U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–722 PDF 2003

THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY—THE IMPACT OF THE SEPTEMBER

11TH TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE SECURITY

AND OPERATION OF AIRPORTS SERVING THE

NATION’S CAPITAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 8, 2002

Serial No. 107–174

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairman

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia,

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

RUSSELL SMITH, Staff Director

MATTHEW BATT, Legislative Assistant/Clerk

SHALLEY KIM, Staff Assistant

JON BOUKER, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 8, 2002 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Favola, Barbara, chair, COG Committee on Noise Abatement at National

and Dulles Airports; David Gries, chair, Palisades Citizens Association

Committee on Aircraft Noise; and Donald W. MacGlashan, board member of CAAN, Inc. .......................................................................................... 87

Van de Water, Read, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation; Steve Brown, Associate

Administrator for Air Traffic Services, Federal Aviation Administration;

James A. Wilding, president and CEO, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; Beth Haskins, CEO, Signature Flight Support; and

John W. Olcott, president, National Business Aviation Association, Inc. 17

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Brown, Steve, Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, Federal

Aviation Administration, prepared statement of ....................................... 27

Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 118

Favola, Barbara, chair, COG Committee on Noise Abatement at National

and Dulles Airports, prepared statement of ............................................... 90

Gries, David, chair, Palisades Citizens Association Committee on Aircraft

Noise, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 99

Haskins, Beth, CEO, Signature Flight Support, prepared statement of ..... 46

MacGlashan, Donald W., board member of CAAN, Inc., prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 106

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 12

Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 4

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia, prepared statement of ............................................................ 8

Olcott, John W., president, National Business Aviation Association, Inc.,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 53

Van de Water, Read, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared statement of ........ 20

Wilding, James A., president and CEO, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, prepared statement of ...................................................... 35

(1)

THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS

AUTHORITY—THE IMPACT OF THE SEPTEMBER 11TH TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE SECURITY AND OPERATION OF AIRPORTS

SERVING THE NATION’S CAPITAL

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Constance A. Morella

(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Morella, Norton, Platts, Tom Davis of

Virginia, Shays, Moran, and Watson.

Staff present: Russell Smith, staff director; Heea Vazirani-Fales,

counsel; Matthew Batt, legislative assistant/clerk; Robert White,

communications director; Shalley Kim, staff assistant; Jon Bouker,

minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mrs. MORELLA. Good morning. I’m going to call the Subcommittee of the District of Columbia to order for the purpose of convening our hearing on the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the impact of September 11th terrorist attacks on the security

and operation of airports serving our Nation’s Capital.

I want to acknowledge our ranking member, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and joining us this morning is our member

from the 8th District of Virginia, Jim Moran, who has had an interest throughout this whole journey in what was happening at our

airports.

I want to begin by once again publicly thanking President Bush

and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta for their work in reopening Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after September 11th and now placing it back on the path to full capacity. You

cannot overestimate the importance of Reagan National and our

other two airports, Dulles and BWI, to the regional economy, an

economy that is largely driven by tourism and business travel.

Getting National back to full operation is another piece of good

news, both financial and symbolic, as the region continues to recover from the events of the fall. It has been a long road—maybe

I should say a long flight path—to get back.

Reagan National faced an unprecedented 4-week shutdown, the

mandating of strict new security measures on all flights, and a

2

gradual phase-in of service. This situation has served to highlight

how important National Airport is to this region.

Eight months ago some doubted whether the airport would ever

open again. Today, as we move ever closer to full capacity, those

fears are fortunately long gone. Reagan National is here to stay.

Since October 4th, when planes resumed flying in and out of National, many residents of this region, including many in Montgomery County, Maryland, had to cope with new flight patterns. As

part of the post-September 11th protocols, aircraft flying to or from

National stopped following the Potomac River and began taking a

straight-line course, which meant they flew over neighborhoods. I

know Jim Wilding and the Airports Authority were relieved when

Secretary Norm Mineta gave National permission to return to its

usual flight patterns, but I know they weren’t any more relieved

than the folks whose walls rumbled and windows shook every time

a plane flew overhead.

Unfortunately, I understand that not all the previous noise

abatement procedures have been put back in place. Actually,

there’s conflicting information in this regard. Airports and the surrounding area are naturally going to be noisy places. There’s just

no way to completely silence a 200-ton aircraft powered by 30-ton

engines, but we can and we must take reasonable steps to reduce

that noise wherever possible, and we won’t be back to normal until

all the previous noise abatement strategies are being put to use.

One of these measures has been the practice of pilots throttling

back or decelerating right after takeoff and maintaining that reduced power for the first 10 miles of the trip. This greatly helps

reduce noise to inner-beltway neighborhoods, and we will be asking

our FAA representative if the Agency is, indeed, no longer enforcing this measure on flights heading to the north, as appears to be

the case. And, if not, why not?

I’d also like to hear from Mr. Wilding and others if there are any

other logical steps that we might take that would reduce noise.

Similarly, we will be touching on the new security structure now

in place at National, Dulles, and other airports around the country

and we’ll get an assessment of the security features that are

unique to National; namely, the required presence of air marshals

on every flight at the airport, the extra security screening, and a

requirement that passengers remain seated during the first and

last 30 minutes of all flights.

Finally, we’ll also be discussing the situation concerning general

aviation and privately owned planes. They are still banned from

use at Reagan National and three small airports in Prince George’s

County, Maryland. College Park Airport; Potomac Airfield; and

Washington Executive Airport, Hyde Field, are open only to pilots

whose planes are based there, which seems to be an untenable position for these airports. How can they possibly survive under those

restrictions?

It is my understanding that the U.S. Secret Service, Office of

Homeland Security, and perhaps other agencies are involved in determining when or if general aviation flights return to National. I’ll

3

be asking the Government witnesses if they can shed some light on

this situation, including telling us what criteria will be used to determine when it is safe to resume full operations at these airports

also.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella follows:]

4

5

6

Mrs. MORELLA. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I

appreciate their being here.

I am now pleased to recognize our ranking member, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for her opening comments.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to

thank our chair, Representative Connie Morella, for holding this

hearing which I requested a few months ago. I believe that the announcement of the chair and the subcommittee that there would be

a hearing on Reagan National Airport did much to speed the airport to return close to normal today; however, there are still important outstanding issues and the public is anxious to know the exact

status of the airport, what normalcy means at Reagan National,

whether it has been reached, and what, if anything, is still to be

accomplished.

I want to begin by thanking Secretary Norm Mineta, who struggled to get Reagan National back to service levels that regional

residents, the regional economy, and people who are around this

country and the world who travel here have a right to expect.

After September 11th there was considerable concern when other

airports opened almost immediately, including Dulles, from which

one of the hijacked planes was launched. National, alone, was

placed on a phased-in schedule until April 15th, and even then the

pre-September 11th schedule was not achieved. However, scheduling delays have not been the only issues. Perhaps the three most

important remaining issues may be summarized as: noise, general

or private aviation, and always, of course, security.

First, there has been a lot of justifiable noise about noise, if I

may so characterize such a serious issue and one that has taxed

the patience and disturbed the peace of thousands of Washingtonians and residents of Maryland and Virginia. We will hear what

the effects have been and whether they continue or have been

abated from residents of the Palisades, a beautiful neighborhood

that has been especially hard hit by excessive noise. I appreciate

that these witnesses have come forward to provide the subcommittee with a first-hand account.

Private or general aviation is the last and most serious victim of

September 11th in this region. General aviation at National Airport remains exactly as September 11th left it—completely shut

down. This region contains both the major part of Federal establishment and an economy that ranks near the top in output in our

country. Elimination of general aviation altogether therefore has

been far more than an inconvenience. The 8-month elimination of

general aviation that is important to both Government and the private sector here has been a significant drag on the regional economy. Today we will learn the reasons for the long and continuing

shutdown and what can be done to return general aviation to National, and, of course, the economic effects on the region.

Finally, the subcommittee needs to be brought up to date concerning how safe or secure National Airport really is, how far we

have to go, and the economic effects.

Again, I appreciate that the chair has called this hearing on our

airports to respond to the great interest and continuing concern of

residents and businesses in this region.

7

May I also express my appreciation in advance to all of today’s

witnesses for your time in preparing testimony and for participating in this hearing.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

8

9

10

Mrs. MORELLA. We have a guest, as I said. Mr. Moran, I wonder

if you would like to make any opening comments. You are welcome

to.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Morella. As you

know, National Airport is in my District. I’ve got one or two constituents who have some concern with many aspects of National

Airport, particularly the noise and disruption it causes their residential communities. But first I want to thank all the folks that

were involved in restoring the operations at National, and particularly Jim Wilding, as the head of the Metropolitan Washington

Aviation Authority, and the folks at the Federal level. And I have

to say the local government was very constructive, as well. We’re

going to hear from Barbara Favola representing Arlington County

shortly.

But let me focus. As is always the case, we have it with our constituents, as well, so I’ll do the same thing. It is just the human

condition that when things are improved you focus on what you

haven’t yet achieved or, you know, whatever the problems are, but

bear in mind we understand the larger context—that we’re back on

our feet, the economy is rebounding, and a lot of good has been accomplished in the last several months, and certainly the announcement of April 24th was music to our ears, but we still have some

problems.

Now, in terms of general aviation it is an economic problem, and

I think it is a serious one. I would like to have some discussion,

Madam Chairwoman—I know you share this interest with Ms.

Norton. As long as we have grounded general aviation, a lot of the

corporations, the executives in this area that rely upon being able

to use their own jets are discouraged from locating or staying here.

We’ve actually put a fair number of people out of business.

Signature Airlines is going to be able to sustain operations

around the country because it is so large, but they have a subsidiary that I expect is going to go out of business, and that’s very unfortunate.

