, 

yes, we do anticipate conformity to ICAO standards. 

Mr. MICA. Well, the other thing, too, is, OK, we have I guess they 

are all corporate members of your organization, IATA, and you 

have 250 members. What is your current standard? Because you 

don’t have to deal with the cumbersome process of implementing, 

and you had a member, Malaysia Air, who obviously didn’t have 

functioning equipment. We don’t know what the reason was, 

whether it wasn’t operable or was made inoperable. What is your 

current standard? Can’t you implement something right away, or 

have you, and what is your current standard? 

Mr. HIATT. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, Congressman, 

we have the IOSA registry, which is a standard that every one of 

our 250 members has to abide by. 

Mr. MICA. Now, is that before March of last year? 

Mr. HIATT. Oh, yes. 

Mr. MICA. So they weren’t complying? Then Malaysia Air wasn’t 

complying, or we don’t know if they were complying? 

Mr. HIATT. We can’t say whether Malaysia Air was in ‘‘standard 

compliance’’ or not because we really don’t know exactly what happened. 

Mr. MICA. Do you have any enforcement capability? 

Mr. HIATT. The only enforcement capability really is the fact that 

their name or their organization, if they don’t make the standard 

through their biannual audits, would be removed from the registry, 

which also then results in them being removed as a member of 

IATA. 

Mr. MICA. And we would have the capability of passing a law 

that mandates that FAA require this on any domestic aircraft or 

any carrier coming into the United States. I think we would have 

that capability. 

Mr. Price, Ms. Duckworth, wouldn’t you think? 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. So maybe that might be a motivator. 

We have aircraft now flying in from your organization that are 

in non-compliance? I said almost all the aircraft had the technical 

capability of compliance, and you agreed to that. 

Mr. HIATT. That is correct. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Are you aware of any that are coming in that belong to your organization that don’t have that capability? 

Mr. HIATT. No, because—— 

Mr. MICA. So if Mr. Price, Ms. Duckworth, and I, we introduce 

our bill that requires that any aircraft that comes into our domestic 

flight operations area have this equipment, that it be operable, and 

that it have certain requirements, performance, you wanted performance, you don’t have a problem with that. 

Mr. HIATT. Well, I am not sure if I have a—when you say a problem with that, I am sure my members would definitely raise their 

eyebrows on it. 

Mr. MICA. It might be coming. You might alert them, because 

when you go back now, and I love cooperating with ICAO trying 
41 

to get this, they have 191 countries to deal with, all of them at different levels with different agendas, but we have an obligation to 

the American public. We are representing the United States. 

We also put 25 percent in the paying for ICAO, and we need 

some certainty that aircraft—and usually we set the standard, and 

by the standard we set the rest of the world usually complies or 

they sure as hell ain’t gonna fly in. I mean, we went through this 

with the European Union’s mission trading scheme. They impose 

on us, when we get to their border, or they wanted to impose from 

our airport to their landing cite in the EU certain restrictions and 

requirements. We sure as heck can require standards for those flying into the United States if they want that, right, Mr. Hart? You 

don’t have to approve the proposal, but you would confirm that we 

have that ability. 

Mr. HART. I believe we have that ability, I am not sure. But the 

problem is not in the U.S.; the problem is elsewhere in remote locations. That is where the problem occurs. 

Mr. MICA. That is true, but, again, we would set a standard for 

which we would hope the others would comply. And, again, we 

can’t assure everything in the world. We are trying to work with 

our Ambassador; he is trying to work with those 191 countries. 

But, again, we are looking at November, then we are looking at two 

to 5 years. I am trying to speed the thing up. He is doing the best 

he can. 

The other thing, too, is we haven’t passed a resolution from the 

House or Congress, and I am not sure if that would help any. I 

know we sent letters up to ICAO; we have met with the president 

of ICAO and he is cooperating. But what we are trying to do is get 

this in place as soon as possible. 

It is always good to have some institutional knowledge, but to 

hear Mr. Price and Mr. Duncan, well, we have been working on 

this for years. They are ahead of the curve, but we are not getting 

to the—— 

Mr. PRICE. That is right, Mr. Chairman, and we have had, for 

years, referenced the interest in ICAO and whoever else was working on this, but we have always anticipated that our Country 

should lead, our Country should set the standard. 

Mr. MICA. I might say, and I will tell you today I may look at 

some legislation to move this forward, even if it is only for setting 

a U.S. standard. We have always been the leader. We need to 

maintain that leadership role. We also need to help set the standard for the rest of the world. And there will be Americans flying 

on some of those planes around the globe. We can’t guaranty all 

this in place instantly, but I think we can motivate and initiate action that will light a fire. Sometimes you have to do that. 

