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

51–384 PDF 2009

NEXTGEN: AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)/ 

REQUIRED NAVIGATION 

PERFORMANCE (RNP) 

(111–55) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 29, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

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 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

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 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Beck, Captain Gary, Vice President, Flight Operations, Alaska Airlines, on 

Behalf of the Air Transport Association ............................................................. 3 

Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO .. 3 

Calvaresi-Barr, Ann, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and 

Evaluation, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................................... 3 

Day, Richard L., Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................... 3 

Fuller, Chet, President, GE Aviation Systems, Civil ............................................ 3 

Martin, Captain Jeff, Senior Director, Flight Operations, Southwest Airlines .. 3 

Sinha, Dr. Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center 

for Advanced Aviation System Development, The Mitre Corporation ............. 3 

Thomann, Brad, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Jeppesen, 

a Boeing Company ............................................................................................... 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F. of Illinois ........................................................................... 45 

McMahon, Hon. Michael E., of New York ............................................................. 53 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 55 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 56 

Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin ..................................................................... 60 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Beck, Captain Gary ................................................................................................. 67 

Brantley, Tom .......................................................................................................... 75 

Calvaresi-Barr, Ann ................................................................................................ 85 

Day, Richard L. ........................................................................................................ 101 

Fuller, Chet .............................................................................................................. 117 

Martin, Captain Jeff ................................................................................................ 137 

Sinha, Dr. Agam N. ................................................................................................. 160 

Thomann, Brad ........................................................................................................ 183 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Beck, Captain Gary, Vice President, Flight Operations, Alaska Airlines, on 

Behalf of the Air Transport Association, responses to questions from Rep. 

Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York .............................................................................................................. 71 

Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO, 

responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New York ........................................................... 81 

Calvaresi-Barr, Ann, Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and 

Evaluation, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions 

from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ................................................................................................ 97 

Day, Richard L., Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration: ..............................................................

Response to question from Rep. Charles W. Dent, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ........................................... 30 

Response to question from Rep. James L. Oberstar, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Minnesota ................................................ 34 

Response to question from Rep. James L. Oberstar, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Minnesota ................................................ 39 

Page

VI 

Day, Richard L., Senior Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration—Continued 

Responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ......................................... 113 

Fuller, Chet, President, GE Aviation Systems, Civil, responses to questions 

from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York ................................................................................................ 131 

Martin, Captain Jeff, Senior Director, Flight Operations, Southwest Airlines: .

Brochure entitled, ′′Destination RNP Automatic Evolution Transforming Southwest′′ ................................................................................... 148 

Responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ......................................... 156 

Sinha, Dr. Agam N., Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center 

for Advanced Aviation System Development, The Mitre Corporation, responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New York ........................................................... 177 

Thomann, Brad, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Jeppesen, 

a Boeing Company, responses to questions from Rep. Michael E. McMahon, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New York .............................. 192 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 51384.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 51384.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 51384.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 51384.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 51384.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 51384.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 51384.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 51384.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 51384.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 51384.010
(1) 

HEARING ON ′′NEXTGEN: AREA NAVIGATION 

(RNAV)/REQUIRED NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE (RNP)′′ 

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F. Costello 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 

will ask that all Members, staff, and everyone in the room turn 

electronic devices off or put them on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 

′′NextGen: Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance 

Performance.′′ The Chair would ask unanimous consent that the 

gentleman from Alaska, the former Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Young, a Member of the Full Committee, be allowed to 

participate in today’s Subcommittee hearing. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

I have a lengthy opening statement that I will submit for the 

record and then recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any 

remarks he may have, and then we will go directly to witnesses. 

I welcome everyone here to the Subcommittee hearing on ′′NextGen: Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance.′′ The employment of RNAV and RNP procedures are key near 

to midterm NextGen initiatives. RNAV and RNP procedures are 

part of the Federal Aviation Administration’s NextGen implementation plan and are expected to be a major part of the NextGen 

midterm implementation task force final report that is due next 

month. 

Let me say that we have indicated in the past, since I have been 

Chair of the Subcommittee and even before that, when we have 

been examining NextGen and its progress that we would hold hearings from time to time to get a progress report as to where we are, 

where we are headed, and this hearing today is a part of that commitment. 

With that, the Chair would recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. 

Petri, for any remarks that he might have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want to 

submit my full statement for the record and just say that I very 

much thank you for having another of a series of meetings and 

2 

hearings that this Subcommittee has had on NextGen and issues 

surrounding it. 

This is a major undertaking. It is outside the normal scope of the 

FAA as a line agency to come up with a whole new technology, and 

there are a lot of issues involved in how to—not just technical 

issues, but business issues as to how to roll out this new technology 

in a way that is attractive and used by the community and that 

people will buy into because it is in their interest to do it at various 

stages of the procedure. 

So I am hopeful that there will be even more discussion and consultation and work to kind of come up with a roadmap that makes 

sense for the aviation community for rolling this out so that it can 

be used by different companies and in a way that maybe gives 

them a little competitive edge and incentivizes their competitors to 

buy into it rather than being done sort of a mandate approach. 

There are a lot of issues involved in this whole area, and it is 

clearly very important to try to get it right in advance rather than 

pointing fingers, as often happens with various major Federal undertakings, because things haven’t worked after the fact. 

And with that, I thank all of our witnesses for being here and 

look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Ranking Member and would advise 

all Members that their full statement will be submitted and appear 

in the record. 

The Chair would now recognize and introduce our witnesses 

today. Let me say to each of our witnesses that your full statement 

will appear in the record as well. It will be in the record as you 

submit it. We would ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes, and that will allow for us to have adequate time to ask 

questions. 

The first witness will be Mr. Richard L. Day, who is the Senior 

Vice President for Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

Ms. Ann Calvaresi Barr, who is the Principal Assistant Inspector 

General for Auditing and Evaluation with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

Dr. Agam Sinha, who is the Senior Vice President and General 

Manager for the Center of Advanced Aviation System Development 

at the MITRE Corporation. 

Mr. Tom Brantley, the President of the Professional Aviation 

Safety Specialists, AFL-CIO. 

Mr. Chet Fuller, who is the President of GE Aviation Systems, 

Civil. 

Captain Jeff Martin, the Senior Director of Flight Operations of 

Southwest Airlines. 

Mr. Brad Thomann, who is the Senior Vice President and Chief 

Operating Officer with JEPPESEN, a Boeing company. 

And Captain Gary Beck, who is the Vice President of Flight Operations of Alaska Airlines on behalf of the Air Transport Association. 

So ladies and gentlemen, your statement will appear in the 

record. And at this time I would call on Mr. Day to offer your testimony. 

3 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD L. DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR OPERATIONS, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ANN CALVARESI BARR, PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING AND 

EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DR. 

AGAM N. SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL 

MANAGER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, THE MITRE CORPORATION; TOM BRANTLEY, 

PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AVIATION SAFETY SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO; CHET FULLER, PRESIDENT, GE AVIATION SYSTEMS, CIVIL; CAPTAIN JEFF MARTIN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, 

FLIGHT OPERATIONS, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES; BRAD 

THOMANN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, JEPPESEN, A BOEING COMPANY; AND CAPTAIN GARY BECK, VICE PRESIDENT, FLIGHT OPERATIONS, 

ALASKA AIRLINES, ON BEHALF OF AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DAY. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, and thank you for inviting me 

here today to discuss the FAA’s program for RNAV and RNP. 

These are some of what we call Performance-based Navigational 

Procedures, or PBN. PBN requires a certain level of performance 

from the aircraft and the air crew to fly a certain type of air traffic 

procedure. It used to be that aircraft could navigate primarily by 

ground-based navigational aids. Depending on the location and the 

position of those navigational sources, the aircraft was limited in 

how efficiently and precisely it could fly. Now, with advances in 

technology, we are able to take advantage of space-based navigational sources, such as GPS. 

RNAV and RNP gives greater aircraft flexibility in flight paths 

and profiles, and it enables them to fly more precise and efficient 

routes. This leads to potential for flights to reduce the miles flown, 

save fuel, and improve efficiency. The development of RNAV/RNP 

procedures is a relatively young program at the FAA, as you can 

see from the slide—and I know it is difficult to see—which shows 

the current state of RNAV/RNP implementation. 

Since 2002, we have accomplished quite a bit. Currently, we have 

159 RNAV routes and 270 RNAV arrival and departure procedures 

implemented into the NAS. We also have an additional 163 RNP 

special aircraft and air crew required approaches, or SAAAR approach procedures in the NAS. By the end of fiscal year 2009, we 

anticipate that we will have an additional 48 RNAV routes, 35 

RNAV arrival and departure procedures, and 29 RNP SAAAR approach procedures in place. Overall, we have over 8,000 PBN procedures throughout the NAS. 

Along the way, we have encountered some challenges and we 

have learned from them. We intend to apply those lessons learned 

as we move forward. For example, while we have a standard process for developing RNAV and RNP procedures in the terminal area, 

we do not have a comparable process for developing procedures 

elsewhere in the operational environment. We believe this is an 

area where we can improve by mapping agencywide all the PBN 

processes to standardize how we develop, test, chart, and impleVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
4 

ment PBN procedures. I am pleased to report that we should be 

starting work on the mapping process in the next couple of weeks. 

As we move forward, there are other challenges that continue to 

face us in the advancement of RNAV and RNP. First on the list 

of challenges is prioritization of which procedures to create and implement and in what order. Second are the environmental issues 

which require time for us to examine. Third, as the industry moves 

to equip, we are seeing a hybrid equipage environment where some 

aircraft are capable of flying RNAV/RNP and others are not. 

Some of our other technical challenges are illustrated in the second slide that we have prepared for this hearing. Each phase of 

flight faces unique challenges. For example, for departures and arrivals we may be faced with deconflicting air traffic between adjacent airports. In the en route environment, we may need to avoid 

restricted military space, and for arrivals and departures we want 

to ensure that we provide our controllers with the right tools to 

make the right decisions when managing the air traffic. 

I want to assure you that the FAA has developed a solid foundation of routes and procedures for RNAV/RNP as part of NextGen. 

Using this foundation, we are transitioning from a site-by-site or 

runway-by-runway implementation process for a NextGen readiness concept by treating the system as a network. This will include 

development of an integrated system of PBN routes and procedures 

NAS-wide. This broader view will help to advance and accelerate 

NextGen as much as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Day, and now recognizes Ms. Calvaresi Barr. 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Subcommittee. I appreciate you inviting us here to this important 

hearing on FAA’s efforts to modernize the use of airspace through 

RNAV and RNP. Inspector General Scovel regrets not being able 

to make it here today due to a family medical matter. However, I 

can assure you that this statement has received his full attention. 

As you know, RNAV/RNP are key to the success of FAA’s 

NextGen. They are the legs of the table. Without them NextGen 

will not function. By relying on satellite navigation and on-board 

avionics to maximize airspace, RNAV and RNP could achieve substantial benefits, including fuel savings and improved airport arrival rates. 

While RNAV and RNP have considerable industry support, some 

stakeholders are dissatisfied with FAA’s overall method for implementing these initiatives. Today I will focus on two key areas: first, 

implementation concerns that limit the benefits of RNAV and RNP 

and, second, the lack of clarity surrounding the role and oversight 

of third parties in developing new procedures. 

RNAV/RNP have achieved some benefits, but FAA must address 

several concerns to realize their full potential. First, FAA has yet 

to develop unique routes. Instead, the agency places new routes 

over existing ones and continues to focus on the quantity rather 

than the quality of new flight paths. As airline representatives 

5 

know, the new routes provide few, if any, added benefits because 

they are essentially the same ones that airlines already fly. 

Another longstanding concern is the potential impact mixed equipage will have on RNP’s implementation. Experts believe most aircraft will need to be equipped with advanced avionics to realize 

benefits. Equipping the aircraft has been a subject of intense debate. Until this is resolved, concerns remain that mixed equipage 

will increase controller workload and may introduce new hazards 

in the congested airspace. We are particularly concerned about this 

given the large number of developmental controllers in the system. 