I think that the long-term ramifications of not having general

aviation are significant, and I would hope that we will be able to

fix that situation. We really ought to have general aviation. We

ought to be able to use the runways 15 through 33. I understand

they align with the Pentagon, but we’d like to hear why it is not

possible to get general aviation up and running.

The noise curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is obviously very important to our constituents. The curfew, itself, is certainly an issue,

but the most important thing is the noise, and that’s what prompts

the curfew, itself. It’s not a matter of the planes, themselves; it’s

the disruption to people during hours when they would normally be

able to sleep peacefully.

I still have problems, and I’d like to get as much commitment as

we can with regard to this perimeter rule. I know the Congress

busted the perimeter rule, and our friend from Arizona was instrumental in doing that, but National Airport was never intended to

be an airport to accommodate intercontinental flights. I trust that

all of you share that feeling. If you don’t, I’d like to hear about it,

because Dulles is the complementary airport that was built to handle transcontinental and intercontinental flights. National suppleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85722.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

mented that with the shorter haul and the regional flights, so I

don’t think we should be going beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter

rule.

I know we are going to talk about the slot rule and the flight

path, but there are still—the point is that there are still some

issues that we need to resolve. I know we put the noise situation

on hold and that was understandable, but it doesn’t mean that it

is dismissed. I would hope we can go back to making some progress

on that.

The TRACON traffic control system is very beneficial. It’s very

encouraging what they’ve done. And it will divert some of the

planes from Andrews Air Force Base that have been going over residential areas, so TRACON is particularly important because it

looks at the entire region.

The one other thing I’d like some discussion—I don’t know if anybody is prepared to mention it, but the military aircraft flying over,

that has been a problem at night, and so if anybody would care to

address that I’d appreciate it.

I see my time is up. It is even flashing now, so I suspect that

means I’ve exhausted my time.

I’m anxious to hear from the witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Moran.

[The prepared statement of Hon. James P. Moran follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

Mrs. MORELLA. I am now going to ask our distinguished first

panel if they would stand and raise their right hand so we can administer the oath, which is tradition for the subcommittees and the

full committee.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. MORELLA. Everybody has answered in the affirmative. The

record shall so demonstrate.

Now I will introduce the witnesses to you and then ask you each

if you would try to confine your comments to within 5 minutes. We

do have your comments in the totality and they will be in the

record as such.

Read Van de Water is the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Transportation;

Steven Brown is the associate administrator for Air Traffic Services

at the Federal Aviation Administration; James Wilding is president

and CEO of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; Elizabeth Haskins is the CEO of Signature Flight Support; and John

Olcott is the president of the National Business Aviation Association, Incorporated.

We are delighted to have you all here. We will start off with you,

Ms. Van de Water.

STATEMENTS OF READ VAN DE WATER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; STEVE BROWN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; JAMES A. WILDING,

PRESIDENT AND CEO, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY; BETH HASKINS, CEO, SIGNATURE

FLIGHT SUPPORT; AND JOHN W. OLCOTT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION, INC.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Madam Chairwoman, Ms. Norton, Mr.

Moran, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the issue of

the closure of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to general aviation and charter airlines following the terrorist attacks of

September 11th. I am pleased to testify before you today on behalf

of Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta and Under Secretary

of Security, John Magaw.

As Secretary Mineta has said publicly many times, Reagan National Airport is an important symbol of the enduring strength of

our Nation. Reagan National, or DCA, as we often call it, also

serves as a gateway to the Nation’s capital and is an important

contributor to the Washington Metropolitan area’s economy.

The Department of Transportation takes full ownership for the

responsibility of returning Reagan National to its prior capacity,

both commercial and general aviation. We have coordinated and

strategized within the Federal Government since September to

achieve that goal.

As many of you have stated, following the terrorist attacks of

September 11th DCA was closed to all air traffic. In early October,

Secretary Mineta allowed for the phased reopening of DCA to commercial flight operations. As a result of the development of successful security measures for commercial airline flights, Secretary Mineta recently, just a few weeks ago, authorized the full restoration

18

of scheduled commercial flight operations in and out of DCA. This

was a step-by-step process. As each phase operated successfully,

the comfort level and the security procedures established increased,

thus allowing more service.

I’d like to note, Mrs. Morella and Ms. Norton, you both stated

that folks wondered if DCA would ever open again to traffic. I can

say, working for Secretary Mineta, that Secretary Mineta never

doubted that. It has been a priority of his since September.

But the reopening of flight operations at DCA has not yet been

extended to general aviation, or ‘‘GA,’’ as we call it, and charter airlines. By GA and charter airlines, I mean private aircraft owner

and operators, air taxi and on-demand operators, including public

and private charters, as well as helicopter operations and corporate

aircraft.

The decision to keep general aviation and charter flight operations out of DCA has been based on a number of critical factors.

These include the grave concerns over the protection of key assets

and critical infrastructure in the Washington metropolitan area

and the absolute necessity to prevent the use of an aircraft, regardless of its size, as a weapon of mass destruction.

I cannot overstate how seriously we take those concerns in the

administration. I know you share that concern. But let me tell you

where we are today, because we have made a tremendous amount

of progress.

We have met with various Federal agencies and users of general

aviation to determine the best and quickest way to reopen the airport to GA aircraft operations. We believe we are very close to

making an announcement that will bring this matter to a close

shortly. In fact, we hope to reach a conclusion on the key policy decisions by the end of May, just several weeks away.

The procedures we expect to put in place will fall into certain

categories. First would be the vetting and certification of flight

deck crew members; second, advance clearance of passenger manifests by the TSA, or the Transportation Security Administration;

screening of passengers and accessible property on the aircraft; securing and physical inspection of aircraft; and compliance with the

DCA air traffic control special flight procedures that commercial

airlines also follow flying in and out of the airport.

In order to expedite the process of reviving general aviation operations at DCA, we will likely issue an interim final rule shortly

that will allow the immediate commencement of operations. Comments will then be allowed on the rule’s provisions and we can consider the comments and decide if the procedures need to be

changed, but that way the restoration of service is not held up

pending the final decision of the rule.

We at the DOT are committed to working hard and making this

happen in a timely way. As part of its civil aviation security responsibilities, the TSA will stringently monitor compliance with

these procedures. The failure to comply with the approved security

measures will result in serious enforcement action against the GA

or charter airline operator and/or pilot.

In summary, Madam Chairwoman, the DOT is committed to putting in place comprehensive security measures that will permit the

19

reopening of Reagan National to general aviation and charter airline operations in a timely manner.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions when the panel is done.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you very much, Ms. Van de Water. we appreciate that and we will be getting back to you when we get into

the questioning.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Van de Water follows:]

20

21

22

23

24

Mrs. MORELLA. I’m now pleased to recognize Steven Brown.

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Good morning, Chairwoman Morella and Representatives Norton and Moran. I’ve looked forward to testifying on the

issue of noise at Washington metropolitan airports. Thank you for

inviting me to the hearing.

As the associate administrator for air traffic services, I am responsible for managing the world’s largest, most complex, and

safest air traffic control system. In addition to my official responsibilities, I am also a pilot who flies in and out of the local airports

regularly, and I happen to live near Rosslyn, adjacent to National

Airport.

One of the primary goals that we have at the agency is to enhance the efficiency while maintaining the highest possible standards of safety in our national airspace system, and that’s even

more true since September 11th, especially in the Washington, DC,

area. We obviously focus, in addition, on reducing the environmental impacts of aviation on the local communities to preserve

quality of life.

On behalf of Administrator Garvey and all of us at FAA, I want

to explain why I, my neighbors, and others near these airports

have been affected by increased aircraft noise as a result of

changes to the flight patterns following September 11th, and especially at Reagan National Airport, and also share our plans that

Mr. Moran referred to, the overall airspace redesign in the Washington area.

Communities located near Reagan National Airport clearly have

concerns about noise, and they have been very patient over the last

few months as we have focused intently on enhancing security procedures at the airport. Now the FAA and several other agencies

post-September 11th had collaborated on improving flight operations procedures, as well as security at the airport, and we’ve arrived at the point where we have many unique provisions in place

that have helped ensure the improved operations.

The revised arrival and departure procedures that we implemented to secure the reopening of National Airport were essential

to accomplish many of our goals. After the October 4th reopening

of the airport, the consequences included, unfortunately, the temporary suspension of many of the noise abatement procedures that

you are familiar with. Instead of following the Potomac River, in

brief, pilots were required to follow an electronic course that provided straight-out guidance from the airport. Similarly, pilots who

were arriving at the airport would follow this same electronic guidance following a straight-in path over some of the communities that

you referred to in your opening remarks. This occurred for about

10 miles distance from the airport.

In addition to that, pilots operated at very high power settings,

higher than for the normal abatement procedures, to make steeper

climb-outs and departures from the Washington area. This consequently resulted in more noise.

However, on April 27th of this year Secretary Mineta authorized

flights into National Airport to resume the pre-September 11th patters that we spoke of earlier. Today we are progressively restoring

the noise abatement procedures that were in place and will be

25

again using the river departures and arrivals, as well as the throttle-back procedures after departure from the airport.

In addition, Congressman Moran referred to Runway 1533,

which we have placed back into service about a week ago. In fact,

I noticed them all weekend as I was in my back yard.

Obviously, now that aircraft are following the Potomac River

both to the north and the south of the airport, and as they will be

increasingly as pilots are trained to go back to the throttle-back

provisions and use those as they fly along the river approach, pilots

will be throttling back power substantially once they reach 1,500

feet, which is generally within about two miles of the airport, and

then they will continue their noise abatement climbs as they did

prior to September 11th.

Just briefly, with regard to the airspace redesign issues, we are

engaged in redesigning the airspace in the Baltimore/Washington

region. In response to the fact that we’ve had traffic growth, we

need additional capacity, and we can bring more efficiency and less

noise to the community by doing so.