So that is the end of my questions. 

Madam Ranking Member, you are recognized. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I represent a district of manufacturers and small business owners, and 

I find, oftentimes, that industry can react far faster than governments can, and sometimes government does need to get out of industry’s way and allow them to implement things that are going 

to be good for the industry and good for their customers, as well. 
42 

With that, Mr. Hiatt, I just want to give you an opportunity to 

talk about your aircraft tracking task force and the near-term aircraft tracking recommendations that your organization is saying 

should be implemented even before the new ICAO recommendations can be put into place. So can you talk a little bit about some 

of those recommendations coming out of the task force? 

Mr. HIATT. Sure, Congresswoman. We took a very detailed look 

at all of the options that were available in technology; there were 

over 27 submissions from different manufacturers in different 

areas of the world to tell us what they could do to track an aircraft. 

What we looked at in that sense was the fact of how soon any 

of these could be implemented, and it really got down to about literally five or six things that we could do as an industry right away 

with the aircraft and the existing equipage, as you went back and 

we were talking about the transponders and the squidder. 

But it could be, as I would say, and please excuse this word, 

primitive as nothing more than a VHF or an HF voice communication to let the controlling entity know where you are. Now, the controlling entity be either the airline or the air navigation service 

provider. 

Now, technologically speaking, is that advanced? It is something 

that has been used for years and will continue to be used for years; 

it is still being used in Africa and it is still being used in certain 

places in oceanic airspace. So with ADS-B, ADS-C, and then VHF 

capabilities and then other tracking capabilities that come along 

with ACARS on board your aircraft, those are the ones that our 

members can actually take advantage of right now. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. OK. Well, I understand what you are saying 

about the low tech sometimes works out better. When we were flying in Iraq, in fact, the U.S. Army was using Blue Force tracker, 

which is GPS-based, which never worked in that thing, which is a 

dead computer taking up space in my aircraft; and we in fact used 

HF to communicate with each other all throughout the country and 

something that has been around for a long time. So I understand. 

Ambassador Lawson, you have a thankless task. You are hurting 

cats over there and I understand the challenges that you are facing. I guess what I want to know is what can we do to be helpful 

to you, as you represent the United States in ICAO, to help you 

help push these standards further along, and what can we do here 

as Members of Congress to assist you in the work that you are trying to do? 

Ambassador LAWSON. Thank you for the question and thank you 

for the offer. This opportunity to express your concerns goes a long 

way. The United States is one vote on a 36-member council, but 

our influence is greater than that; and to be able to go back and 

tell other members of the council, tell the president of the council, 

the secretary general that the intense interest of this Congress, of 

this committee, of your voices as to what needs to be done and 

what needs to be done quickly will go a long way. 

I am somewhat concerned about the possibility of kind of the 

Balkanization of different rules that go beyond what ICAO requires 

in terms of international airspace. The United States has complete 

control over its own airspace and we should continue to do that and 

we will not relinquish that, but what we are talking about is, as 
43 

Mr. Hiatt said, flights over oceanic areas, over remote areas, this 

is where the danger occurs; and we are concerned about U.S. passengers who are flying on non-U.S. airlines. 

And ICAO has done a remarkable job over the years of focusing 

on its primary goal, the safety and security of worldwide civil aviation, and it has done a remarkable job at that. It is plodding at 

times; it is frustrating at times, and hurting cats is a great analogy. But make no mistake, your voices are heard and I will make 

sure that your voices are heard throughout the halls of ICAO, and 

that is a very good help to me. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Just finally, Mr. Hart, as I craft this legislation to 

move forward, let me ask you a question. First, you don’t want to 

do things that impose hardship on industry. One, equipment already exists with the transponder. Part of the problem is keeping 

it on. Is there a problem or great expense to enable a flight recorder to stay on? 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. The challenge is not necessarily the expense, the challenge is that any time you have a system that may go bad, you don’t want that system’s badness to infect the rest of the airplane. So that is kind of the challenge of 

making it so it can’t be turned off. Yet, we are moving in that direction because the FAA has certified, recently, various airplane 

designs that do have—— 

Mr. MICA. So if my bill says it has to stay on, they have to take 

technical capability of making it stay on without great cost or possible issues of bad things happening. 

Mr. HART. We are on the learning curve of figuring out how to 

do that, and the big challenge—— 

Mr. MICA. So if I give them, like, a year to comply, they could 

probably deal with that. 

Mr. HART. I couldn’t specify a timeframe, but we are moving in 

that direction. 

Mr. MICA. The other thing, too, is to get more than 30 days 

pinger. I think when I was there you said that there is a capability 

of making some adjustments so that most of the existing equipment could have a longer transmitting life? 