A third concern is that FAA has not developed a plan to effectively manage interdependent efforts, including RNAV and RNP, 

airspace redesign, and air traffic control modernization systems. 

All of these efforts must be fully integrated and synchronized to 

maximize benefits. As FAA begins to develop more complex and demanding routes and procedures, it will need to reevaluate, align, 

and coordinate plans and budgets as well as address controller and 

pilot training needs. 

Now I would like to focus on the second key area regarding third 

parties. The role of third parties in developing RNP procedures is 

unclear, and industry is skeptical of FAA’s ability to deliver the 

more complex procedures. At industry’s request, FAA entered into 

agreements with two third parties to design and develop certain 

RNP procedures. Airlines believe third parties could provide expertise and resources to complement FAA’s efforts and to achieve quality procedures. However, FAA program officials told us that they 

do not plan to use third parties to speed RNP adoption because 

FAA is meeting its annual production goals. 

As part of the agreement, FAA provided an option for carriers to 

use third parties to develop public procedures--those that can be 

used by all airlines with equipped aircraft. But we question the 

soundness of this business case because it is unlikely that carriers 

will invest in procedures that other carriers will benefit from at no 

cost. Air carriers that choose to use third parties to develop public 

procedures would essentially be investing in their competitors. 

From the carriers’ perspective a more logical business case would 

be to use special RNP procedures, those that are designed specifically for their use and are not available to other carriers. However, 

FAA is concerned that an increasing number of special procedures 

will further burden controllers and complicate the airspace. 

Ultimately, the role of third parties will require an understanding of the in-house skill mix and expertise of FAA, but this 

type of assessment has not been done. Absent clear roles and responsibilities, it is difficult for FAA to establish a plan to oversee 

third parties. 

Over the next decade, FAA and the industry plan to invest billions of dollars in RNAV/RNP and other NextGen efforts. To better 

ensure efficient use of taxpayer and industry dollars, we will continually monitor FAA’s vision and strategy for RNAV/RNP, the role 

and use of third parties, and training needs for controllers and pilots. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you. 

6 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes Dr. 

Sinha. 

Mr. SINHA. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member 

Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me to participate in today’s hearing on NextGen: RNAV and RNP. 

My testimony today will highlight some examples of RNAV and 

RNP applications which together form the performance-based navigation initiative, commonly known as PBN, and constitute a 

foundational element of NextGen. 

RNAV enables aircraft to fly any desired path rather than flying 

to or from a fixed ground navigation aid. RNP takes advantage of 

more advanced on-board avionics to monitor the aircraft’s navigation performance and to alert pilots when the required performance 

is not being achieved. 

RNAV and RNP equipage has been steadily increasing over the 

last several years. For air transport aircraft operations in 2009, 

RNAV equipage exceeds 90 percent, RNP equipage exceeds 60 percent, and advanced RNP equipage with curved-path capabilities is 

nearly 40 percent. 

RNAV and RNP procedures are being implemented to achieve repeatable and predictable departure, en route, arrival, and approach 

paths for aircraft. RNAV departure procedures implemented at Atlanta in 2006 have shown a measured capacity gain of 9 to 12 departures per hour. RNAV procedures also result in reducing the 

workload associated with the routine voice communications between pilot and air traffic controllers. Atlanta RNAV departure 

procedures show a decrease of about 50 percent in voice communications required between the pilots and controllers. 

Similar RNAV procedures have been implemented at airports 

such as Dallas/Fort Worth, Las Vegas and Phoenix with a cumulative savings of $130 million from 2006 to 2008. RNP procedures 

at Portland have resulted in fuel savings of 150,000 gallons and a 

reduction of 7,500 tons of carbon emissions since implementation in 

2006. 

In many metropolitan areas, arrival and departure paths at 

nearby airports can interfere with each other. Decoupling operations at Chicago O’Hare and Midway through the use of an RNAV 

departure procedure at Chicago O’Hare in combination with an 

RNP approach for Chicago Midway has been modeled to show a 

savings of approximately $4-1/2 million per year in reduced delays 

under a full PBN equipage scenario. 

RNP SAAAR that Rick Day has defined can provide an alternative means of access to runway ends that currently cannot support an ILS. At Palm Springs airport, Alaska Airlines has reported 

over 20 instances where they were able to complete the flight and 

land at Palm Springs using RNP SAAAR approaches since its implementation in 2005. 

Within the descent phase of flight, a strategy for reducing fuel 

use and emissions is to minimize the use of level offs. A general 

term for the broad class of descent routes and procedures which are 

designed to reduce fuel and carbon emissions during descent is Optimized Profiled Descents (OPDs). Several domestic trial implementations of regularly scheduled flights have shown significant promise. OPD flight trials at Atlanta and Miami during 2008 involved 

7 

20 flights, with a fuel savings of 50 gallons per flight and a carbon 

emissions reduction of approximately 450 kilograms per flight. 

MITRE recently conducted a nationwide analysis of arrival flows 

at over 100 airports to assess the potential application and benefits 

of OPD procedures. Ten airports were identified with less complex 

airspace structures and flows where OPDs can be implemented in 

the near term. The estimated range of benefits achieved at those 

airports is equivalent to removing 4,400 to 13,000 cars off the road 

every year. At larger airports the benefits are higher but the implementation of OPD is more complex and is likely to require a longer 

time. 

Beyond the near term, there are opportunities to combine different NextGen capabilities to achieve even greater benefits. Concepts for approaches to closely spaced parallel runways combine the 

use of ADS-B and RNP capabilities with the potential capacity benefit of adding 15 to 22 arrivals during instrument meteorological 

conditions at airports such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. 

In summary, RNAV and RNP implementation over the past few 

years have resulted in significant benefits. These implementations 

have been successful due to the close collaboration between the 

FAA and the aviation community through forums such as RTCA 

and the Performance-based Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee, commonly known as PARC. 

As we move forward, we must consider the implementation of 

those RNAV and RNP procedures that result in measurable high 

benefits to the community, not just the number of procedures that 

are implemented. Furthermore, we suggest a focus on implementing OPD procedures at airports with less complex airspace 

structures and flows which can more easily be achieved in the near 

term. OPD procedures implementation at airports with more complex airspace structures and flows should be undertaken as a part 

of a more comprehensive airspace design. 

Finally, as we look ahead, RNAV and RNP, in combination with 

other capabilities such as ADS-B, data communications, enhanced 

ground automation capabilities, and safe reduction in separation 

standards, can result in even greater benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to 

answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Sinha. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Brantley. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to testify today 

on RNAV/RNP. 

PASS represents approximately 11,000 FAA employees throughout the United States and overseas, including the flight procedures 

development specialists, flight inspection pilots, and mission specialists in aviation systems standards. 

It is generally accepted that the use of new performance-based 

routes and procedures has great potential to enhance system capacity and reduce environmental impact and fuel costs. However, a 

lack of clear guidance from the FAA has led to conflicting ideas 

among the industry, FAA, and even congressional proponents as to 

how these benefits can best be realized. 

8 

An agenda supported by many in the aviation industry and advanced by some Members of Congress is to set quotas for the production of new RNP procedures without regard for the feasibility 

of such a plan. PASS believes that quotas are unrealistic, very likely unachievable, and are not based on the potential safety, capacity, and operational benefits to the overall NAS. 

NextGen’s promise is founded on shifting from ground-based to 

satellite-based operation. This will not be accomplished solely 

through the use of new technology. It will be a mix of new technology procedures and operations that will transform our current 

system into the one promised by NextGen. But it seems that the 

drive for industry to equip with new technology to realize benefits 

as soon as possible may lead to unintended problems that could actually delay those gains. The best equipped, best served policy offered by the FAA may not be the best way to promote the adoption 

of new technology by users. 

Since the FAA left it to the RTCA NextGen Implementation Task 

Force to define the specific policy details, the priority treatment 

promised by the FAA is unclear. Yet the rush to gain this priority 

treatment has begun. The very complex issues involved in developing and implementing new RNP procedures in support of 

NextGen won’t necessarily align themselves with the best 

equipped, best served policy. 

The work involves developing an integrated infrastructure, not 

individual stand-alone procedures. Obstruction and environmental 

issues must be resolved; controlled airspace and air traffic flow 

must be taken into consideration; any needed airspace rulemaking 

processes must be initiated; and coordination with air traffic is 

needed to ensure that the new procedure can be safely integrated 

into the management of the overall airspace. 

Additionally, during the development of a new procedure, 

changes in other procedures are often identified, and further coordination must take place to ensure that everything continues to 

work together. 

The numbers of special use procedures meant for the benefit of 

the user developing them have always been small in comparison to 

public use procedures which are meant for the use of all qualified 

users of the system. However, the push to develop thousands of 

new special use procedures would require a coordination unlike any 

we have ever seen. Without extensive oversight, these new procedures may not fit ongoing airspace redesign efforts, and they may 

conflict with other RNP development that is underway at the same 

time. To assume that all conflict with public use procedures will be 

resolved through the FAA’s best equipped, best served policy is unrealistic. 

PASS also feels that any policy change to allow third parties to 

develop public use RNP procedures is misguided. PASS believes 

this safety critical work to be inherently governmental. As such it 

should not be outsourced to private vendors. Additionally, the 

changes in air traffic operations that will be required for a systematic transition to the capabilities offered by NextGen must not be 

unduly rushed. We cannot forget that the changes that are coming 

include people, not just technology and procedures. 

9 

The FAA has said that it believes it needs to take a strategic approach to RNP/RNAV procedures development and any corresponding airspace redesign work that is required to deploy those 

procedures. PASS agrees with this approach and stands ready to 

work with the FAA and other stakeholders to accomplish the transition to the new capabilities. 

That concludes my statement and I thank the Subcommittee for 

having me here today. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Brantley, and now 

recognizes Mr. Fuller. 

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for opportunity to testify today. There are a few things I would 

like you to believe about RNP. 

First, RNP means greater accuracy and precision and RNP enables efficiency. It is through RNP that operators and the flying 

public will derive the value of the NextGen air traffic management 

system. 

Second, RNP provides enormous environmental benefits. 

Third, RNP is fundamental to the transition from the past to the 

future. 

Fourth, the technology is ready today. All we have to do to reap 

the benefits of RNP is accelerate implementation. 

GE Aviation is a leader in efficient technology, known for its innovation in aircraft engines. But GE Aviation’s navigation systems 

have guided the world’s most successful aircraft for almost 2 decades. In fact, every 2.7 seconds an aircraft goes airborne with a GE 

Aviation flight management system computer guiding it. 

Our current ATC system is outdated. It is a very large sky, but 

we don’t use very much of it, and what we do use, we use pretty 

inefficiently. The airways we fly today are 8 nautical miles wide because they have to be. 

Radar was a technical wonder 50 years ago, but today it is an 

anachronism. Today’s GPS equipped aircraft are almost always 

within a wingspan of airway centerline. The improved navigation 

accuracy in all four dimensions enables increased airspace capacity 

and efficiency. 

Let me tell you about a couple of examples which showcase the 

benefit of RNP and GE’s technology. In Brisbane, Australia, Qantas 

has been the lead carrier in a project that has demonstrated that 

air traffic controllers can integrate RNP capable aircraft and nonRNP capable aircraft in a medium traffic density environment. 

They have already implemented RNP at 15 Australian airports and 

are saving fuel and carbon today. 

Another demonstration conducted by Scandinavian Airlines in 

Sweden has taken RNP one step further and added the dimension 

of time. Time increases predictability. With four dimensional trajectory-based operations, they have added the ability to deconflict 

traffic through trajectory negotiation. In thousands of approaches 

into Stockholm, they have reduced by over 50 percent the area affected by noise greater than 65 db through the use of RNP and 4D 

TBO. 