The last airspace redesign in the Washington/Baltimore area was

in 1987, and it is now time to bring increased efficiency and increased technology to bear. As Congressman Moran alluded to, we

will combine five TRACONs, or regional air traffic control facilities,

into one that will be called the Potomac TRACON. We plan to open

this building near Vent Hill in Virginia in December of this year,

and it will become fully operational next summer in 2003. It will

allow controllers to more efficiently manage their resources, to communicate, and adapt to frequent changes in weather conditions

more effectively.

We expect the TRACON will provide many benefits to the region,

and we are having a number of scoping meetings for the draft EIS

that’s underway, and comments close on that EIS on May 23rd.

We are currently considering in that process three proposed airspace redesign concepts for the Washington area, all within 75

miles of Reagan National Airport. Communities close to the airport

will not be affected by this airspace redesign, because we will continue to use the existing noise abatement departure and arrival

procedures in and out of the airport.

The changes will occur where there will be relief for those aircraft that are able to fly a greater distance from Washington, as

Congressman Moran spoke to with regard to Andrews Airport, and

also aircraft that will be managed at higher altitudes for a longer

time period to lessen the noise impact on the ground.

Madam Chairwoman, the National Airport situation is improving

rapidly following the Secretary’s announcement on the 27th, and

we at the FAA are looking forward to managing that traffic in

ways that we did prior to September 11th to minimize the impact

on the citizens while still maintaining an efficient and safe system.

We’ll continue to look forward to the airlines deciding to deploy

new technology aircraft to those airports that will result in lower

engine noise and lower takeoff noise, as well.

And, as I indicated, we’ll continue to keep the public broadly informed of the actions we’re taking to redesign the airspace in the

area. Over the course of this last month, in April we had 10 public

26

meetings to involve citizens in the specifics of our design plans and

the three alternatives that I spoke to.

That concludes my verbal statement. I’ll look forward to your

questions.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mrs. MORELLA. I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Wilding.

Mr. WILDING. Madam Chairman, thank you so very much for

having us here this morning, also to the other members of the committee. We have submitted a statement with detail in it. Let me

just hit a couple of the highlights.

First, as to where we are right now, I think it is fair to say, in

light of what you’ve already heard this morning, that at Washington National all of the post-September 11th restrictions that were

placed on, and that constrained the market, at National and that

had to do with putting aside some of the old noise abatement provisions, have now fallen away. The single exception is the continued

ban on general aviation. And, as has been indicated this morning,

I think we are making excellent progress on that, and really within

a couple of weeks will be where we need to go. So I think we’ve

come all the way down that course now and are there, except for

general aviation which is almost in hand.

With respect to Dulles, I think that has been a much more normal come-back from September 11th, which is similar to other airports. We’re now running about 92 percent of what we would consider normal activity at Dulles, with an absolutely dynamite summer international season upon us where we’ve got lots of new service and the bookings are extremely strong. So I think things are

looking very, very good on that front, as well.

On the employee front, as you may recall, the employment at

Washington National was severely impacted by the events of last

fall and then the relatively slow reopening of National the remaining months of last year. At its worst, there were about 4,500 of

Washington National’s 10,000 employees out of work. That has

largely rebounded and that number would be counted in the hundreds now, and that’s fading very, very quickly.

At Dulles we had a much milder hit, and again that was measured at its worst in the hundreds. Practically all of that has now

rebounded.

On the security front, you’ve heard reference to some of the extraordinary security provisions at Washington National, mostly

those in the air. Again, we’ve sort of backed away, I think, from

those that affected noise abatement. We’re sort of back to the ones

that are more normally thought of—the staying in your seat 30

minutes and certain air traffic procedures—that make sure that

the folks flying the airplane are the right ones.

Again, I think it is fair to say that security at our airports is in

very, very good shape and will gradually become even in better

shape over time as new techniques are brought in, but it is significantly tighter than it was last September. Again, all of us are committed to working with the new TSA to do make sure that our security measures do nothing but get better over time.

On the financial front, we took, as you might imagine, an enormous financial hit when one of our two airports was down and then

stayed down, in large measure, for many months. Three things

have put us back on a sound financial footing, however: No. 1 is

the $40 million that the Federal Government helped us out with.

Again, you all did so very, very much in getting the airport reopened. Then, without missing a beat, sort of stepped in and made

34

sure that financially it was brought back, as well. So we thank you

again for all of that help.

No. 2, we have tightened our budget, our operating budget, a

great deal. And, No. 3, we have reached into our extraordinarily large $4.1

billion development program at Dulles and have now put certain

things aside for a little while and are only pursuing—I say ‘‘only’’—

$2.6 billion of that work.

So the combination of those three things has put us back on a

very sound financial footing. As a matter of fact, a little later in

this month we will be back in the bond market to the tune of $250

million, which will be the ultimate test of whether we have found

a sound financial footing. We are confident that we have.

Let me close by simply pointing out that our two airports are the sight of 26,000 jobs. There is $6.5 billion of annual business done

on those two airports, and they generate about $730 million in

taxes per year at the Federal, State, and local level. All of that I

dare say seemed like something of an abstraction until last September, when all of a sudden that economic impact became empty

hotel rooms, empty restaurants, empty tourist establishments,

things like that. All of this has now slipped behind us, and we look

forward to substantial growth at the two airports and development

responsibilities which will allow us to accommodate that growth.

We very much look forward to the return of general aviation to

Washington National, which just completes the picture down there.

And, very significantly, we look forward to getting back on track

the so-called ‘‘Part 150’’ process, where we are partnered with

CONANDA and COG to take a very deep look at the noise abatement provisions at Washington National. That was something that

we had just sort of formed a partnership and started into a couple

of weeks when the events of last September happened. It is a process that I think brings all of the right people to the right table to

thrash out whether what we’re doing in noise abatement is the best

job we can be doing at Washington National. We’re committed to

doing the best job, and I think now getting that back on track—

which we can do with the stability we now have back at Washington National once GA is back—we will have a process that all of

us can look to and be proud of.

Thanks again so very much for having us.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Wilding.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilding follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Mrs. MORELLA. The three of you who have already testified have

given a pretty good assessment and prognostication of what will

happen. Now let us hear from the other partner, Elizabeth

Haskins.

Ms. HASKINS. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Congresswoman

Norton, Congressman Moran, and Congresswoman Watson, it is a

privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the men and

women of Signature Flight Support and to have the opportunity to

testify on the future of business aviation at Reagan Washington

National Airport.

I’m very encouraged to hear the testimony presented today by

the Department of Transportation. We met yesterday and went

through some of the procedures that may happen to reopen general

aviation. I was quite encouraged by that, although we need to be

sure that there will be a time certain for implementation, but I’m

cautiously optimistic.

I want to take the opportunity at this time to thank the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, without whom, Mr. Moran,

you would have been right in your forecast of Washington National

Signature. We have had rent abatement from Washington National

Airport, which is part of the $40 million package that came from

you, and I thank you very much for that. It will keep us in business as long as we have a business to reopen.

We appreciate the continuing interest of Members of Congress,

particularly those that represent the Washington, DC, area and

that have continued to make this issue a priority for the administration.

Signature Flight Support is the world’s largest fixed-based operator and distribution network of business and commercial aviation

services. We’re a fixed-based operator at 42 U.S. airports, including

the provider of business aviation services at Reagan National. As

Reagan National’s business aviation source provider, Signature

handled an average of over 175 operations per day and employed

55 aviation service professionals. By the way, we now have 11 on

our payroll.

Signature was the gateway to Washington, DC, metropolitan

area for thousands of business aviation travelers, including Members of Congress, Fortune 500 executives, and public sector leaders.

With very few exceptions, since September 11th Signature’s

Reagan National facility has been shut down. Reagan National’s

restrictions also are harming other operations where the departing

traffic is destined for Washington, DC.

Adoption of a plan for resumption of business aviation is urgently needed because of the continuing harm the current ban is

causing to the business aviation industry and to the economy of the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Frankly, it has been disheartening to hear members of the administration proclaim full restoration of activities at Reagan National, while Signature and the industries that rely on us—the hospitality industries—know that this

has not been the case. The elimination of 60,000 business aviation

flights a year is not even close to full restoration of service.

The massive curtailment of operations means not only the loss

of business aviation industry jobs, but also the loss of a major

source of income to the D.C. hospitality and transportation indusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85722.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
45

tries, but the harm to the Nation is not just economic. By depriving

business aviation of access to Reagan National, we sharply restrict

citizen access to the Government.

In a letter to President Bush urging the restoration of business

aviation operations, Virginia Senators Warner and Allen said, ‘‘Unless we reopen Reagan National fully, we have accepted a significant modification in the way we conduct business in the Washington capital area that reduces our access and freedom. A permanent

reduction in our access to the Nation’s capital can only be seen as

a victory for our enemies and a blow to the working people of our

economy.’’ While some see Reagan National’s proximity to the capital as a liability, we see it as an asset. It is the gateway to our

capital.

Since the restoration of commercial operations less than a month

after the September 11th attacks, Reagan National has stood as a

symbol of the Nation’s refusal to be intimidated by terrorists and

of our determination to carry on the Nation’s business as normally

as possible. President Bush expressed this well when he announced

the restoration of commercial operations. He said, ‘‘This is the airport that brings our Nation’s leaders to Washington to do the people’s business. You can’t win.’’

Signature and the rest of the business aviation community share

this resolve, but the reality is otherwise until we have a truly full

restoration of activity at Reagan National. We understand the administration’s desire to move very cautiously. We fear that it may

not be fully appreciated that it is an urgent situation that business

aviation needs to be restored at Reagan National. In a few days,

our operation will have been closed for 8 months with no revenue.

We have an attendant staff. We paid a portion of the rent for that

period of time. We have all of the overhead to keep it going. We

have to be open for government flights that come through, so we

can’t just shut down and avoid the costs. It is important to understand this has been a significant impact on Signature Flight Support.