Mr. HART. I would have to get back to you with respect to that. 

I am not sure of the answer to that. I know that we can make 

equipment that has 90-day capability. Whether I can take this one 

and modify it to make it—— 

Mr. MICA. Can you give us that answer? 

Mr. HART. I would be happy to get back to you. 

Mr. MICA. Again, I am not trying to impose something on industry that would be great cost. I would imagine, again, within a year 

or we give them a year and a half, whatever, to make those 

changes. But I am trying to get from a technical standpoint what 

can be done, and if I impose it on those flying into the United 

States, their equipment, you don’t want undue hardship or not putting something in there. 

Long-term, though, is really global positioning satellites and that 

continuous streaming of data, and that won’t be in place for it is 

beyond 2017. I think their launch schedule is 2017? 
44 

Mr. HART. That will take a while. I don’t know the specifics on 

the timing of that, but that will certainly take a while, yes. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. HART. And I would be happy to get back to you with what 

can be done with the existing pinger to extend its duration. 

Mr. MICA. OK. OK. And then, finally, IATA, voluntarily implementing your cooperative members, say, latest standards or standards that would cover most of what we have talked about, what 

would be the schedule for that? 

Mr. HIATT. The current standards that we are talking about coming out of ICAO at the moment? 

Mr. MICA. No, anything you could do to implement higher standards. 

Mr. HIATT. Well, we are encouraging our members now that if 

they have equipment that is able to track aircraft, that they use 

it that way. 

Mr. MICA. You are just sending out suggestive memos? 

Mr. HIATT. It is coming through our committees, that we put that 

information out to the—— 

Mr. MICA. With the capability for membership to meet certain 

standards? 

Mr. HIATT. Well, they have to meet certain standards through 

the IOSA registry, as I mentioned. 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. HIATT. Now, we have certain standards in the IOSA registry 

about flight following, but not flight tracking. So as we see—— 

Mr. MICA. Do you intend to adopt any measures? 

Mr. HIATT. As we see what comes from ICAO—— 

Mr. MICA. So you are going to wait on ICAO. 

Mr. HIATT. Well, it has to act in—— 

Mr. MICA. I have to take my bill to do something. 

Mr. HIATT. Let me make one point. I know you want to get your 

bill in, and I understand that the urgency is there, but I will say 

that we operate over 100,000 flights a day successfully. No. 2 is we 

recognize that the leaders in the world, such as the United States, 

have great technology, and they will obviously require more. But 

we have members from all over the world, and what we do want 

to avoid is making sure that I don’t have five or six or seven different black boxes that are regulated by different entities all over 

the world. 

Mr. MICA. No. And I don’t want to do that. But right now we do 

have one of your members who was flying an aircraft, it will be a 

year ago next week. We don’t know where it is; we don’t know 

where 239 people are. It wasn’t a second-rate aircraft or equipage. 

But something happened to deny us knowing where it is or being 

able to locate it, and this is 1 year later. 

I heard Ms. Duckworth, she also, in her own way, said I can’t 

imagine being a family member. It is bad enough for industry, but 

for people to not know what happened. We should know, and every 

aircraft that carries that many people—I know the rule deals with 

19, but passenger aircraft, again—and we can’t, maybe, rule the 

world, we don’t intend to, but we have some leverage over what 

comes in and out of the United States, and also the obligation to 

set the very best standards. So we will look at that. 
45 

I will wait to hear back from Mr. Hart as we craft it. 

Did you have something to say, Mr. Lawson? 

Ambassador LAWSON. I just wanted to add a note that I applaud 

your approach, but it is not just technology that is going to solve 

this problem; it is the procedures that are in place with respect to 

the technologies that exist and that are going to exist. So all of that 

needs to be coordinated. 

Mr. MICA. Well, we have a voluntary private organization and we 

can adopt standards. And, again, we won’t know until we see what 

happened with 370, but we can take steps. They can take steps voluntarily; we can mandate where we have U.S. jurisdiction. You 

have to deal in a different venue, and we know you are doing your 

best. 

But even with all that said, it is going to be years and years before we have this rule and then we have the implementation of the 

proposal, so we are just trying to light a little fire both by the oversight hearing that we are conducting, working with you, the industry, and the technical people, because the last thing you want to 

do and I want to do is impose things on industry that aren’t practical or would impose great cost, inconvenience, or duplication. 

Well, I thank each and every one, especially our ranking member. Just really pleased to have her back. Again, congratulations. 

Thank each of you for your testimony today. We will leave the 

record open. 

There being no further business before the subcommittee, this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Æ