In the case of RNP, it should be noted that all approaches are 

not created equal. If you take an existing approach and merely 

recreate it so that it might be flown using RNP equipment and proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
10 

cedures, you get exactly the same results. No reduction in noise, no 

reduction in fuel, and no reduction in distance traveled. Unfortunately, many of the RNP procedures posted in the United States 

over the last few years simply replicate the existing ground-based 

navigation procedures and in doing so create very little benefit. 

We support the emphasis on measuring the benefits of new RNP 

procedures as included in the Senate’s FAA reauthorization bill. 

We should increase the rate of RNP procedure deployment and 

have metrics to ensure their effectiveness. RNP offers substantial 

environmental benefits. It is estimated that RNP has the potential 

to cut global CO-2 emissions by 13 million metric tons. That is 1.2 

billion gallons of fuel. This is a very important path to energy independence. 

Oddly enough, one of the factors slowing down the proliferation 

of RNP procedures is the environment. Because the RNP path differs from the path of the previous instrument approach there is 

some question as to whether an environmental impact statement is 

required to determine the impact of new RNP paths. While this is 

a valid concern, there are immediate ways that beneficial RNP 

paths can be designed that will not require environmental review. 

In particular, RNP routes could be designed in a way that replicate 

the routes taken by aircraft on visual approaches over the same 

track of ground. 

The benefits of RNP are very clear. So what should we do? We 

think we should accelerate the creation of high quality RNP procedures that use aircraft performance to drive the efficiency. We 

think that, second, we need to create metrics for success and measure approaches based on their efficiency. 

Third, we need to accelerate the movement toward 4-dimension 

trajectory-based operations and add time as an element of the approach design. 

And fourth, we need to integrate the efforts around communications, navigation, and surveillance so that there is one strategy and 

one vision. We think the time is now to work together for the benefit of the environment, the airline, and the flying public. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Fuller, and now recognizes Captain Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member 

Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jeff Martin. 

I am the senior director of flight operations and a Captain for 

Southwest Airlines. Since 2006, I have been directing Southwest’s 

NextGen program, training our nearly 6,000 pilots and equipping 

more than 500 Boeing 737 aircraft in RNP and associated NextGen 

efforts. 

Like Southwest, our RNP project is unique. In March of 2007, 

Southwest made an unprecedented commitment of $175 million to 

advance NextGen and make RNP an integral part of our day-to-day 

operations. 

Southwest based our business plan and set the standard for a return on investment by determining that we need to reduce our 

flight track miles by 3 miles per leg. Reducing flight track miles 

burns less fuel. Fuel is an airline’s highest cost behind labor. So 

11 

there is a national incentive for airlines to reduce fuel burn. That 

also translates into reduced aircraft emissions and lower fuel costs. 

Southwest NextGen RNP project can be broken down into four 

distinct work areas. One, aircraft equipage and modification. Each 

of our 500 aircraft required some equipment modification that consumed over 80 percent of our NextGen budget. Today 66 percent 

of our fleet is RNP capable, and we will complete our remaining 

motivations within 4 years. 

Two, FAA regulatory approval. For 2 years Southwest has been 

working with the FAA towards achieving regulatory approval. We 

learned last night that we had received FAA approval from the 

FAA to proceed to our next level of our RNP certification. 

Three, pilot training. Training is already underway, but developing that curriculum took 19 months and consumed 13 percent of 

our budget. 

And fourth and last, airport procedures. Southwest is working 

closely with the FAA to assist in the design of new RNP flight procedures. Our goal is to have at least one carbon negative RNP procedure at each of the airports we serve, much like Chicago’s Midway Airport as you can see on the screen. It is safe, it deconflicts 

two airports, it reduces fuel and reduces emissions. 

A recent audit of our airport procedures revealed that we have 

412 runway ends that we serve. Of these 412 runway ends, 69 RNP 

procedures currently exist. Of these 69 procedures, 6 would reduce 

fuel and reduce emissions. 

From start to finish, Southwest’s RNP program will take 6 years. 

In addition to time and money, it has required focus, project oversight, and considerable attention to human factors such as education and training. 

As mentioned, RNP benefits the environment, it benefits the consumer, it benefits the carrier. By using available technologies like 

RNP, the implementation of NextGen can be accelerated. If implemented correctly and widely throughout the national aviation system, RNP will, one, strengthen our environment by greatly reducing the amount of fuel we consume and greenhouse gases we emit; 

two, provide our customers with less congestion and fewer delays; 

and, three, improve safety and operational performance of the aviation industry. 

Based on Southwest Airline’s own demonstration flights, RNP 

can reduce fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 

6 percent per flight. Translating those savings across our entire 

fleet, we can burn 90.6 million less gallons of fuel and reduce our 

CO-2 emissions by 1.9 billion pounds annually at Southwest airlines. 

NextGen’s success is dependent on industry and government 

working together. We have worked closely with the FAA from day 

one and we continue to have quarterly meetings with the FAA Administrator. The FAA Administrator, Randy Babbitt, said—and I 

quote—we must take advantage of what operators already have invested. 

RNAV and RNP work. We know that. With the airlines and the 

economy still looking at a steep climb, the return on investment is 

even more important. Southwest Airlines could not agree more. 

12 

Achieving a return on investment is necessary to justify continued 

NextGen efforts. 

Let me conclude with lessons learned. During the past 3 years, 

our airline has been fully engaged and committed to our NextGen 

project. We have already equipped over 300 aircraft and will complete our pilot training by 2010. Developing and implementing our 

RNP project is without a doubt one of the most complicated, time 

consuming, and expensive projects that Southwest Airlines has undertaken. 

In order for the industry and the public to achieve the full benefits of RNP, it is incumbent on the FAA to design and implement 

flight procedures like those at Chicago’s Midway Airport. For 

NextGen to succeed, FAA, airlines, and other stakeholders must all 

be in sync. 

Existing regulations and guidelines from the 1960s and 1970s 

need to be updated in order to utilize and benefit from NextGen capabilities and technology. Successful use of RNP and NextGen requires, one, a definable return on investment; two, an emphasis on 

the quality of the procedure, not just meeting a quota for production; and, three, a mandate to design and implement new flight 

procedures that will reduce airline emissions and fuel burned. 

Southwest Airlines is proud to be leading the industry in deploying our 500 aircraft into NextGen airspace. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and to share our thoughts and experiences with 

RNP. We look forward to working with the FAA, elected officials, 

and industry stakeholders in ensuring RNP’s future success. Southwest Airlines remains committed to RNP and NextGen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Captain Martin, and recognizes Mr. Thomann. 

Mr. THOMANN. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Brad 

Thomann, and I am the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating 

Officer at JEPPESEN. 

JEPPESEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Company 

based near Denver in Inglewood, Colorado. For more than 75 years, 

our company has been the premier provider of navigation charts, 

databases, and other information solutions to the general aviation, 

business aviation, and commercial entities around the world in airlines. 

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your convening this hearing to 

discuss NextGen and RNAV and RNP. JEPPESEN and Boeing believe these procedures are an essential element in the NextGen 

transformation. In the previous testimony, we have heard a lot 

about what RNP is. Please allow me to show you visually what we 

are talking about. 

So what we are looking at here is a traditional approach. These 

traditional approaches are typically based upon land-based navigation or way points off those land-based navigation. There is large 

buffers around terrain and obstacles and restricted airspace. There 

is a complex network obviously to these base navigational facilities. 

And typically in approach procedures pilots do what we call a dive 

and drive procedure where we hit a way point or we hit one of 

these navigational aids and reduce power and we come down. And 

13 

that is how in this case we make a descent into the airport and 

for the landing where we catch the ILS or the localizer. A dive and 

drive procedure is not very fuel efficient, nor is it environmentally 

friendly. 

Now, a vast majority of the instrument approaches in the world 

today are flown according to this design philosophy. This is well established, very safe, but we all agree it is near its maximum capability in terms of efficiency, carbon emissions, and capacity. 

So let me show you, Mr. Chairman, now what the future looks 

like. Let us look at RNP. So this is an RNP approach. And again 

as we have talked already in testimony, it is a satellite-based navigation based on GPS with RNAV performance monitoring. RNP of 

course requires special certifications with the pilot, the airplane, 

close coordination obviously with ATC. There is training and equipment that Captain Martin talked about. But it gives us a lot greater design flexibility. It allows us to do curve-path approaches, stabilize continuous descent, which is safer, gives pilots—I think the 

pilots in this room would disagree—or agree. It gives us a lot more 

situational awareness as we are flying stabilized approaches rather 

than dive and drive, And it puts us in this very confined and contained and safe containment corridor. 

So why do we want to do this? And we have talked about this 

throughout the panel, but one of the biggest one obviously to pilots 

in this Committee and us is safety. It allows us to provide these 

stable approaches, it allows to us get away from this no dive and 

drive, a continuous descent approaches, pilots obviously would 

agree that this is a safer method. It gives us protection in engineout emergencies and ensuring limited areas with the very precise 

navigation requirement. It is environmentally friendly, as we have 

already heard. Emissions reductions, noise reductions is critical, 

not only for the aviation community, the business and general aviation community, but the military community as well. 

And of course we have heard about the financial savings. We get 

fuel savings as we have less path that we travel over the ground. 

We get fuel savings as we have more of an idle approach to this. 

And that allows the airlines to have greater utilization. Every 

minute that they can shave off of a flight is another minute they 

can put in productive service. 

RNP is a critical part of Next Generation. The FAA has built 

over 140 RNP procedures at 42 airports. And as we have heard, 

some of the procedures do not provide the desired benefit of time 

or lower minimums to allow us to get in. Only 15 to 25 percent of 

the aircraft, as I know it right now, are equipped to use RNP and 

we need continued justification for the airlines to equip like Southwest and Alaska, and that is by building more procedures and allowing RNP to more airlines to participate in and take advantage. 

We need more procedures. And third party providers like 

JEPPESEN can complement and partner and work side by side 

with the FAA in order to give us more capacity. 

However, we do feel that the FAA should conduct ongoing maintenance of procedures once they are built. There is no one better 

equipped, no one with a greater core competency to understand our 

national airspace system than the FAA. And so like we are doing 

currently at JEPPESEN and other providers, we work every day 

14 

side by side with the published approaches for the airlines around 

the world, working with the FAA, and we suggest we continue to 

have that great working relationship. 

So in summary, RNP is a vital part of NextGen. This picture up 

here is Heng Shan, China, a very complex terrain approach that 

we designed out in China. It is a technology that is ready now. We 

don’t need to reinvent the wheel. What we do need to do is continue to work together, government and industry, to make this a 

reality. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any of 

your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Thomann, and now 

recognizes Captain Beck. 

Mr. BECK. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Gary Beck. 

I am the Vice President of Flight Operations for Alaska Airlines. 

I came to Alaska Airlines from Delta Airlines, where I served as 

Senior Vice President of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot. I am 

pleased to testify today on behalf of the Air Transport Association 

and offer Alaska Airlines’ unique experience with and perspective 

on RNP technology. My testimony today will focus on three key 

points. 

First point, RNP is proven technology. Alaska Airlines has a relatively long history with RNP technology, having pioneered its use 

during the mid-1990s to improve safety and reliability of our flights 

operating into and out of Juneau, Alaska, an airport known for its 

bad weather and challenging mountainous terrain. The first RNPguided flight path was used by Alaska Airlines to land in Juneau 

in 1996. 

As many of you know, RNP enables aircraft to fly more direct 

routes with pinpoint accuracy and reduces diversions due to weather by using on-board navigation technology in the Global Positioning System satellite network. It improves safety and reliability 

in all weather conditions and reduces reliance on ground-based 

navigational aids. 

You could say the rough terrain and equally rough weather in 

the State of Alaska gave the company the business case to invest 

early in innovative technology that could help us more reliably and 

safely serve communities throughout the State. 

In doing so, our corporate leaders then took a risk in being the 

first major U.S. Air carrier to invest in RNP, an unproven technology at that time. We believe that risk was one worth taking. 