Finally, the standards for Federal funding of business aviation

security should be the same as those for commercial aviation. Both

are equally important matters of national security and key elements of our national air transportation system. There should be

no reason to distinguish the two by expending Federal money on

one while requiring private funding on the other.

Signature appreciates this committee’s focus on this important

issue, which must be viewed as the single most glaring failure to

date in our effort to return air transportation to normal activity.

We hope your interest continues throughout the implementation of

the TSA’s plan to reopen general aviation at Reagan National Airport.

Thank you.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Ms. Haskins. Our interest does continue.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Haskins follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Olcott.

Mr. OLCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this very important meeting. I am Jack Olcott, the president of the National

Business Aviation Association. NBAA represents the over 7,100

companies that use general aviation aircraft for business transportation or are otherwise engaged in what we know as ‘‘business

aviation.’’

Our members are integral to our Nation’s economy, generating revenues of approximately $5 trillion annually—that’s about half

the gross domestic product—and employing over 19 million workers. As companies engaged in the ebb and flow of commerce, it is

understandable that they have a considerable need for transportation. They use general aviation aircraft as one of the means for

meeting their transportation needs, just as they also use the scheduled airlines. In fact, NBAA member companies are the world’s

most active users of business aviation, yet they also purchase over

$10 billion in airline tickets annually. They simply require transportation.

Our members need access to Reagan National Airport. Last year,

approximately 2,000 companies, about 90 percent of them NBAA

members, landed at Reagan National, accounting for the vast majority of the approximately 60,000 movements that are classified as

general aviation at Reagan National, yet nearly 8 months after the

tragedies that occurred on September 11th, more than 6 months

following the restoration of airline service, general aviation still

does not have access to Reagan National.

Is that because those responsible for opening Reagan National

are unaware of the significant role that business aviation plays

within our Nation’s transportation system? Business aviation provides access to 10 times the number of airports with any scheduled

airline service, and over 100 times the locations with really convenient schedules. With its ability to reach more locations quickly and

efficiently, business aviation enables a company to maximize the

productivity of its two most important assets—people and time.

NBAA members are keenly aware of the value of time, as are the

shareholders of those companies.

Is it because those responsible for opening Reagan National are

unaware of the significant role that users of business aviation play

in our Nation’s economy? Using business aviation, our members

link rural America with the centers of commerce and government.

Reagan National open to business aviation is a symbol that our

Federal Government is open to rural America and those in the

heartland who contribute significantly to our Nation’s GDP.

Is it because those responsible for opening Reagan National are

unaware of the extremely high levels of security practiced by business aviation? Member companies of NBAA have been following

strict security procedures for decades, not just in the months following September 11th. Our community has a highly developed

culture of security, albeit focused on industrial security. Companies

carefully examine the background of their crews. They know who

boards their aircraft. Everyone who occupies a seat on a company

airplane is well known to either the crew or the lead passenger.

Aircraft are carefully maintained and inspected prior to flight.

Business aviation has an exemplary record of safety and security.

52

A meeting convened yesterday by Dr. Michael Jackson, Deputy

Secretary of Transportation, and attended by leaders within the

Transportation Security Administration, truly encourages NBAA. I

believe other representatives of general aviation associations were

similarly impressed. DOT and TSA outlined six steps that Deputy

Secretary Jackson said would form the basis of a definitive procedure to be announced by the end of this month.

We were also informed that TSA and DOT would engage the general aviation community as final procedures for GA access to

Reagan National are developed.

While it remains to be seen how much time will be needed to implement the proposed six-step plan once it is made public, we trust

that Congress, as well as the administration, will move expeditiously to open Reagan National to general aviation.

Thank you very much for your attention. I appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions later on.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you very much, Mr. Olcott.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olcott follows:]

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Mrs. MORELLA. I’ll start the questioning, again trying to keep it

to 5 minutes so we can go several rounds.

I think you noticed that we have been joined by Ms. Watson from

California, a great member of this subcommittee. Welcome.

I will start off with Ms. Van de Water. You mentioned the plan

that will be issued, the interim rule for a plan for general aviation,

which I guess will supersede the SLOA. I wondered if you would

tell us a little bit more about when you plan to release it, to issue

it, and how long will that interim rule be in effect.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. What we hope to do is, by the end of this

month, is to put out the interim final rule, as we call it. At that

time, we will allow comments on the rule, but while we are taking

in the comments and assessing them from the TSA perspective it

will allow the users of the airport to go ahead and operate under

those procedures.

As we discussed with the users of the airport yesterday, they

may have suggestions of improvements or changes in the rules, but

we didn’t want to hold up the whole process pending those changes,

so we will go ahead and put out what we call an ‘‘interim final

rule,’’ allow operations to begin, and then perhaps tweak the process as we go through it.

I believe Deputy Secretary Jackson committed yesterday to meeting again in 3 or 4 months with the users of the airports to see

how the procedures are playing out over time.

And, as I said in my statement, we do have high hopes of getting

this wrapped up by the end of May.

Mrs. MORELLA. By the end of May? That’s a very good date, since

it is pretty close.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. It is very close. And this requires coordination with other Federal agencies. It’s not merely a Department of

Transportation issue.

Mrs. MORELLA. Right. And I was pleased to hear that. I think I

heard correctly that you had met with general aviation—Signature

and the Business Aviation Association. But did you just meet with

them yesterday, or had they been involved?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. No. We’ve met with them before, and they

have been working with the TSA.

Mrs. MORELLA. So you would agree there was no problem with

that? The communication was pretty good?

Ms. HASKINS. Yes. The communication has absolutely been there.

Yes, the communication has been fine.

Mrs. MORELLA. Excellent. Excellent. I’m glad to hear that.

This question is for any of you who would like to answer. Why

has general aviation been prohibited from using Reagan National

Airport.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Well, the airport has been returned to service in phases, and our first priority was returning commercial operations. As you know, in early October we allowed each of the airlines, the major airlines that had served DCA, to choose one or two

of their major markets to begin bringing traffic in. We instituted

a second phase several months later, and announced the third

phase, which kicked in at the beginning of January. It went in over

a 3-month period.

68

We had additional security procedures put in place at that time

that allowed—and compliance with those procedures allowed the

comfort level to grow throughout the Federal Government that this

was the right thing to do and that these procedures could be followed and implemented.

Then the next natural stop would be general aviation. It hasn’t

been a deliberate desire to keep GA out; it has just been a restoration of commercial services first, as we try to come to terms with

the important security procedures that general aviation operators

will have to follow before they can come into the airport.

We are all very mindful of exactly how close the airport is to critical infrastructure in Washington.

Mrs. MORELLA. I commend you, as a matter of fact, for the

phase-in. I thought that was done in a very logical, reasoned way.

I’m just curious about what it was that general aviation needed to

do, perhaps in the area of security, which is what we hear about

all the time, and what you are asking them to have in place to

meet the security concerns.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We are going to have a very detailed procedure in place, and that will be covered in the interim final rule

that they can then comment on and make suggestions and changes

to. The key parts will be the vetting of flight deck crew members,

the submission of passenger manifests in advance, the securing of

unattended aircraft, the physical inspection of aircraft, compliance

with air traffic special flight procedures, and signed certification

agreements with their crews.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes. It seemed to me they were willing to do this

all along, but I guess it’s because you had to have the rule in place.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Yes. We will have to have the rule in place.

Mrs. MORELLA. And that’s what evidently took the time, even

though many of them were meeting various criteria.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We have every confidence they will be able

to meet the criteria.

Mrs. MORELLA. Right. What is the economic impact Ms. Haskins

on general aviation in the region since the imposition of that prohibition?

Ms. HASKINS. Well, the revenue lost by Signature Flight Support

and then the attendant downstream revenue to sedan services and

so forth, Signature’s revenue loss through the end of April has been

over $13 million. When you’re talking billions, it doesn’t sound like

a lot. When you’re talking about a company the size of Signature,

it’s a lot. And the interesting factor is the downstream effect—the

hotel rooms that aren’t sold. We sell an awful lot of hotel rooms in

Washington, DC, particularly the Pentagon area. Also, the sedan

services, the rental car agencies that our customers use when

they’re coming through Washington Reagan Airport.

We’ve estimated—we’ve gotten some numbers from the hospitality industry in trying to get a handle on it. We know that it is

in excess of $10 million for the 4-months that was closed September through December. I’m not positive that number is one that

you could hang your hat on, but it is in that order of magnitude.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did general aviation services get any of that $40

million?

69

Ms. HASKINS. In the form—no, we did not directly, but Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority met with us as soon as they got

their money and they abated our rent and they refunded rent from

September through December, so they actually have been very fair.

Mrs. MORELLA. Kind of an in-kind benefit. Great.

Well, thank you. My time has expired.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Morella.

I think the best news of the hearing we’ve already heard when

Ms. Van de Water testified that there would be an interim rule

that would allow general aviation to resume and we could truthfully say that Reagan National was back to normal. Let me ask you

and perhaps Mr. Brown, as well—I appreciate your testimony on

noise. As you know, the curfew went into place that was, of course,

a part of the whole September 11th safeguards. Would you indicate

to me what would be the effect—perhaps you, Mr. Brown, Mr.

Wilding—of retaining that curfew. What would be the effect on air

travel? What would be the economic effect if that curfew were retained?

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Wilding could probably give you a much better

direct economic information than I could, but clearly there are a

number of flights that prior to September 11th did come into the

airport after 10 and before 7 or departed before 7, and so there

clearly would be a flight reduction if a complete curfew were put

into effect, and that, of course, would reduce the capacity of the airport to a certain extent and would have some economic impact that

maybe Jim could address.

It is important to note that, even prior to September 11th, aircraft that used the airport during those hours had to be substantially quieter than during other hours, and that’s an important feature that also would return.

Mr. WILDING. It probably is worth noting, if I could, that when

the curfew, the hard-and-fast 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew went away,

what it returned us to was exactly the regime that Mr. Brown just

talked about. We had a nighttime noise level arrangement that

after 10 at night and through the night until 7 in the morning an

airplane has to be fairly quiet—a whole lot quieter than the socalled ‘‘stage three’’ requirements—to be able to operate at National, but if it can meet those requirements it is free to operate

all night long.

There are a number of airplanes pre-September 11th that took

off from National in the 6 a.m. hour heading to western points in

the United States. There is also a clear airline practice of sort of

sweeping their hubs across the country from west to east in the

late evening, bringing airplanes into national after 10 p.m. Usually

by about 11:30, quarter to midnight, they’re all in. There were

about 50 such airplanes a day, some in the morning, some in the

evening, outside of the 7 to 10 hours.

It was our estimation that, unless we got back to our old nighttime noise arrangement, that it would be impossible for National

to get over about 82 or 83 percent of its normal operation back in

business: That it would have just sort of stuck at about that point

and just hovered there. So getting back to the normal nighttime

70

noise arrangement, it was absolutely critical in our mind to getting

back to a normal National Airport.

Ms. NORTON. Now, how long have those rules about the noise

levels of planes flying in after 10, before 7:00—how long have those

rules been in place?

Mr. WILDING. A very long time. In this form, probably 15 to 18

years. Going all the way back to the introduction of jets at National

in the late 1960’s there has been some nighttime arrangement, but

15 or 18 years ago it settled into the one I just described. And I

might point out that, as we do the Part 150, you know, we’re taking a look at everything related to noise at National Airport. If

there are those—and there likely are—who think we ought to

toughen things up at night, or presumably those who think we

ought to loosen it up, that’s a forum in which that can be thrashed

out. I fully expect that to be one of the issues that’s taken through

that process.

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Wilding, just as I said to Ms. Van de

Water, the best news about general aviation came in the opening

testimony that she gave. I must say that I was heartened by the

indication in your testimony that you were prepared to look at the

after-10 hour notions that—the 10 to 7 notions. And the reason I

asked how long it had been in place is because I think that, given

the state-of-the-art of everything, certainly air travel, anything that

we manufacture in this country, to allow a rule that was formulated almost 20 years ago to remain in place may be one of the reasons that there is so much consternation even with that rule today,

and so there have been an enormous number of complaints and a

lot of pressure to keep the curfew.

As I hear you indicate how long this rule has gone unexamined,

I think that part of the problem is that people were living with an

antiquated rule and a rule that needed to be looked at again.

You indicate that even before September 11th you were set to review noise abatement procedures. In my next round I will want to

know exactly what you will be looking at and what will be your

goals, but I see that my time is up. I appreciate your testimony.

Mrs. MORELLA. I’m sure they’ll remember that, too.

Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Morella.

I want to ask about general aviation and then the Part 150 noise

abatement process. More than 50,000 business aviation flights had

made their way through National on a yearly basis. The people

who use general aviation at National, they don’t fit the typical profile of recreational flyers. They schedule the flights in advance,

they use only professional pilots who have already been subjected

to background checks and security clearances. It just seems that it

is time that we were able to find a way to open general aviation,

and I trust Secretary Mineta understands how important that is to

our economy and to the national economy.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. He absolutely does.

Mr. MORAN. Yes. Well, OK, but they’re not open.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We expect that they will be shortly.

Mr. MORAN. Yes. OK. I’ll take that as a guarantee that will occur

shortly, and I’m glad to hear it.

71

Has Signature Airlines sought any of the $15 billion in loan

guarantees that the Congress made available which expire on June

28th?

Ms. HASKINS. My attorney is sitting behind me saying it is not

available to us, and I’m not entirely sure I understand that.

Mr. MORAN. Why isn’t it available?

Ms. HASKINS. I believe it is part of the Young-Mica bill. I’m

sorry. I’m sorry, there’s a misunderstanding. We’re not an airline.

We’re an aviation services provider, ground support.

Mr. MORAN. But you were the most adversely affected and now

that’s an omission in the——

Ms. HASKINS. Thank you for recognizing that.

Mr. MORAN. Well, I didn’t realize that. Gosh sakes, that’s a real

error in legislation. I guess the airlines, themselves, had more influence and wrote the legislation to take care of themselves but left

that out. That’s unfortunate.

Things have returned to pre-September 11th, with the exception

of general aviation, and one other exception, and that’s the 24-hour

presence of military aircraft overhead. You know, a few of my constituents have said, ‘‘Well, that’s the price of freedom,’’ but they’re

sort of in the minority. I think most people feel that it is a—if this

is going to continue indefinitely, then it is going to be a problem,

and it might be a little bit overkill to continue it indefinitely.

Does anybody on the panel have any idea whether this is intended to be permanent?

[No response.]

Mr. MORAN. Nobody? All right. We’ll have to ask the Pentagon

about that.

Now, the Part 150 noise compatibility process—as you know, this

has required the Airport Authority to go through a public hearing

process, consultation with noise abatement experts, etc., etc. It has

been put on hold, but there are five aspects of it, just very quickly:

the slot rule; the perimeter rule; the flight plan so that the takeoffs

and landings that go five miles south or 10 miles north of the airport are supposed to go over the Potomac River; the thrust management, which was addressed by Mr. Brown; and the nighttime

noise restriction.

I’d like to ask if there are any plans with regard to any of those

five that are going to better address the noise compatibility program which was in process and I trust is going to be restarted.

Let me ask Jim Wilding.

Mr. WILDING. It certainly will be restarted. It was unfortunate,

obviously, that it only was a month or 6 weeks old when the events

of the fall occurred. Clearly the way these things are done, is kind

of complicated, but you start with a baseline of activity that everybody sort of understands and then you sort of play ‘‘what if’’ on a

lot of the variables. All of a sudden the baseline disappeared on us

in the fall, so there was no sense in going ahead with it. Now that

the baseline is back in focus for us, certainly on the commercial

side—I’m confident very shortly on the general aviation side—we’ve

got our baseline back and we can plunge ahead with the study.

It is basically an 18-month-ish effort where most of that time is

consumed in a good deal of discussion, debate, frankly disagreement between all the parties that try to thrash out really what is

72

the best way to operate the airport, particularly in the noise abatement area.

So I would point to the last three of your five factors as the primary focus and, while I’m sure the slot rule and the perimeter rule

will also sort of get into the conversation because they always do,

they tend, in my experience, not to get a huge amount of emphasis

because there is a feeling that the Federal Government has sort of

spoken in those areas. And, again, they’re not excluded from getting in the process, but we tend to try to focus more on things we

can control a little bit more readily.

Mr. MORAN. Senator McCain certainly has, and for the time

being the Congress has gone along with him, but I understand

that.

The one thing I wanted to mention, Madam Chairwoman, I do

hope that, with the presence of military aircraft on a 24-hour basis,

the sound that they produce does not preclude our being able to

monitor the sound attributable to the airport. That’s a concern that

I have, and I would hope that it doesn’t just shelve everything

we’re doing in the Part 150 process because we’ve got these military aircraft and they are going to, you know, affect our ability too

profoundly to be able to monitor the sound that is attributable to

planes at National.

I don’t want to take more of my time. I’m not going to be able

to stay much longer, Madam Chairwoman. I do want to thank you

for having this hearing. Thank you.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Moran, we’ll also look into the definition so

that we might try to do something to include general aviation as

an airline.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Thank you for your contributions. I’m

pleased to recognize Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I just have a question to, I guess, Ms. Haskins.

When will you be able and what would it take to bring you back

to full support status?

Ms. HASKINS. I was very encouraged by what I heard yesterday

in a meeting at the Department of Transportation. I was afraid

that we would be brought back in in some sort of phase that would

actually make us lose more money than we are losing now. That

doesn’t appear to be the case. What was presented yesterday in the

plan basically said that anyone that wants to and can pass the hurdles can get into Washington Reagan from a business aviation

standpoint. If that happens, I would hope that by summer we’re

back to our normal status.

Now, there are going to be some flights that do not make it, so

I fully expect that we’ll have a little bit of a reduced business.

There will be some charter companies that won’t want a 48-hour

advance, or whatever the criteria is going to be for having their

passengers cleared, whatever that ends up being, so I’m sure that

there will be some reduced business, but I’m very hopeful that we’ll

have the majority of our business back.

Ms. WATSON. If I might just continue, what are you putting in

place to be sure the aircraft that comes in is secured, those who

pilot the aircraft as well as those who ride?

73

Ms. HASKINS. That’s an excellent question. That’s the real question related to security for general aviation. It’s access to the aircraft on the ramp. And what we have done in our other locations,

when we were reopened after September 11th, we reopened with

an interim security plan that is still in place. What that did was

it shut down most of our ramps to automobiles. It used to be that

people could drive out in their limos to their plane and get on the

plane. We shut down most of our ramps to automobiles. A few of

those have been reopened with very strict security, identifying the

driver getting onto the ramp.

We have had automatic locking doors put in all 42 locations on

any door that goes out to the ramp. You can’t get out unless someone behind our counter buzzes you out.

You can’t go out to an aircraft without being escorted, so you

can’t go to someone else’s aircraft. We identify the aircraft. We give

them a random number that is computer generated when they

come in. It is on a ticket and we keep a copy of it on our ticket

and when they come in to claim the aircraft they show us theirs.

It’s almost like a ticket for laundry. It says that ticket belongs to

that aircraft and that’s the aircraft we’ll give you access to.

So we’ve put in quite a few procedures to limit the access to the

aircraft, which is, from our perspective, where any danger would

lie. Once the flight crews have been cleared and once the manifested passengers are cleared, it is all about access to the aircraft,

in my opinion.