Today we are the only major domestic air carrier with a completely 

RNP equipped fleet and fully trained crews. 

In addition to RNP, our all-Boeing 737 fleet is 100 percent 

equipped with other modern safety technology, including the 

Heads-up Guidance System, which allows take-offs and landings at 

the lowest minimum weather conditions certified by the FAA, as 

well as the Runway Awareness and Advisory, or RAAS, System, a 

key tool in alleviating runway incursions. Alaska is the first U.S. 

passenger carrier to install RAAS on all of its aircraft. 

Since that first RNP flight into Juneau in the mid-1990s, Alaska 

Airlines has launched RNP procedures in partnership and with the 

approval of the FAA into Palm Springs, San Francisco, Portland, 

15 

Oregon, and cities throughout the State of Alaska. Alaska Airlines 

was also the first carrier to use RNP precision technology to land 

aircraft at Reagan National Airport right here in Washington, D.C., 

having worked with the FAA after 9/11 on the development of the 

Reagan procedures. Recognizing the safety and environmental advantages of RNP approaches and landings, the FAA worked diligently to make the RNP procedures publicly available to all airlines that operate at Reagan national. 

In total, Alaska Airlines currently has RNP approaches available 

to us at 23 airports throughout our system, nine of which we developed with the coordination and approval of the FAA. 

In another first on the RNP front, last December, the FAA approved Alaska Airlines to become the first U.S. commercial air carrier to conduct its own RNP flight validation, laying the groundwork for faster procedure approvals. 

Second point. RNP saves time, fuel, and emissions. The numbers 

speak for themselves. For example, in 2008, Alaska Airlines used 

RNP procedures 12,308 times. 1,774 of these were called saves. A 

save is defined as an operation that would not have been completed 

if RNP were not available. In other words, the flight would either 

have been canceled or diverted. In doing so, we saved 1-1/2 million 

gallons of fuel, which equates to a savings of approximately 17,000 

metric tons of CO-2 emissions. In addition, we realized a savings 

of $17 million in operating costs. 

Third, RNP is a key tool in the NextGen modernization effort. 

The original purpose of RNP was to provide guidance to runways 

without Navaids and to reduce minimums. However, RNP is now 

taking a new path. As part of the NextGen effort, the same technology can and should be used to enhance capacity and create more 

efficient approach and departure paths. In order for the operational 

and environmental benefits of these more efficient paths to be realized, the FAA must implement new standards and procedures that 

enable the technology to be fully utilized. For example, the FAA 

must develop new reduced separation standards that take advantage of RNP’s technological capabilities. 

At Sea-Tac airport in Seattle, Alaska Airlines is leading an effort, in partnership with the FAA, the Boeing Company, the Port 

of Seattle, and Southwest Airlines, to use RNP in just that way to 

create more efficient paths that will reduce flight path length and 

in turn reduce time in the air, fuel consumption, emissions, and 

noise. This Sea-Tac project is leading edge on the RNP front in that 

it involves the use of RNP in complex airspace, requiring air traffic 

to be sequenced and spaced at altitude as opposed to in the terminal space. 

The lessons learned from and the benefits of the Sea-Tac project 

can be replicated at major airports across the country. The benefits 

are impressive. Carriers equipped to fly these procedures at SeaTac will save more than 2 million gallons of fuel per year, which 

equates to an annual savings of 22,400 metric tons of CO-2 emissions. The airline industry and the FAA should be leveraging the 

use of existing technology as much as possible to create airspace 

efficiencies and reduce aviation’s impact on the environment. That 

really is the mission of NextGen. 

16 

Alaska Airlines is proud to continue our history of technological 

innovation in our use of RNP at Sea-Tac. We look forward to replicating the benefits of this project for all equipped users at airports 

across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral testimony. I am pleased 

to answer any questions from the Committee. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Captain Beck, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Calvaresi Barr, I have a few questions for you. One, you 

stated in your written testimony that the FAA will need to implement a formal oversight program to ensure that third parties properly follow FAA design criteria and procedures for key areas. I 

wonder if you might elaborate on that statement. 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. Absolutely. I think we did hear clearly 

across the board that the role of the third parties is currently unclear, and while the vision for their use is on the development of 

public procedures as well as special procedures that would benefit 

specific carriers, we call into question how well thought out a business case that is and to what extent they will be used. 

The first thing that has to happen to have a formalized oversight 

structure is you need to know who you are overseeing and what 

you are asking them to do. So my short answer to this is we need 

to step back, we need to rethink the role that the third parties will 

play. Then we have to recognize what it is we are asking them to 

do. We have to do an in-house assessment of our own capabilities 

and skill sets to oversee what we have been asking them to do. We 

need to have metrics in place to measure the ability to achieve the 

goals, and we need to do that on a continual basis. 

And the final thing that I would add is if it is not achieving the 

larger vision, then we need to go back, rethink, and have a mitigation contingency plan in place to revision. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You also expressed concerns about how special 

procedures may further complicate the workload for the air traffic 

controllers and increase the complexity of the national airspace. I 

wonder if you might elaborate on that as well. 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. Sure. I would be happy to. 

I guess if I would put myself in the seat of a controller and I was 

dealing with a number of mixed capabilities and mixed procedures, 

the number one thing I would want to know is how big is that mix, 

what is that mix, what is coming at me, and what do I have to be 

aware of to do my job to ensure safe and efficient flights? 

This is an issue. We need to understand what the new routes are 

going to be, what the new procedures are going to be, and who is 

equipped with what, and all the players and stakeholders, including the controllers, need to be aware of that. They also then need 

to be properly trained to handle the uniqueness of these routes and 

these procedures, and they have to have the tools to do so. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Mr. Brantley, you indicated in your 

testimony, you talk about how the FAA must have a strategic approach to deploying RNAV and RNP. I wondered if you might 

elaborate on what you think that this strategic plan should look 

like. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I believe, as was 

just stated, part of the difficulty with everyone coming to grips 

17 

with this or getting on the same page is differences over what priorities there may be, how new procedures will fit into the overall 

system, and right now I don’t believe the agency has a comprehensive plan that stakeholders have bought into that they have been 

part of. I think everyone needs to understand what the priorities 

are for the overall NAS and then develop a plan on how to get 

there. Everyone can’t just be in a rush, and that is where we have 

concern with the best equipped, best served philosophy. 

It sounds good, but that doesn’t necessarily take the agency 

where it needs to go. If everything could transition overnight, that 

is one thing. But since it is going to be a phased evolution it has 

to be done in a logical, thoughtful manner in a way that best suits 

the needs of the overall NAS and the flying public. 

So that may cause conflict with different constituents’ priorities, 

but I think that has to be grappled with and a plan has to be developed to address that as much as possible. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Captain Martin, you say that the 

FAA must apply useful RNP procedures, starting with the Nation’s 

35 busiest airports. In your opinion, what is the biggest hurdle that 

the FAA faces in deploying useful procedures? 

Mr. MARTIN. First, let me define ′′useful.′′ We define ′′useful′′ at 

Southwest Airlines as a safe approach, an efficient approach, and 

an accessible approach. We agree with the FAA’s OEP roll-out 

plan. We have done a cross inventory against the roadmap. And if 

the FAA meets their plan for deployment, that meets our return on 

investment. So we completely support the FAA’s OEP plan roll-out. 

But our definition of ′′useful′′ is any procedure that we define as 

safe, efficient, carbon negative, and accessible, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. I appreciate the effort that 

went into each of your statements, and the complete statements of 

course are part of the record. I wonder—there is one area that was 

a theme in many of your remarks, and that is that there seems to 

be something of a chokepoint in going through the environmental 

clearance procedures for these variable, more efficient routes into 

airports. And I sit here listening and think to myself, well, if you 

had an environmental impact requirement on the rule here, these 

more efficient routes save time, fuel, reduce emissions overall. So 

is the rule that you are supposed to achieve environmental efficiency, is that causing overall environmental inefficiency. There is 

something wrong here with this procedure, because with more 

flexible routes and changes and having to approve all of them, it 

is delaying efficiency in the overall system and it is counterproductive. 

Could you comment on that? And is there some way we can 

stand back and figure out a more efficient approach to achieve the 

legitimate goals of these environmental requirements, and really 

achieve them rather than saying we are meeting the formal requirement when in fact what we are doing is causing more pollution and use of fuel and all the rest of it? Who would care to comment? Maybe Mr. Fuller or—— 

Mr. FULLER. Yes, sir, I will start. If you think about the approval 

process and you think about rolling out what we think are thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
18 

sands of approaches that take into account aircraft performance in 

order to gain efficiency, we have to think about defining the process 

start to finish that can be achieved and repeated very quickly and 

robustly. The organizations responsible for approving the approaches have absolutely got to be engaged in the machine, in the 

factory that produces these approaches. And the environmental impact piece of it needs to be addressed—what I would consider rationally—against a balance of constraints. In other words, if 20 percent of your approaches are flying a ground track as described by 

a visual approach, we don’t understand the need for reevaluating 

the environmental impact if they are roughly the same track over 

the ground. 

Mr. PETRI. They take into account evidently noise and emissions 

right in that area, they don’t take into account fuel savings, time 

savings, overall improvements to the environment that aren’t related to those two factors. So it is kind of a weird thing. It pretends 

to be an environmental impact statement. It is really a not-in-mybackyard for people who live near airports requirement as best I 

can tell. 

Mr. FULLER. It most definitely could be. 

Mr. PETRI. Any other comments? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. First of all, we can’t take shortcuts. And I 

think everybody agrees on safety and on our environmental responsibility. And our approach to date has been runway by runway. 

And what we propose moving forward is to look at the National 

Airspace System and that when we look at these areas, to look at 

an integrated approach to these performance-based procedures so 

that as we look at the impact on the environment, we are looking 

at adjacent airports and airspace, and we can show the overall effect or savings as far as fuel and noise and impact on the environment and on the communities. 

So we believe that making the shift from looking at individual 

procedures, to looking more at regions and more of an integrated 

system in the communities, we can streamline the procedure and 

be good stewards of the environment at the same time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been talking 

about NextGen for quite a while in this Committee, and I confess 

that just sometimes I get very confused as to what we are really 

talking about and today for the first time we are talking about 

something very concrete. So I thank all of the panelists. 

I am curious to know—I commend Southwest and Alaska for taking the lead. I am wondering why it is that the other airlines such 

as United, American, Northwest, why they have not proceeded to 

implement RNP since it saves money, fuel, lowers carbon footprint, 

efficiency? It sounds really good. Anybody care to opine? FAA person. Sorry. Mr. Day. 

Mr. DAY. Certainly. It is tough times for the airlines and they 

do have to make difficult choices in this environment. I think everyone is committed and sees the value of these performance-based 

procedures and the larger NextGen system as we look at other capabilities and operational improvements. But they are oftentimes 

faced with very difficult decisions. We are absolutely delighted that 

19 

we have had such champions and early adopters as Alaska Airlines 

and American and Delta, and most recently, Southwest to be those 

leaders. And we do think from these measurable benefits that Dr. 

Sinha described, we will excite and show the business case for 

making an investment in this capability for these airlines. 

Ms. HIRONO. Are some of the other—did you want to say something? 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. I would just also like to add that in order 

to invest that kind of money in the types of avionics that these carriers will be required to put on their aircraft, they have to be assured at some point that the routes and the airspace have been 

aligned in order to maximize those benefits. So if I was buying a 

system, I would want to make sure that I have an environment in 

which that system would be able to return its investment, and 

right now I think with what we have learned, the vision that FAA 

has currently on the books is just overlays of what was the traditional ground-based radar system. 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. I am very encouraged to hear Mr. Day say 

that they are taking a step back and they are thinking about ways 

to maximize the airspace. I think once that is done, you may see 

other carriers willing to step up and say now it is time to put that 

kind of money into those high-cost avionics because I think I can 

realize the benefits. 

Ms. HIRONO. I think that makes a lot of sense to me. 

Mr. Day, sir, does FAA have some kind of a time frame in which 

they can put in place the kind of procedures and basically, I guess, 

procedures so that other airlines can make these kinds of decisions 

moving forward. 

Mr. DAY. Yes, ma’am. So first of all, we have been on track with 

our Flight Plan and also from the recommendations from the performance-based aviation rulemaking committee to deploy procedures. And from the community we are gathering an interest and 

a desire to really move out more quickly in putting out those procedures of value that have measurable benefits and solve real operational problems. So we have the NextGen Operations and Planning Office, and the Integration and Implementation Office, which 

is responsible for helping to integrate all of these operational improvements. 

And as I mentioned before, we are making a shift from just production to looking at the National Airspace System in geographical 

areas, and when we go in there, looking at the airspace, the airports, including the satellite airports from the air transport airports, and taking a redesign of the airspace so that we really can 

provide the value and the benefit of having not only the vertical 

integrity of the performance aircraft—— 

Ms. HIRONO. My time is about to run out, so I am glad that you 

are taking a comprehensive approach. 

But what kind of time frame are you talking about? I don’t want 

to rush things. That is not what we are talking about. I understand 

the testimony that says we are not just wanting to have numbers 

here, we want to have qualitative improvements. So is there a time 

frame for you to put these in place so that more airlines can use 

this kind of system? 

20 

Mr. DAY. Yes, ma’am. We have a NextGen integration plan. In 

August, we will be getting the recommendation from the RTCA 

NextGen Midterm Implementation Task Force which has over 300 

participants. And we expect them to make recommendations that 

are actionable for us to give that kind of clarity and focus to our 

steps moving forward. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Brantley, are you being consulted or are you at 

the table with the FAA in all these discussions and planning? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Not to date. 

Ms. HIRONO. I think you should be. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. I agree. We would love to be. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And I really appreciate Mr. Costello 

for holding this hearing. 

Like many on this Subcommittee, I have spent a great deal of 

time looking at ways to stop the flight delays that we are seeing, 

and there are many causes. And I think one of the ways we can 

easily stop the delays is technology and NextGen. Everyone on this 

panel has opened my eyes to the potential and the problems. 

I am going to focus my question to Mr. Fuller first, and anyone 

else that would like to answer, simply because Mr. Fuller represents my community. General Electric is in my community. The 

headquarters is just outside my district, but they test the engines 

in People’s, Ohio, which is in my district. And it is very important, 

and I want to thank GE for all that they do to make my district 

as robust as it can be in these tough times. 

So, two questions for you, Mr. Fuller. The first is: Do you have 

any suggestions on how the FAA might streamline the lengthy environmental review process for special RNP procedures? 

And the second is, the RNP-equipped airline fleet has the potential to save an airline significant sums of money, reduce emissions, 

and contribute increasingly to the efficiency of our national airspace system. Has the FAA done enough to incentivize equipage for 

airlines? Two parts: speed it up, streamline it and incentivize the 

process. 

Mr. FULLER. Just real quick on the environmental piece, I think, 

getting back to the thought that we need thousands of these approaches in a short amount of time frame. To my knowledge, the 

FAA—the United States infrastructure has never had this kind of 

step change over this short duration of time. All the aircraft that 

come out today, every 737 is RNP-capable if it has dual FMS. And 

so we are not going to wait for the airplanes to equip the airplanes 

will not be the delay. 

So the machine that certifies the approach has got to be robust 

and it has got to operate just like every other machine that we 

would have in our facilities or our plants. It has got to take the 

procedures through a process quickly and expeditiously, and it has 

to find means of approving procedures on time schedules that 

would make sense and achieve the kind of goals that we are trying 

to achieve. 

The second part of your question, you know, I think if you looked 

at what really has to happen, performance, the aircraft performance, the performance of each aircraft is what drives one approach 

21 

to be excellent and provide benefit or another approach to not provide any benefit at all. And so unless we create a system that allows the cooperation of industry and the cooperation of the approving authorities, we are not going to get to the approaches which 

take into account aircraft performance. All aircraft do not fly alike. 

And so the approaches that he wants are not necessarily going to 

be the approaches that are optimum for every other aircraft. But 

the efficiency gains for 737, A320 narrow body aircraft are enormous, and so we have to get to that point where we can deliver aircraft performance-based procedures. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Does anyone else care to answer the two-part 

question? Or one part of it? 

Mr. THOMANN. Ma’am, I would like to point out, in Ohio there 

is a company called NetJets. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. That is a pretty decent company. I like that company. 

Mr. THOMANN. And we need to consider them as well, because 

the business aviation environment—NetJets is, what, 700 aircraft 

roughly? It is huge. And they have the same needs that we need 

in the commercial environment. And they certainly deal—we all 

deal in that same airspace. So we need these solutions not only for 

the commercial side but for the business and general aviation aircraft. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I do have Lunken Airport in my district, which 

NetJets probably go into quite a bit. 

Mr. THOMANN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

Mr. Day, could you please share with this Committee to what degree the air traffic controllers have been involved in RNAV and 

RNP in terms of its creation and implementation? 

Mr. DAY. As you know, the RNAV/RNP is a complex technology 

requiring a lot of sophisticated software and design characteristics. 

And so, while the overall design makes use of engineers, mathematicians and whatnot, when the rubber meets the road and we 

have to apply these procedures we need to engage our controllers. 

For example, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

was invited and participated in the NextGen RTCA Task Force 

that was making recommendations in August and did a yeoman’s 

job in helping us tackle some of those difficult issues, and we look 

for recommendations. 

Likewise, while the design may occur in other offices, when we 

go to the facility for implementation, we do need the participation 

of the controllers in making sure that we solve some of these complex problems that have been described as far as fitting equipped 

and nonequipped aircraft into the operational environment safely. 

So they have participated in that area, as well as the task force, 

and we look forward to, as we get the recommendations out of the 

task force, their continued involvement. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. On July 3rd, Secretary LaHood came to the 

Los Angeles International Airport and met with the air traffic controllers. And I don’t believe, based upon what I heard in that meeting, I did not walk away with the impression that they felt they 

22 

were fully engaged. And I would venture to say that being more involved in a simple stakeholder and an occasional meeting probably 

wouldn’t be sufficient. Although we have engineers who might deal 

with the mathematic aspects, it doesn’t mean that an ongoing personal, up-close personal involvement throughout the entire process 

wouldn’t be helpful. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. DAY. I would agree that, as we do go to the location, it is 

essential that we have the operators directly involved in the implementation of these procedures. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Are they engaged right now in every step of 

the way of what you are doing? 

Mr. DAY. I can’t say that they are involved in every step of the 

way. I know that I certainly have engagement with different representatives from the workforce in this, and we do engage subject 

matter experts as we implement these procedures. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I would strongly recommend, if you would refer 

back to the staff with the Secretary based upon the meeting and 

what was said, and ensure that to whatever degree, because we 

don’t want to reinvent the wheel, and it is far better to have people 

involved all along the way, consistently, as opposed to whenever 

you happen to show up at a particular location for them to assist 

in training or implementation. 

Mr. DAY. I will take that IOU. And I was an air traffic controller 

so I do know how important it is to have them involved in the process. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Great. 

Ms. Barr, based upon your testimony and the work that has been 

done so far, in your testimony you said that you would recommend 

that this Subcommittee in particular would keep its attention in regard to these two programs. What did you mean by that and what 

specifically are you asking us to do? 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. I think this is an excellent step right now, 

continued oversight with regards to how FAA is thinking about the 

strategy for RNAV and RNP. Clearly this is an enormous undertaking and task, but the benefits can just be tremendous. Based on 

what we know so far, we have raised a number of issues with regard to their implementation strategy, which has for the most part 

relied on an overlay of existing routes. That is not going to get us 

the benefits that can be realized by these two systems and clearly 

will not get us to what the NextGen goals are. So a continual look 

and focus on the vision and the implementation plan by FAA on 

that front is critical. 

The second point that I would make is, given the discussion we 

have had thus far regarding the role of the third parties, if they 

are, in fact, needed for their expertise to develop these kinds of avionics and these kinds of routes, then the role has to be clear. All 

the stakeholders have to know what each other is supposed to do, 

and it has to be put together in an integrated and synchronized 

way. 

So with that, I think much remains to be done. And I think keeping a watchful eye over it is a good thing. I can assure you the OIG 

has plans to continue to look at those two efforts overall. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you so much and thank you, Southwest, 

for your participation. I yield back the balance of my time. 

23 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, the former Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always nice to be 

recognized as a former Chairman; but I will tell you it is nice to 

be the Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, it really is. 

But Captain Beck, I am brave, I fly your airline a lot, Alaskan 

Airlines, and I think I know this answer. But I have two questions 

of you. How does the RNP benefit the residents of Juneau since you 

have instigated the RNP technology? 

Mr. BECK. First of all thanks for your business. We appreciate 

it. 

But secondly, we have had a number of saves and I define ′′saves′′ in my testimony; that is, a flight that would have been canceled or diverted if we had not had RNP. And for Juneau specifically, through June of this year we have had 338 saves. Last year 

we had 956. This goes all the way back to 2005. I believe we had 

about 550 saves that year. So every year, Juneau is about one-third 

to one-half of all of the saves that we experience with RNP. 

Mr. YOUNG. Do you use that same system in any other place in 

Alaska? 

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. We have got RNP approaches at a number 

of cities. Cordova comes to mind, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Petersburg, 

Red Dog Mine, Sitka, and I believe Wrangle also. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now when you have a save, literally how much does 

that save the airlines; do you have any idea? 

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. Last year it amounted to a little over $17 million in savings. Since 2005 through June 2009, the total amount of 

savings is $61 million. 

Mr. YOUNG. So this is a case where the equipment, although expensive, can be paid for pretty rapidly because of the saves? 

Mr. BECK. That is correct, sir. Our investment in RNP is somewhere around $35 million. That includes the equipage. The equipage is about $300,000 per aircraft, and it includes equipage and 

training of our flight crews so you can see the ROI on it has been 

very good for us. 

Mr. YOUNG. Like I say, I feel very good that you have that equipment, because I used to fly into Juneau a lot and still do. And it 

is a little bit awesome, if my members have done this, because it 

is surrounded by mountains. I believe it is the safest airport now 

with this equipment that we have in the State, probably because 

before it was a little bit questionable. Now we get in there most 

of the time, and I just want to compliment the airlines for putting 

the equipment in and making it modern. 

I would like to see this done across the Nation because I do believe in the long run it saves the pollution and it will take and 

make money for the airlines. And I yield back the balance. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Bocceri. 

Mr. BOCCERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate this 

discussion we are having today. It is very important we get this 

right. 

To Mr. Day, current procedures, departure procedures, SIDs and 

the like, and instrument approaches into air fields are already 

24 

TERPSed, are already evaluated for performance-based procedures. 

I am not real clear on why there is such delay in putting weigh 

points through the RNF system overlaying existing routes or existing points that have already been TERPSed, already been evaluated for environmental conditions and the like. Can you explain to 

me what the delay is with respect to that? 

Mr. DAY. I am not sure I understand the question. If it is just: 

is there a delay in production on overlaying the departure procedures over ground-based procedures? 

Mr. BOCCERI. Yes. For ground-based NAVAID systems, we have 

the automarker, you have the funnel approach fix and the like. 

Why can’t we just overlay our NAV positions, our NAV weigh 

points over top of these? Is there some sort of complication with 

technology with respect to that? 

Mr. DAY. We can and we do. And I don’t know of a specific issue 

that we have. Part ofthis is as you go to the more robust performance-based procedures, it requires certification of the air crew, the 

training program, the avionics, and then certainly flying and testing the procedure and validating it before it goes to publication. So 

there was just a normal cycle time to produce those, but they are 

not technologically difficult. 

Mr. BOCCERI. So surely that if we have existing ground-based 

landing systems in ground-based NAVAIDs that had existing 

routes, that have already been tested for environmental, already 

have been performance-based on category of aircraft—A, B, C, D— 

that we could put overlay RNF points along them to save time. Or 

you are saying that is not a relatively complicated measure? 