Ms. WATSON. What about the luggage?

Ms. HASKINS. It’s an interesting situation. As you know, these

are privately owned aircraft, and people go hunting and they have

guns and so forth, and some people are very high profile and, in

fact, travel with bodyguards that are armed, and we talked about

that yesterday with the DOT and the TSA, and I think we are

going to be able to find some way to get around that.

My understanding is—and this is very vague now, but my understanding is that we will be clearing some third party. I don’t know

whether it will be the FBO or any airplane destined directly into

Washington National. The luggage will be hand-searched and the

people will be wanded.

We are right now—we have a little experience with this. The cities of Chicago and Boston, when we reopened after September

11th, insisted that they would not let us reopen without

magnetometers and bag searches, and so we do have some experience with this now in those two cities.

Ms. WATSON. Will there be a requirement that the guns, if they

are accepted on the aircraft, be unloaded and that the ammunition

be separate?

Ms. HASKINS. I don’t know. That’s going to be part of the DOT

rule.

Ms. WATSON. I do hope, Madam Chair, that we inquire about

that. Ammunition should not be in the guns if they are taken

aboard and should be carried separately.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Ms. Watson, we fully intend to address that

in the rulemaking.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

74

I’d like, Madam Chair, some way for us to know just what the

guidelines are.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We’d be happy to share that information

with you.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Yes, we have asked them to share it,

and they will. Thank you very much.

I guess we are going to be called for a vote, but we have about

5 more minutes before we need to leave. I’d like to pick up again

on general aviation and point out that the College Park Airport,

Potomac Airfield, Washington Executive, Hyde Field, all located in

Maryland, have been closed since September 11th terrorist attack.

Limited operations resumed in February, and under Special Flight

Rule 94, which places significant restriction on based pilots and

prohibits transient operation altogether.

I’m informed that these restrictions are economically devastating

to the business community and the businesses at those airports. I

am curious about when will FAA reopen the DC three airports to

the transient general aviation traffic. Mr. Brown, you’re dying to

answer this one? Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, ma’am. I can do that.

As you stated, we reopened those airports some months ago to

aircraft that were based at the airport, where it is their home base.

Mrs. MORELLA. Right.

Mr. BROWN. And that brought back the vast majority of the operations of those airports. However, College Park, in particular,

among the three airports is very dependent to come back for their

normal economic circumstance on transient or visiting aircraft coming into the airport.

At the time we reopened those three airports, we committed after

60 days to go back and evaluate the operating procedures and exactly how the security protocols had worked out with our other government agencies, both in the defense and security agencies. We’re

in that review period now and we’re looking at modifications that

I think will provide increased access. Not unlike National Airport,

there will be a security protocol that we will work with the Department and TSA and others on.

I’m hopeful, following that review with all of the agencies, the

airport management, pilots, and operators, that we’ll see some

modifications.

Mrs. MORELLA. That’s very encouraging. Again, could you give us

some idea of a timeline?

Mr. BROWN. We committed, obviously, to undertake the review

after 60 days. I don’t expect that it will take—the review, itself,

will take any longer than 60 days, so I’d look for changes in the

summer.

Mrs. MORELLA. Changes in the summer? Could be even before 60

days, couldn’t it?

Mr. BROWN. It’s possible.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes. OK. Very good. Well, I’m encouraged to hear

that. I’m certainly encouraged to hear about general aviation at

Reagan National Airport.

Let me ask you about the 100 people who were, I guess, our examiners or involved with some facet of security at both Reagan NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85722.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
75

tional Airport and Dulles. I wonder if you might give us some explication of how that came about, what it meant, what has been done

to remedy it.

Mr. WILDING. I’d be happy to.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Wilding.

Mr. WILDING. There has been some balances struck over time between the right of an airport operator as we issue security credentials to people to be in sensitive places on airports and the rights—

some privacy concerns. And over the years, there has been sort of

a constant balancing of these interests.

Since the events of last fall, our rights to gain access have been

liberalized to get deeper into certain Federal data bases of criminal

history backgrounds and things of that sort.

Also since last September various U.S. Attorney’s Offices across

the country—most recently here in the Washington area—have approached airport operators, partnered up with our police agencies,

and have opened Federal data bases which never before have been

available to us, particularly Immigration data bases and Social Security data bases.

So what we did was take the little over 20,000 people who are

credentialed at National and Dulles and ran them through these

data base, and out popped a little over 100 people who either had

used phony Social Security numbers and cards to get into our system in the first place, or in even more instances had an Immigration problem that previously had been masked from us. So, together with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, our police, and a

bunch of other law enforcement agencies, about 2 weeks ago we

just sort of rounded them all up in 1 day and they’re off being processed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. That was the long and short

of what happened there. It has happened at other airports across

the country, and I presume will happen at still others as various

U.S. Attorney’s Offices decide it is worthwhile opening up these

other data bases.

All of this has now set off a dynamic that asks, kind of, why

weren’t the data bases available in the first place? And I’m confident there will be some progress on that fairly shortly.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you feel that we are now—we have reached

the point where this will not happen again? I know you said there

will be some instances where it might, but do we have procedures

in place like that or to go through the security precautions for the

people who are at the airports in those positions?

Mr. WILDING. I’m not entirely confident that we do. Our access

to criminal history checks is now very good.

Mrs. MORELLA. OK.

Mr. WILDING. Our access to these other data bases—Social Security and Immigration—that were opened up to us just for purposes

of this one drill are still not available to us consistently. So that

if somebody walked through our door this afternoon, wanted to be

credentialed, we would have access to all their criminal history

checks, which is a fairly new phenomena. We still don’t have access

to these other data bases, but again I think the experience—our

most recent experience coupled with these other experiences across

the country, are in the process of persuading people those databases should be available to us continually.

76

Mrs. MORELLA. Is it a significant omission to not automatically

have that done?

Mr. WILDING. Well——

Mrs. MORELLA. Have that data base.

Mr. WILDING. It is certainly our experience, that if you pop over

or miss 100 people who had falsified something and there’s a data

base someplace that would have flashed a red light to you on that,

I would very much like to have access to that data base continuously.

Mrs. MORELLA. Absolutely. I think it’s something that we should

look into, right?

I’m going to go vote, and I’m going to let my ranking member

continue with the questioning in the interest of time. Thank you.

Ms. NORTON [assuming Chair]. Thank you, Mrs. Morella.

Let me ask Ms. Haskins, and perhaps Mr. Olcott, having learned

that business aviation was not included in the loan guarantee bill,

let me ask you, if it were included, would any use have been made

of it? All the airlines have not all rushed forward to use the loan

guarantees, as you are aware. Would they still be useful? Would

they have been useful at any point?

Ms. HASKINS. Speaking for Signature and not knowing all of the

why’s and wherefore’s and qualifications for the loan guarantee,

I’m not entirely sure that I know the answer to that question. I do

know that my brethren in the FBO industry were hurt very, very

badly by the events in September, particularly the independent

FBOs.

As you pointed out, or as Representative Moran pointed out, Signature has locations in many areas, many regions of the country,

and some regions came back before others and, thankfully, that

sustained us, but the independent FBO with one, two, or three

FBOs, there are a lot of them that were hurt very badly, and I

would venture to guess that yes, they would have availed themselves.

Mr. OLCOTT. Ms. Norton, the general aviation community was

significantly impacted economically by the events of September

11th. The Young-Mica bill provides provisions for general aviation.

There is a disagreement, apparently, between the administration

and Congress on the viability of that bill and the potential support

for the bill. But we do believe that it is very important to consider

the plight of general aviation. It’s very important to our Nation.

Basically, all of aviation today depends upon a strong general aviation community, so consequently I think it is very appropriate for

this committee to examine whether general aviation does need

some help, and perhaps the vehicle would be the Young-Mica bill.

Ms. NORTON. Now, are you saying that general aviation was in

the Young-Mica bill?

Mr. OLCOTT. It is considered in that bill. It wasn’t considered in

the bill that addressed the airlines’ needs. So general aviation is

not entitled to the $5 billion that was——

Ms. NORTON. Yes, that’s the bill I’m talking about.

Mr. OLCOTT. Yes. The Young-Mica bill has not passed. That’s just

pending. That’s just——

Ms. NORTON. I see.

77

Mr. OLCOTT [continuing]. The Young-Mica is to be considered. So,

consequently, I believe it is something that requires some examination. It has not passed at this time. The airline bill did pass.

Ms. NORTON. Yes. That’s the one that passed. Well, I’m on the

Transportation Committee. I’d be very interested in looking further

into these issues through that vehicle, since that is the authorizing

committee that would be responsible.

I do want to note what looks like important cooperation—correct

me if I am wrong—between the Transportation agency and the industry in coming up with this new set of protocols. I’m wondering,

Ms. Van de Water or Mr. Brown, whether these very special protocols are going to apply to Dulles or to other airports, or are we

talking about something uniquely for Reagan National? And, if so,

why?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. I think we are primarily talking about security procedures that are unique to Reagan National. The airspace,

of course, coming in to DCA is extremely close to critical infrastructure in the District and in Virginia.

Ms. NORTON. You know, are there special rules in place for general aviation which, of course, is national elsewhere?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. There are special restrictions in place for

general aviation nationwide over what is considered secure area.

Ms. NORTON. Post-September 11th?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. If you come from general aviation from another airport, will there be special procedures for coming into National?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Yes, there will.

Ms. NORTON. Now, I’m amazed at this, you know. The planes

that were, in fact, responsible for the tragedy, for the outrage, you

know, involved airports like LaGuardia and Dulles, and I do want

to say that, as important as I think it is—and justifiably so—to be

especially vigilant at Reagan National, I am concerned that there

has been such an attempt to bend over backward here, and then

I hear about places like Dulles which opened almost immediately,

places like LaGuardia where this same kind of concern has not

been shown. I don’t know whether I should be afraid, frankly, that

there’s far less concern in other cities who feel that their facilities

all around their airport are at least as precious as we think ours

are.