Mr. DAY. No, sir; it is not. 

Mr. BOCCERI. Why hasn’t the FAA implemented that if it is not 

very complicated? 

Mr. DAY. I think in my remarks, I noted that we have published 

over 8,000 performance-based type of approaches; and the overlays, 

which were the priority early in the life cycle performance-based 

navigation routes, were where the focus was. It was on the overlays. And one of the things that we believe is important is to shift 

more towards where the greatest benefits are; and as other members on the panel have discussed, where we can change the route 

over the ground and cut miles short to really add additional value 

to the procedures. 

Mr. BOCCERI. And I think that the airlines are talking about 

using these RNF procedures because they are very precise. They 

use NAVAIDs and INS systems to make this a very precise approach. Does the RNAV program that you have running right 

now—and RNP program—eliminate NextGen, eliminate groundbased NAVAID in the future, looking out into the future? 

Mr. DAY. Looking out in the future, we do have to solve the issue 

of backup to make sure that we have the safety component covered. 

So, well down the road, because we do have a mixed equipage environment, which will depend on ground-based navigational capabilities for some time, as the equipage level comes up we would expect 

to see that we will be able to retire some of these ground-based assets, which we have already done in some cases. I think you mentioned the outer markers and/or the ADFs, you know, some of these 

25 

legacy navigational aids. So, yes, over time we will be able to retire 

some of those assets. 

Mr. BOCCERI. I know most pilots love redundancy, and from the ′′department of redundancy department,′′ we should make certain 

that we have a backup, and ground-based NAVAIDs seem to be 

that route. 

Speak to me, as my time wraps up here, about the IKO, in international—it seems as if Europe and some of our other friends who 

have much more compressed airspace than we have, have already 

implemented to sort of RNP procedures. Why is there such a delay 

with respect to what we are doing when we have much broader airspace than what they are doing? 

Mr. DAY. For one, the airlines operate worldwide, and business 

aircraft as well, so we definitely want to harmonize internationally 

those procedures. And we have a number of standing Committees 

working with ICAO, CANSO, and other organizations and air navigation service providers to synchronize those efforts. And we are 

making very good progress in the area. Also in some air navigation 

service providers in country states, they mandate the equipage, so 

they could leap ahead in the development of those routes. But we 

are very closely harmonized, and I have a number of efforts going 

to harmonize those efforts with other air navigation service providers. 

Mr. BOCCERI. I think we can be the leaders in this and not just 

followers in terms of what Europe is doing and what other countries are doing. It is important that we get this right. And I think 

we have to move with a sense of urgency, especially around our 

congested airports. To help save money, fuel efficiency and the like 

are very important to the airlines to keep them solvent. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, the former Chairman of this 

Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Day, let me ask you this. In Vision 100 we had an environmental streamlining provision that allowed airports to help provide 

funding and even use AIP funds at times to hire additional staff 

to help speed up the NEPA or the environmental procedures and 

reviews. Has that provision been used very much, to your knowledge, or should it be expanded in any way? 

Mr. DAY. I can’t speculate on the expansion of the program. It 

has been a good program, particularly where we are putting down 

new runways and infrastructure in airports. It has been helpful to 

use some of those AIP funds to help fund the environmental aspects of those operations related to the new runways. 

As you move out from the runways, certainly you get into the 

airspace where then it becomes the responsibility of others in the 

FAA and other budgets to work the environmental issues. So we 

work very closely with the Council on Environmental Quality in a 

lot of efforts to try and streamline the process. But at times, based 

again on ground tracks of aircraft, it can be a very lengthy and 

complicated process. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Has the FAA made any estimate as to how many 

environmental assessments and full environmental impact stateVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
26 

ments might be necessary to fully implement this program? In our 

briefing paper, it says you have got 2,000 to 4,000 development targets in the RNAV/RNP procedures, 800 to 1,200 RNAV and RNP 

routes; 1,000 to 2,000 RNP approaches; and then we get on over, 

several pages later, and it says it normally takes 12 to 18 months 

to do an environmental assessment, and it says that these environmental assessments are going to cost $250,000 to $1 million, and 

several millions of dollars for a full EIS. We have got another estimate saying that up to $5 million and as long as 8 years for one 

of these environmental studies. 

And I just wonder, have you made any estimate or rough guess 

as to how much and how long all this might take? 

Mr. DAY. I will have to take an IOU. I am not aware of those 

estimates. I will say, however, that the shift that we are making 

to step away from the legacy and look more towards an integrated 

approach to airspace design meeting up with performance-based 

procedures as well as integration with the airports themselves. We 

believe this will help improve the time and the efficiency and use 

of appropriated dollars to complete those environmental studies. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, is the estimate of 800 to 1,200 routes, is that 

accurate? It is in a briefing paper we have. 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. We believe that is accurate at this point in 

time. And we do believe that that may need to be modified once 

we get the recommendations from the RTCA Task Force. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And would all of those require—or how many of 

those do you think would require full environmental reviews? 

Mr. DAY. I can’t speculate on what that number will be. Again, 

if we overlay existing routes, we can normally cover that with the 

existing environmental study and any Record of Decision relative 

to those operations. As we move away and put aircraft where they 

hadn’t been before, sometimes depending on the numbers and the 

altitudes, the numbers of aircraft and the altitudes they fly, it 

could trigger anything from a categorical exclusion to an environmental assessment, all the way up to the most complex and expensive environmental impact study. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Day, in your response to my colleague from California, Ms. 

Richardson’s, question about the air traffic controllers being part of 

the NextGen planning process, I was just reminded it seems that— 

I am from New York, Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York—and 

it seems that in the planning for the reconfiguration of the airspace 

there, the air traffic controllers were not consulted in that process. 

Am I correct in that belief? And if so, how does that comport with 

what you said about the FAA working so closely with the air traffic 

controllers? 

Mr. DAY. If you are referring to the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace redesign, that project has been going on for some 

time. And there was quite a bit of involvement, direct involvement 

with the line controllers during that time. There was a period 

where there was not as much involvement, although there were 

subject matter experts that were involved, and we continue to talk 

27 

with the representatives of the air traffic controllers and work towards more direct involvement in these airspace projects. 

Mr. MCMAHON. So you will agree with me that that is something 

that should be achieved and they should be part of that process? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCMAHON. As well as they should be NextGen. Thank you, 

I appreciate that. 

Mr. Fuller, in your written testimony that had been submitted, 

you state that the advanced RNP technology is ′′shovel ready,′′ very 

important word to Congress and to America. And could you just— 

and it could begin being implemented today. Could you explain 

that more fully for us? 

Mr. FULLER. Sure. Well the work that Alaska Airlines did back 

in the nineties was with the flight management system computers 

of GE Aviation. And the work that Southwest Airlines is doing, upgrading their airplanes, is with GE Aviation displays and flight 

management system computers. So new aircraft are all capable of 

RNP today, by and large, every narrow body and most of the larger 

business aviation airplanes. So we are ready. The airplanes are 

ready to go. 

Mr. MCMAHON. A broad question. I am almost asking you to 

state the obvious, and I will ask if anyone on the panel—or as 

many as can at a time—what, in your opinion, could Congress be 

doing, what could we be doing to help speed up this processing to 

get the next NextGen up and running? I am not stating the obvious, but if you have any specific suggestions we would certainly appreciate it. 

Mr. FULLER. Was that specifically for me sir? 

Mr. MCMAHON. If you would start, and if you have some 

thoughts, I would be glad to hear them, Mr. Fuller. 

Mr. FULLER. Sure. We continue to say that the airplanes have 

the capability and it is aircraft performance that counts the most; 

the vision of getting the FAA to realize that time is the critical 

next element in the vision, the narrowing the ellipse around the 

aircraft as it relates to its trajectory negotiation is critical in forming the system of the future. 

So as we talk about accelerating the things that are important 

to us is that we collaboratively, the FAA, the manufacturers, the 

airlines, collaboratively and quickly demonstrate to ourselves that 

we can do this amongst a region with a little less challenge; that 

we take those learnings to a little more complex region. And we 

take those learnings to a little more complex region; but we continue to learn through the process, and we don’t lose the opportunity to take those learnings from sector to sector to sector, because it is just absolutely critical that we take the two decades of 

learnings that Alaska has and the 6 or 7 years that the Southwest 

has been working on this and start pushing those into other airlines in other regions. 

Mr. BECK. Sir, if I may comment. I think we really need two 

things. We need an expedited—and we know this is part of the obvious—expedited certification and operational procedures approval 

process. And secondly, we need a prioritized list of where these procedures provide the most bang for our buck. 

28 

Mr. MARTIN. Sir, I would like to add also from Southwest Airlines, as we move through this project I believe defining environmental as carbon in addition to just noise. Our business case was 

also built on fuel reduction and carbon savings. And then also establishing the metric; how will we know if we succeeded? We can 

do overlays, we can do special procedures, we can do public procedures; but how do we know if we have succeeded; what is the metric? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. I will try to be brief. I think doing what you have 

done today, providing oversight, bringing the issues to light, is very 

helpful. And I think continuing to do that will be great because so 

many things have come up today that I believe have to be addressed. 

One of the things I have heard a lot is trying to speed up— 

whether it is the review process, the approval process—development. Those are all great things if it is necessary. I think without 

knowing how many procedures are needed, where they are needed, 

when, who is going to benefit, which ones do need environmental 

reviews, without knowing the answers to all that it is hard to say 

that anything has to go quicker, or if it has to go more quickly 

what needs to be done to expedite it. 

I think that the FAA really has to get their arms around the priorities and what is doable. We know we can’t implement this all 

at once, so at some point the agency has to decide who is first, and 

when, and lay that out for everyone. 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. Yes, I would also just like to comment. I 

think ′′oversight′′ is an operative word, but here is what I would 

add to that. These are the things I would want to oversee. 

I would want to oversee that FAA is moving from the old groundbased system to the new one and the benefits that can be achieved. 

I would want to make sure that they have an integrative plan that 

aligns and synchronizes RNAV/RNP with airspace redesign, with 

ground infrastructure improvements, and new avionics, and that 

their policies and procedures are updated to reflect that. Also, that 

the controllers and pilots are trained and that there is an oversight 

strategy. That is the business model. There is a lot within that. 

Third, I would say we need to clarify the role of FAA and then 

the role, alternatively, of third parties. And, finally, someone needs 

to figure out what type of incentive structure we need to equip the 

aircraft with the avionics they will need to maximize the benefits. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you. I see my time is up. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

To clarify a point, Mr. Fuller, you indicated that the newer aircraft have the equipage. How new? How far back do we go? 

Mr. FULLER. Right now the standard 737 coming off the line, if 

it is equipped with dual FMSs, RNP, .1 out of the box, and the 

A320 is also RNP, .15, then capable of .1 as well. So all the narrow 

bodies that are being delivered today are capable of RNP. And then 

a good number of the large business aircraft are capable as well. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And how long has that been the case? How far 

back? 

Mr. FULLER. I don’t know. I might refer that question to Captain 

Martin or Captain Beck. 

29 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir I can help you with that. Just as a breakdown of our fleet all of the 737 NGs, airplanes we have probably 

taken delivery of in the last 7 to 10 years, are RNP-capable. Two 

hundred of our airplanes we refer to as the classics require the 

modifications. So it is safe to say any airplanes that have rolled off 

in the last 7 to 10 years, dual-FMS-equipped will be RNP, .10. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Day, good morning. I have a few questions for you. For 

months the FAA has touted its best-equipped, best-served policy 

promising more efficient routing for airlines who invest in the 

NextGen technologies. How will the FAA implement this policy? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you, sir. The best-equipped, best-served is really 

a notion that we actually have today. If you are equipped with a 

Category 2 or Category 3 ILS capability, you have access to an airport that others not equipped don’t have. Likewise, when we implement the Mode C Veil rule, we, for safety reasons, require transponders with altitude and reporting. 