I’m just puzzled that we’ve taken all this time to get up to general aviation and we took all this time to open National Airport.

It was not one of the airports where the devastation was launched

from. And I still don’t understand it, the hyper-concern here. I

mean, it’s the same kind of hyper-concern that almost got the District of Columbia shut down because the initial reaction was to just

shut it down, keep it shut.

So I would have a great interest in knowing how you judge the

difference between security in the Nation’s capital, the governmental capital, and security in the financial capital of the world,

New York City, and why somehow or the other it’s apparently far

less secure there because they were open almost immediately, even

general aviation, than it is here and what that says about what

kind of value system you place here as opposed to every place else.

78

Mr. BROWN. Ms. Norton, I’d just like to offer two perspectives in

terms of what you said. Your first question really had to do—do

any of these security procedures go beyond National Airport, and

Read, of course, indicated that there are some other airports. But

with regard to National and the Washington——

Ms. NORTON. Well, these procedures—do these procedures go beyond National Airport? Of course you have security procedures in

other airports. I’m asking do the interim rules about to be published here apply to other airports or only to National Airport.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. They will apply only to National Airport,

just like the commercial operation rules do, but they will apply to

gateways to National Airport, as do commercial operations.

Ms. NORTON. Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. And the last thing is, just as with commercial aviation, any aircraft that would divert from National Airport for operational or security reasons, there is a security protocol where we

would direct those aircraft to Dulles Airport, and those are arranged with Dulles Airport.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. And that has happened on several occasions

for commercial aircraft.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I mean, the harm that has been done to National Airport and to commercial—sorry, to business aviation has

been done. I just want to make sure that in the future we look in

context at everybody and decide whether or not we’re just bending

over so far backward that more harm is being done than good.

Mr. Wilding, I promised to get back to you on what exactly you

would be looking for and what would be your goals in reviewing the

noise abatement procedures, and I would like to know: will the interested community be invited to the table when you do this review?

Mr. WILDING. I’m sort of working backward to your question—

clearly, yes. And the way we decided to go about is that there’s a

huge amount of public participation in one of these processes, and

this time we decided, as I mentioned earlier, to try to partner with

our friends at CONANDA to have us structure that public participation process so that both of us were as comfortable as possible

with it, and it was as broad as possible.

It is one of the difficulties, frankly, of dealing with one of these

processes is it is easy for expectations to get out of control on us,

and I don’t want that to happen. long and the short of it is that

we have noise abatement provisions at National today that represent the balancing of an awful lot of interests, but, as you pointed out earlier, some of those balances were struck quite some years

ago and the facts have changed quite substantially. The fleet of airplanes flying at Washington National today are quite different than

the fleet that was flying back when those balances were struck. So

the idea——

Ms. NORTON. Then that ought to be reflected in the rules.

Mr. WILDING. Indeed. And so everything gets on the table that

relates to noise, and the objective at the end of an 18-month-ish

process is to see if we can’t arrive at a consensus on what the best

noise abatement provisions for Washington National Airport are.

Whether they are the current ones, whether they are the current

ones slightly modified, or the current ones substantially modified,

79

the objective is to get to see if we can reach a consensus on what

the best noise abatement provisions are.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Haskins, I am very curious about what happens to employees of a workplace that is shut down for 8 months.

Are they allowed to go elsewhere within the company to work? Are

they out of work? Are they on furlough? Can they be easily called

back to startup again?

And I’d also like to know from Mr. Olcott if there were other

companies that were similarly affected which might have had a

problem simply perhaps holding personnel.

Ms. HASKINS. For about a month after—maybe even 2 months

after September 11th we were optimistic about getting Washington

Reagan back open again to general aviation and we tried very hard

to hold on to the employees. We are lucky in that we are a chain

and we could redeploy employees, but not everybody is

redeployable, so we have some Washington Reagan employees

working right now at Washington Dulles, and hopefully they’ll

move back to Reagan when we reopen.

We have 11 people of the original crew left on the payroll at

Reagan National. All of the administrative personnel were furloughed. An awful lot of the line staff went out and found other

jobs, so I’m not entirely sure. We will call back everybody from furlough that we can. If they are already re-employed, obviously we

will be hiring from the outside and retraining.

Mr. OLCOTT. Ms. Norton, the community that we represent faced

potential dislocation of personnel at the very early days following

September 11th because there were certain flight restrictions that

impacted our employees or people who were represented by our

companies. Those issues were resolved, to a large extent because

of the excellent cooperation and communication between the FAA

and the community. We are very hopeful that what I consider

breakthrough that occurred yesterday will lead to the same type of

excellent rapport, sharing of information, and cooperative pursuit

of a viable solution between the general aviation community, Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Security Administration. We’re very heartened by what we heard.

Obviously, the devil is in the details, but we were given strong

indications that there would be communication between the people

making those procedures, developing the procedures, and the general aviation community so that we can capitalize on the knowledge that exists in both the security community and the general

aviation community.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you.

I don’t know if this is for Ms. Van de Water or Mr. Brown or Mr.

Wilding. The Chair spoke about the roundup of these people who

have falsified in one way or the other their applications, and I’m

quoting now from the ‘‘Washington Post.’’ None of these people

have been associated or implicated with terrorism, but, to quote,

‘‘No one was charged in connection with a terrorist act. Most were

accused of lying on applications to work in high-security areas.’’

God bless them.

If you, of course, have lied, you may be a perfectly harmless person, but you also may be subject to blackmail in a way that would

80

not be the case had you told the truth about who you were and

other elements of your identity and background.

I’d like to know what is the state of screening of each and every

person who works at an airport, not just Reagan National. I’m trying now to make sure that Reagan National isn’t given such priority that it makes it hard to operate and everybody else kind of goes

about as we get to it. But I’d like to know whether the kind of

screening that we have been doing on the obvious personnel—that

is to say, the people who fly the planes, like flight attendants and

pilots—is being done on who the terrorists would be most likely, at

least at this point, to approach, and that is people in low—belowthe-radar-screen jobs, people who work in airports who have or

could get access to the plane or to some part of what occurs on the

ground so that they could sabotage and do harm.

Is each and every person who works in an airport being screened

equally? And are these people being screened equally whether they

are at Reagan National or at Podunk National?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Ms. Norton, the Transportation Security Administration is undertaking now procedures for how employees of

the TSA will be screened with background checks, and by ‘‘employees of the TSA’’ I mean people who do the baggage screening, who

do the screening of people.

Ms. NORTON. I understand that. I have perfect confidence in prospective. You had 140 employees, many of whom have to remain

in place, would have had to remain in place because you’ve got to

make sure somebody is minding the store while you get your folks

in line, and I’m perfectly satisfied that you understand what Congress is indicating you should do prospectively. There were 140 employees who were indicted. And 95—an amazing percentage—95 of

the 140 worked at National and Dulles International Airports and

they falsified, even though they had authority to work in high security areas. So I’m really not talking about prospectively. I understand what you’re going through. I want to know while we’re waiting to get the new people who shall have been screened in the way

the Federal Government would do the screening and that airlines

and airport officials perhaps have not, I want to know if those people are being screened in the same way that people who fly airplanes are being screened.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. I believe the airport employees—and maybe

Mr. Wilding could speak to this somewhat—are now going through

more intensive screening than they have in the past. They are not

all screened in the same manner that airline flyers are screened.

In many ways they are screened much more intensely. For a person to fly on a commercial airline, of course there is no background

check on that person unless the person’s name has indicated a

problem. They would be, of course, wanded and their baggage

searched and things like that. The employees go through——

Ms. NORTON. I’m talking about employees only, Ms. Van de

Water.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. You’re talking about airline employees and

airport employees?

Ms. NORTON. I’m talking about employees. You said no background check on an employee that——

81

Ms. VAN DE WATER. No, no. Not employees. I meant the flyers.

The employees are going through more extensive background

checks. I can’t tell you that every airport employee has gone

through that to this point. I can look into that and get back to you.

Ms. NORTON. While this hearing has had the effect of, for the

most part, of putting us at ease, this response has the opposite effect. Again, we don’t expect the potential terrorists to do what he

did last time. They’d never followed that M.O. in the past. We expect them to look for vulnerable parts of the process. It seems to

me the first thing I would have done would be to look at everybody

who had access to an airport. Instead, we went looking at the folks

who were probably never a problem in the first place. So I need to

know what is going to be done right now about the people who are

least likely to be considered by us to be a danger and perhaps most

likely to be considered vulnerable by somebody who would do us

harm.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Ms. Norton, one of my colleagues has just

informed me that all airport employees who have access to sterile

areas are undergoing criminal background checks.

Mr. WILDING. Maybe I can help just a little bit.

Ms. NORTON. I mean, I love that they are undergoing. I love that

they are undergoing. Somebody thought, ‘‘Hey, wait a minute. We’d

better start looking at these folks.’’ I want to know when you will

know that the folks who are, as you say, authorized to go into sterile areas, are sterile, or whatever you want to call them. When will

we know that?

Mr. WILDING. Maybe I could help just a little bit. There was a

time up until late in the year 2000 when the principal way of doing

a screening of somebody, an employee—and these are Authority

employees, airline employees, construction workers, anybody that

needed to be on sensitive parts of the airport. The primary way of

finding out about their background was a 10-year employment

check. You would look back at their employment, and only in an

instance where there was an unexplainable gap in their employment were you then entitled, as the issuer of the credential, the

airport operator, to access their criminal history.

That was thought by many to be not thorough enough, and by

the end of the year 2000 that was changed to permit any new applicant for a credential to get the full criminal history check no

matter what his employment looked like.

That continued to be the case through the events of last fall.