So taking those types of policies and applications, we realize the 

best-equipped, best served does not mean necessarily bestequipped, first-served. It does mean that we create the opportunities, certainly in high density areas, where we can provide a service 

for the profile in the trajectory the aircraft wants to fly, so that 

they can make utilization of their investment. It is complicated, 

and it is going to take a lot of industry involvement from many 

people to figure out in an applied fashion how we can introduce 

that type of policy in some of these areas where we want to take 

advantage of the equipment on the aircraft. 

Mr. DENT. Can I also ask you what is the FAA’s estimate for the 

cost of training the air traffic controllers to handle the larger volumes of the RNP-equipped air traffic. I want to know what your 

estimate is for the cost of training air traffic controllers to handle 

larger volumes for the RNP-equipped air traffic. 

Mr. DAY. I don’t have a cost estimate for that. We can get some 

feedback. 

Mr. DENT. The Committee would like to have that information. 

Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 

30 


Insert offset folio 11 here 51384.011
31 

Mr. DENT. And how have air traffic controllers, how are they accommodating each special RNP procedure designed for individual 

air carriers; for example, the special procedures written for Alaska 

Airlines? 

Mr. DAY. One of the challenges on moving to a performancebased environment is the mixed equipage and the different profiles 

that the aircraft will fly. We have trained the controllers on what 

these profiles look like. There still is a lot of complexity and cognitive challenges for our controllers, and we are working to get 

them some tools that will help them space these aircraft, and early, 

very early, identify any deviation from course or altitude so that 

they can do an intervention to keep it safe. It is part of the integration of these procedures into the existing system that is a major 

challenge of implementing NextGen and where we are putting a lot 

of effort. 

Mr. DENT. Also in your testimony, you noted that harmonization 

with the international community is important. What are some of 

the most pressing concerns that must be addressed with the international community as the RNP and the RNAV procedures are 

being implemented? 

Mr. DAY. Well, building the consensus is certainly one of them. 

And one of the things we have heard from the operators and the 

manufacturers is they do not want to put double and triple equipment for the region of the world that they fly in. So that harmonization is important, to identify at a high level and get agreement 

on what the requirements are for aircraft, either retrofit or forward-fit, so they can operate worldwide. And we are making some 

good progress on that and continue to make that a priority. 

Mr. DENT. And Ms. Barr, my question to you is: Some have 

counted the RNAV and RNP among the low-hanging fruit for nearterm realization of NextGen benefits. Do you think that characterization is accurate? 

Ms. CALVARESI BARR. I actually don’t. In my statement I refer to 

those two systems as sort of the legs to the table. And our understanding is that these two programs, RNAV and RNP, represent, 

out of all the operational capabilities that will be needed for 

NextGen, 50 percent of that. So I would say that they are not lowhanging fruit. 

This is an opportunity to redesign our airspace, to take greater 

advantage of it, to have more precision in our flying, to achieve a 

whole bunch of efficiencies. And my understanding is that is, in 

large part, the vision for NextGen. So these are major components. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, and I yield back the time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Petri, and 

Committee staff for the splendid work in preparing for this hearing 

and for your continued vigilance, Mr. Chairman, on these matters 

of aviation technology. 

The testimony is both edifying and—well, it is edifying at the 

same time it raises a number of questions. And I think, Ms. 

Calvaresi Barr, you raised the most important issue. It is a quesVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
32 

tion I had prepared for myself to ask, but you sort of laid the 

ground work for it. 

And that question, Mr. Day, is has your office—have the FAA 

created a progression graph showing where each of these technologies fits in, moving from current NAVAIDs through RNAV/ 

RNP into whatever other elements there are of NextGen and how 

each fits with the other and how they fit into the grand plan? Or 

are you just doing step at a time without any overall all-encompassing scheme? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. And, yes, 

we are, in the design of NextGen, which has a number of solution 

sets, which I think you have been briefed on, where we take the 

readiness level of the aircraft and apply the performance-based 

navigation capabilities along with the automation to support those, 

along with capabilities like Automatic Dependent Surveillance as a 

surveillance source and DataCom for decreasing voice communications and getting more of an Internet-type of connection with the 

cockpit to transfer the information that is needed. 

These are laid out in our NextGen Implementation Plan, and 

that is led by Vicki Cox, our senior vice president of NextGen and 

Operations Planning, and we work with her office to integrate 

these and approach these plans. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you have a graph that you could submit to the 

Committee for our review of how each of these steps, each of these 

new technology initiatives fits in, lays the ground work for, is a 

stepping stone toward the next level, and the cost both for air carriers and for FAA, and where this is going over the next 15 years? 

You have a 15-year projection plan for NextGen? I know you have 

repeatedly—FAA told this Committee it is going to take that long. 

And I ask that because over my years, 25 or so overseeing aviation, we have gone from one technology to another. This one is 

going to be the stepping stone to the next piece, and the next one 

is going to be interoperable and it is going to be interchangeable. 

And what we are dealing with is piecemeal progression, not within 

a comprehensive overall plan, so that we really know where one 

piece fits into the next. 

And I give FAA enormous credit, which it doesn’t receive in the 

secular press. The aviation press, to put it in broadest terms, does 

a good job of following these. But since 1985, if my numbers are 

about right, FAA has installed 65,000 pieces of technology to improve safety, improve navigation, improve workload of controllers, 

improve the— make easier the work of pilots and air traffic controllers and professional air systems specialists and so on. 

But we turned a corner in all of that. We have gone through the 

AAF, advanced automation system. We have gone through the new 

STARS TRACON technology, we have gone through the end route 

technology, and probably pushed those technologies about as far as 

they can go. Now we are into satellite-based navigation technology, 

and it is going to take a much greater level of coordination than 

ever before, much greater control of costs. So I would like you to 

answer that inquiry. 

Mr. DAY. Thank you, Chairman, and we will get that information 

for you. And we have been criticized before for lining up programs 

in a very linear fashion. And that is one of the reasons why we deVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
33 

veloped our Enterprise Architecture with clear milestones and have 

an Integration Implementation Office to make sure that these system-of-systems that we are deploying are synchronized and are 

aligned and executed well, using the taxpayers’ dollars and including a lot of stakeholder involvement. But we will certainly go back 

and give you a very detailed description of that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think the Committee would benefit from this. 

[The information follows:] 

34 


Insert offset folio 12 here 51384.012
35 


Insert offset folio 13 here 51384.013
36 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And other Members have asked the question of 

engaging the air traffic controllers and the professional air system 

specialists in the design and development of these new technologies. And you have indicated—but I want to get a more clear 

statement from you—yes, we are engaging controllers, professional 

air system specialists as we develop these technologies. 

Mr. DAY. I think one of the major commitments that the Administrator made, and the Secretary, is to get more line involvement 

in these types of technologies, and we are committed to improving 

those relationships and that involvement from our subject matter 

experts. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. As STARS was being developed—and goodness 

knows, I went to Raytheon, I went to Lockheed Martin and others 

who were—Lockheed was developing their famous Ollie competitor 

system. And each time I did, I found, well, they are going back and 

redesigning this, because after the engineers at FAA—the engineers who were implementing FAA specs at the contractor level— 

presented their ideas to the controllers, they thought, Oh, there are 

major things that we didn’t anticipate, we didn’t ask them about, 

such as the fixed trackball; it is over here for right-handed air traffic controllers; well, what about lefties? We are going to have to 

reach all the way across. So that led to the moveable trackball. 

Simple things could have avoided hundreds of thousands of dollars of redesign if you just brought them in earlier in the process. 

It isn’t a matter of, oh, we want to feel good and ask their input 

after we have designed it. You need to engage them. They are the 

practitioners. 

What benefits do you anticipate for the most complex airspace 

from RNP? Like the new New York TRACON, like the Southern 

California TRACON? The Southern California TRACON handles, 

for those who don’t really know why I am asking the question—I 

suppose most of the people in the audience do—but it handles more 

air traffic than all of Europe combined. And so does the New York 

TRACON. It handles navigation for 45 airports. That is 2-1/2 million operations a year, those two alone. We have, what, 30 million 

operations a year handled by TRACONs, and that is more than 10 

percent of the whole operation in those two TRACONS. How are 

they going to benefit? What do you anticipate? 

Mr. DAY. First of all—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. And my next question is: How does this fit into 

the east coast design? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you for the question, sir. And the real exciting 

part about this is we are moving from that hard-wired, groundbased, point-to-point, not scaleable system, to one that is network 

centric, very flexible and agile in fitting the task to the design. 

And the exciting part of this is that by using technologies like 

performance-based navigation, particularly the highest type, the 

RNP/SAAAR types of capabilities, we are able to take the airspace 

and the approaches and departure and segregate them, both the 

major air carrier port from the satellite airports and the routes 

that they fly. So particularly where we have legacy airports that 

are land-constrained and we can’t add any more runways, we will 

be able to take what I call those tightly coupled interdependent opVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
37 

erations and segregate them by the performance of avionics on the 

aircraft. And then, of course, we will need the automation systems. 

But that is where the tremendous value is here with these advanced capabilities is: to untangle the old legacy system. But it 

does require automation. It does require airspace design, and it is 

going to need the involvement of a lot of stakeholders, operators as 

well as controllers and technicians, to make this work. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would estimate the FAA has spent something 

like 10- to $15 million on the several east coast airspace redesigns, 

each one shelved because some other group said, oh, no, we are 

going to be impacted by the noise or we don’t like these approaches 

or something else has come up in the meantime. 

So, I want to get back to my question: What benefits are there 

going to be for, say, the New York TRACON? How is this going to 

make their—how is RNAV going to make their job better? RNP, excuse me. 

Mr. DAY. One is the confidence of the precision of the approach 

or the procedure being flown. Right now there are a lot of touch 

points. As you mentioned, the New York TRACON interfaces with 

all the adjacent towers in the centers, and technology is no longer 

the limiter on the performance of the system. 

So as we converge the technology with the automation equipment, we will be able to give them very good situational awareness, 

very good tools to help them know precisely where the aircraft will 

be, and will alert them when they are out of conformance. So I 

think they will be very excited and see a lot of benefit in these tools 

because their business is providing a service. And they care about 

that. They want to provide the best service. And with these tools 

we believe the RNP as well as all the other capabilities that we envision—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a good step in the right direction. It is 

not a test and I am not challenging you, I am just trying to unfold 

the pieces of this system. Is the software going to have to be 

changed in the TRACONs? Are the screens going to have to be 

changed as part of this? Is this going to require some additional 

hardware and software cost investments? 

Mr. DAY. We know the life cycle of the equipment that is out 

there, and we have road maps from surveillance as well as navigation and automation, and even facilities that we see in the future 

that we are going to have to make design changes. But that will 

likely involve a number of changes from displays, increased use of 

colors, and different alerting, some new tools to help them sequence 

and separate aircraft, so there will be a lot of change over time. 

But the good news is it will be organized, not program by program, 

but really more as a portfolio and an integrated approach to making these very needed changes in the system, but doing it in an orderly and organized way. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There has apparently been a success in Alaska. 

Alaska Airlines says they like these changes; it saved them. Southwest. Southwest likes the changes. But you have had experience, 

so in those airspace—up in those airspaces, if you will, what have 

been the technology or equipment changes required? 

38 

Mr. DAY. In Alaska, for example, we were able through the Capstone project to put displays in the cockpit so that they would have 

situational awareness of other aircraft in their vicinity, so—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Both on the flight deck and at the controller 

level. 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. At the Anchorage Air Traffic Control Center, 

we are able to surveil and separate aircraft using ADS-B targets 

with the radar targets up in the Bethel area. So we have been able 

to—where they didn’t have that type of safety and service before— 

at least in the demonstration project, to prove that we could use 

these technologies to provide that safety and service. 

And as the gentleman from Alaska Air mentioned, we have been 

able to have just an awful lot of saves, and safety as well as good 

service, for the citizens of Alaska into Juneau. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Will general aviation, not corporate aviation, but 

will piston engine, general aviation aircraft benefit, be able to use 

RNP? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. And they are using it now. There is an expense, and so not everyone, all facets of general aviation—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. King Air. What would a King Air have to do? 

Mr. DAY. Many of them are equipping now with some of the advanced avionics. Certainly RNAV equipment. There is more expense involved as you go to the higher levels like RNP, and they 

may not need it, dependent on their—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. They wouldn’t need it flying into a noncommercial airport. But in flying into one of the 429 commercial major airports in the country, you certainly want to be—if they want to fly 

in that airspace they will want to use that technology. What would 

it cost to equip a King Air or Queen Air to use that technology? 

Mr. DAY. I don’t have it off the top of my head but I know we 

do have those estimates for different states of equipage, whether it 

be from the low end to the very high end, or also whether it is a 

retrofit or a forward-fit for those aircraft. We can get that for you. 

[The information follows:] 

39 


Insert offset folio 14 here 51384.014
40 


Insert offset folio 15 here 51384.015
41 


Insert offset folio 16 here 51384.016
42 


Insert offset folio 17 here 51384.017
43 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We have probably 100,000 of those types of aircraft that use the commercial airspace, and it is of importance. And 

when I have to travel around my district, and need to go from the 

Canadian border, International Falls to Minneapolis/Saint Paul, 

and there isn’t Northwest Airlines service, I have to charter. And 

I want to know that my charter operator is going to be able to— 

and I hear this from other Members as well. It is a general question so it would be useful to have that. 

Mr. Thomann, will Jefferson/Boeing—it is so sad that Jefferson 

disappeared on its own. Such a great name in aviation. It was 

swallowed up by Boeing. But at any rate—— 

Mr. THOMANN. We are privileged. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good answer. I am sort of a nostalgist. Some of 

these things it would be nice to be left alone. But at any rate, will 

you continue to produce hard-copy charts, or will this remarkable 

progress in technology succumb to simply changing the software on 

the computers on board aircraft? 

Mr. THOMANN. It will be both. So we are continuing in this digital transformation. As you know, it is a 75-year-old company, with 

good old Captain Jeff, started drawing those charts on that little 

black book. We are still drawing those charts. In fact, we print 

about a billion of them. And that is down from about 2.2 bil. 

As we get new technologies and the general aviation aircraft— 

which, by the way, are capable of flying RNP—and they use them 

in smaller airports or, like, going into Eagle, Colorado, where it is 

very terrain-challenged, RNP allows an airplane to get in there, 

where normally it would take a 1,200 AGL above the ground for 

this person’s minimum with 4 miles visibility. With RNP, you are 

pushing it down to 400 feet, a mile and a quarter. So it allows 

these aircraft also to participate. 

To answer your question, sir, we are going to continue to print 

the paper charts until we can get a total digital transformation, 

which is our end goal. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All the Digital Age is wonderful. I do not demean 

it in anyway. And I love seeing those pilots with stacks of charts 

this thick. And I worry when they come on board with something 

this size that will have 1,200 charts in it and something blows a 

fuse. 

Mr. THOMANN. So you can get our charts that way now, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know. And then there is going to be the day, 

as happened to me, when the pilot turns to me and says, Is that 

White Iron Lake down there? And I say, It sure is. And he says, 

I have never flown up here before, I wasn’t sure. 

So, yes, I am not a Luddite. I think these are great. But when 

they fail, then you are really out of luck. 

Mr. THOMANN. They can be—and there is enough redundancy, 

and I am a pilot with a pacifier myself, sir. So when I fly a little 

Cirrus, it has all the avionics that I could possibly ask for and the 

electronic charts. But I still have my pacifier in the left seat, which 

is a paper chart. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a good idea. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being vigilant. I thank our staff 

for their splendid work on this complex matter. And we will continue to revisit, and we ask the IG to continue your vigorous overVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:58 Nov 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51384 JASON
44 

sight, and thank Southwest and Alaska for real-world participation. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Chairman Oberstar. 

And do other Members have questions? If not, let me assure you 

and the IG’s Office, Ms. Calvaresi-Barr, that we will continue to 

provide vigilant oversight at the Subcommittee level. 

As you know, we have had a number of hearings on NextGen. 

We will continue. And we have had roundtables too, not just formal 

hearings, but we have sat down informally with not only folks from 

the FAA but the inspector general’s office and others in the industry to get updates, reports, and try and stay abreast as to what 

progress or the lack of progress is being made. 

So I think some very good points were made this morning. We 

appreciate all of your testimony. And this concludes the hearing 

today. And the Subcommittee will stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 18 here 51384.018
46 


Insert offset folio 19 here 51384.019
47 


Insert offset folio 20 here 51384.020
48 


Insert offset folio 21 here 51384.021
49 


Insert offset folio 22 here 51384.022
50 


Insert offset folio 23 here 51384.023
51 


Insert offset folio 24 here 51384.024
52 


Insert offset folio 25 here 51384.025
53 


Insert offset folio 26 here 51384.026
54 


Insert offset folio 27 here 51384.027
55 


Insert offset folio 28 here 51384.028
56 


Insert offset folio 29 here 51384.029
57 


Insert offset folio 30 here 51384.030
58 


Insert offset folio 31 here 51384.031
59 


Insert offset folio 32 here 51384.032
60 


Insert offset folio 33 here 51384.033
61 


Insert offset folio 34 here 51384.034
62 


Insert offset folio 35 here 51384.035
63 


Insert offset folio 36 here 51384.036
64 


Insert offset folio 37 here 51384.037
65 


Insert offset folio 38 here 51384.038
66 


Insert offset folio 39 here 51384.039
67 


Insert offset folio 40 here 51384.040
68 


Insert offset folio 41 here 51384.041
69 


Insert offset folio 42 here 51384.042
70 


Insert offset folio 43 here 51384.043
71 


Insert offset folio 44 here 51384.044
72 


Insert offset folio 45 here 51384.045
73 


Insert offset folio 46 here 51384.046
74 


Insert offset folio 47 here 51384.047
75 


Insert offset folio 48 here 51384.048
76 


Insert offset folio 49 here 51384.049
77 


Insert offset folio 50 here 51384.050
78 


Insert offset folio 51 here 51384.051
79 


Insert offset folio 52 here 51384.052
80 


Insert offset folio 53 here 51384.053
81 


Insert offset folio 54 here 51384.054
82 


Insert offset folio 55 here 51384.055
83 


Insert offset folio 56 here 51384.056
84 


Insert offset folio 57 here 51384.057
85 


Insert offset folio 58 here 51384.058
86 


Insert offset folio 59 here 51384.059
87 


Insert offset folio 60 here 51384.060
88 


Insert offset folio 61 here 51384.061
89 


Insert offset folio 62 here 51384.062
90 


Insert offset folio 63 here 51384.063
91 


Insert offset folio 64 here 51384.064
92 


Insert offset folio 65 here 51384.065
93 


Insert offset folio 66 here 51384.066
94 


Insert offset folio 67 here 51384.067
95 


Insert offset folio 68 here 51384.068
96 


Insert offset folio 69 here 51384.069
97 


Insert offset folio 70 here 51384.070
98 


Insert offset folio 71 here 51384.071
99 


Insert offset folio 72 here 51384.072
100 


Insert offset folio 73 here 51384.073
101 


Insert offset folio 74 here 51384.074
102 


Insert offset folio 75 here 51384.075
103 


Insert offset folio 76 here 51384.076
104 


Insert offset folio 77 here 51384.077
105 


Insert offset folio 78 here 51384.078
106 


Insert offset folio 79 here 51384.079
107 


Insert offset folio 80 here 51384.080
108 


Insert offset folio 81 here 51384.081
109 


Insert offset folio 82 here 51384.082
110 


Insert offset folio 83 here 51384.083
111 


Insert offset folio 84 here 51384.084
112 


Insert offset folio 85 here 51384.085
113 


Insert offset folio 86 here 51384.086
114 


Insert offset folio 87 here 51384.087
115 


Insert offset folio 88 here 51384.088
116 


Insert offset folio 89 here 51384.089
117 


Insert offset folio 90 here 51384.090
118 


Insert offset folio 91 here 51384.091
119 


Insert offset folio 92 here 51384.092
120 


Insert offset folio 93 here 51384.093
121 


Insert offset folio 94 here 51384.094
122 


Insert offset folio 95 here 51384.095
123 


Insert offset folio 96 here 51384.096
124 


Insert offset folio 97 here 51384.097
125 


Insert offset folio 98 here 51384.098
126 


Insert offset folio 99 here 51384.099
127 


Insert offset folio 100 here 51384.100
128 


Insert offset folio 101 here 51384.101
129 


Insert offset folio 102 here 51384.102
130 


Insert offset folio 103 here 51384.103
131 


Insert offset folio 104 here 51384.104
132 


Insert offset folio 105 here 51384.105
133 


Insert offset folio 106 here 51384.106
134 


Insert offset folio 107 here 51384.107
135 


Insert offset folio 108 here 51384.108
136 


Insert offset folio 109 here 51384.109
137 


Insert offset folio 117 here 51384.117
138 


Insert offset folio 118 here 51384.118
139 


Insert offset folio 119 here 51384.119
140 


Insert offset folio 120 here 51384.120
141 


Insert offset folio 121 here 51384.121
142 


Insert offset folio 122 here 51384.122
143 


Insert offset folio 123 here 51384.123
144 


Insert offset folio 124 here 51384.124
145 


Insert offset folio 125 here 51384.125
146 


Insert offset folio 126 here 51384.126
147 


Insert offset folio 127 here 51384.127
148 


Insert offset folio 128 here 51384.128
149 


Insert offset folio 129 here 51384.129
150 


Insert offset folio 130 here 51384.130
151 


Insert offset folio 131 here 51384.131
152 


Insert offset folio 132 here 51384.132
153 


Insert offset folio 133 here 51384.133
154 


Insert offset folio 134 here 51384.134
155 


Insert offset folio 135 here 51384.135
156 


Insert offset folio 136 here 51384.136
157 


Insert offset folio 137 here 51384.137
158 


Insert offset folio 138 here 51384.138
159 


Insert offset folio 139 here 51384.139
160 


Insert offset folio 140 here 51384.140
161 


Insert offset folio 141 here 51384.141
162 


Insert offset folio 142 here 51384.142
163 


Insert offset folio 143 here 51384.143
164 


Insert offset folio 144 here 51384.144
165 


Insert offset folio 145 here 51384.145
166 


Insert offset folio 146 here 51384.146
167 


Insert offset folio 147 here 51384.147
168 


Insert offset folio 148 here 51384.148
169 


Insert offset folio 149 here 51384.149
170 


Insert offset folio 150 here 51384.150
171 


Insert offset folio 151 here 51384.151
172 


Insert offset folio 152 here 51384.152
173 


Insert offset folio 153 here 51384.153
174 


Insert offset folio 154 here 51384.154
175 


Insert offset folio 155 here 51384.155
176 


Insert offset folio 156 here 51384.156
177 


Insert offset folio 157 here 51384.157
178 


Insert offset folio 158 here 51384.158
179 


Insert offset folio 159 here 51384.159
180 


Insert offset folio 160 here 51384.160
181 


Insert offset folio 161 here 51384.161
182 


Insert offset folio 162 here 51384.162
183 


Insert offset folio 163 here 51384.163
184 


Insert offset folio 164 here 51384.164
185 


Insert offset folio 165 here 51384.165
186 


Insert offset folio 166 here 51384.166
187 


Insert offset folio 167 here 51384.167
188 


Insert offset folio 168 here 51384.168
189 


Insert offset folio 169 here 51384.169
190 


Insert offset folio 170 here 51384.170
191 


Insert offset folio 171 here 51384.171
192 


Insert offset folio 172 here 51384.172
193 


Insert offset folio 173 here 51384.173
194 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 174 here 51384.174