After the events of last fall, that was then broadened to permit you

to go back to your existing employee base and run all of them

through a criminal history check, and that—I think every airport

in the country is doing that right now. Of course, it put a huge load

on the FBI resources. And that is working its way through the system this year. It has to be done by the end of this calendar year,

and in most cases I think will be done—I know in our case—well

before the end of this year.

Ms. NORTON. So nationwide end of this calendar year?

Mr. WILDING. Yes, ma’am. That’s criminal history. The things

that we ran afoul of in the events that you’re talking about a couple of weeks ago were very few instances of criminal history problems, but rather primarily Immigration and Social Security probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85722.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
82

lems. That territory is yet to be sort of explored in terms of continuous access to that.

Ms. NORTON. I would appreciate, Ms. Van de Water or Mr.

Brown, if you would provide us with the details on the kind of

background checks that are being done on people who have access

to an airport in order to work.

I do recognize that to do checks on everybody retroactively presents enormous problems. I do think that we are far more vulnerable there than we are in anything that could happen prospectively.

You know, since I am on the Aviation Subcommittee it is a matter, if, in fact, we need to get this job done, to have a task force

that we provide funds for to get it done and to put our minds at

ease, then I just think we ought to do that. So if you don’t have

the kind of—see, this hurts us, Mr. Wilding. This kind of thing that

was in the newspaper, that hurts us. That hurts National. That

hurts Dulles. That hurts BWI. Nobody can have confidence if they

find out that almost all these employees—not all of them, you

know, looks like 75 percent of them almost were right here in this

area where we’re supposed to have special care and where we took

the greatest pains, and that’s why I think, ‘‘Let’s get it over with

for God’s sake. Let’s find out who has been working there and get

rid of anybody who poses a danger.’’

So I would appreciate the details on who are being investigated

given to the Chair within 30 days—what the priorities are for investigation, if you go priorities through employees; what your time

tables are—Mr. Wilding says, because he is one of the affected airport authorities, that he’s got to have it by the end of the year. It

would, I think, be important for the subcommittee to know that.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We’d be happy to get that information for

you.

Ms. NORTON. If resources are an issue, it would be important to

know that, too, especially if they are an issue in terms of reaching

the deadline, which I think end of the year is still very troubling.

I’d appreciate knowing that.

Could I ask whether the position of the Department remains as

I have understood it to be of the Department and of Secretary

Ridge that pilots should not carry loaded guns on airplanes?

Ms. VAN DE WATER. That is the position of the Department and

the Transportation Security Administration.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Wilding, what is your view of that?

Mr. WILDING. I don’t consider it my area of expertise, but I think

these folks in the Department have it right.

Mrs. MORELLA. We on the Aviation Subcommittee and on the

Transportation—overall Transportation Committee have asked for

a study. We want to look at non-lethal weapons first. We know that

once you’re looking at something like that you get all kinds of new

state-of-the-art notions coming forward. Mr. Ridge has indicated

that he did not think it appropriate to carry loaded guns. Mr. Mineta has so indicated. And, of course, there has been some controversy about that.

The general public, of course, can only think of the pilot, that the

pilot should be armed. You, of course, know something about airplanes that working within a very cramped space and in the midVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 Mar 28, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85722.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
83

dle of chaos, and the pilot is as likely to be shot as anybody else

when you’re trying to get a gun from somebody. So I’m very comforted to know that the controversy that began to develop has not

changed your mind on that issue, because I think it was rooted in

what you know about airplanes and what we do not.

Are there noise abatement protocols for helicopters, in particular? We have perhaps an unusual number in this area. And have

they been controlled in the same way that business aviation has

been controlled?

Mr. BROWN. Well, the bulk of the helicopter traffic, certainly

around Reagan National Airport, is public use, government kinds

of traffic. It generally follows the river, like the commercial carriers

do, so in that sense it is an abatement process, as well.

Ms. NORTON. So there has been no private helicopter use out of

Reagan National or out of Dulles?

Mr. BROWN. I think there may have been some public use, but

not private use that I’m aware of.

Ms. NORTON. Was there private use before at a commercial——

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Yes. Yes, there has been. There have been

none out of Reagan. I’m not entirely sure about Dulles. We would

have to check about that.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Wilding, how does helicopter noise—what effect

does that have on the noise issues, and will they be taken into consideration when you convene the group you have in mind?

Mr. WILDING. They do have an effect and they are taken into account. We have a very extensive noise monitoring system around

both airports. At National it is arrayed up and down the Potomac

River, and, of course, we capture the data from all of the helicopters that fly. It becomes a part of the base of data.

Ms. NORTON. Is it a significant factor in noise or not, helicopter

traffic?

Mr. WILDING. It is a measurable and noticeable increment.

Ms. NORTON. That seems to say you don’t regard it as a significant factor.

Mr. WILDING. Well——

Ms. NORTON. See, when you’re looking at noise abatement for the

first time in almost 20 years, it seems to me you’ve got to put on

the table whatever we’ve got there, because it may be insignificant

in and of itself, but when you put it along with everybody else you

could have—we just need to know it. We need to know it or else

we’re not going to be able to do anything about it.

Mr. WILDING. Agreed. And I would like to fuss a little bit with

the notion that we haven’t looked at it in 20 years. It has been

looked at almost continuously, but it is rare that we have one of

these ‘‘take a big, deep breath, put the kind of resources into it all

at one time’’ that we’ll be doing over the next 18 months.

Ms. NORTON. Point taken.

I’d like to know more about this TRACON effect on noise. From

a management and safety point of view, from a state-of-the-art

point of view, it certainly does sound like it’s the next level and the

next step. Will it help or hurt the noise abatement problem?

Mr. BROWN. Overall, the net effect will be to help the noise problem. I don’t think it will have a particular impact on Reagan National Airport, in particular, because we’ll stay with the noise

84

abatement procedures we have until there is an outcome to the

Part 150 process that Mr. Wilding addressed.

But for the larger area—and the larger area being within 75

miles of the Washington area—the three alternatives that I mentioned that we’re looking at for the design, each of them would

have on a net basis a reduction in the total noise experienced by

the population on the ground within the 75-mile area, which is approximately 10 million people live within that area.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you.

Before I go on, just for the record, Ms. Van de Water and Mr.

Brown, I’d like to know whether the phasing in of commercial—

sorry, of business aviation was to take 8 months up until now was

a deliberate plan and that you are where you expected to be, or did

you just get to it? The 8 months seems like a very long time to

have gotten to it. Was it also a part of some phase-in plan?

Let me just give you the background of my concern. You know,

I represent this city and I have seen that essentially what has happened here is that the security people, when they got to it, finally

released the government people or the management people to do

what they wanted to do all along. They had gotten to their regulations, but again you’ve got to go over a security hurdle who may

decide or may not decide, no matter what you’ve done. So I’d like

to know why it took 8 months to get even to the point of an interim

rule.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Well, Ms. Norton, we have, as I stated before, done a phase-in of commercial operations. We did intend to

complete the phase-in of commercial operations before we moved to

general aviation operations, as commercial operations affect many,

many more people flying in and out of DCA.

I think we do have to very carefully balance, and it is a balance

that we are continually searching for between policy issues and security issues.

The Congress did set up the Transportation Security Administration to assume civil aviation responsibility. The Under Secretary

does report to Secretary Mineta, and Secretary Mineta is personally, as I’m sure you know from your many years of working with

him, very, very knowledgeable of the policy implications of various

modes of transportation. He is continually seeking that balance between security and policy.

The TSA has been charged with setting up a huge Federal agency in a very short period of time meeting very tough guidelines

given to it by the Congress for specific standards in aviation security, and we at the Department of Transportation have been working around the clock to try to do just that. I can assure you it is

not a deliberate neglect of general aviation, it is just a lot of people

working very hard, 7 days a week, to try to handle our new responsibilities.

Ms. NORTON. If it is a matter of personnel, it perhaps is understandable. There only are so many people, perhaps. But one of my

own great criticisms of government is working sequentially. Private

business never can work sequentially. It has got to have everything

working at the same time.

85

I don’t see any reason, unless it was a personnel reason, not to

have put the interim rule out earlier. These are not dependent one

on the other. They really are apples and oranges.

Again, it is true that we did not have a Security Administration.

We had to start one up and, of course, some of the Transportation

officials in the Transportation Agency had to work that and other

things, and perhaps that’s understandable, but I certainly don’t

think one thing was dependent on another or we had to wait until

the other thing got phased in. And that has not been the genius,

at least of American private business. It is you don’t work sequentially, you work on many fronts at one time. You catch yourself, of

course. But here I think great damage was done in the way the approach was taken.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Ms. Norton, I do think the department has

worked on a great many different fronts all at the same time since

September 11th. I would be hard pressed to find two people, other

than Secretary Mineta and Deputy Secretary Jackson, who have

worked harder to restore transportation to where it was before September 11th, and not just in aviation, but, as you know, in many

other modes as well that also face significant challenges.

I rarely—in fact, I don’t think in the whole time I have been at

the Department of Transportation I have ever arrived at the office

before Mr. Jackson or left after he did. It is a tremendous resource

commitment.

Ms. NORTON. You certainly don’t have to cite Norm Mineta and

those at the top of the Department to me. As I indicated, if there’s

a personnel problem, there’s a personnel problem. The economic

damage was done here. It was done here as it was done any place

else, and you’re talking to the Member who represents the city that

is dependent on an airport that took 6 and 7 months to open up,

where we are still feeling the economic effects—the only part of

this country that had a general aviation shutdown and the part of

the country that has your Federal presence and a part of the American economy that has helped the rest of the economy to go, so yes,

we are concerned.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We are, too.

Ms. NORTON. We are concerned, and, you know, it may well be

the Congress’ fault for not having given the Transportation Agency

the kind of help it needed to work in a fashion that was not sequential.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. Well, I believe negotiations on the supplemental budget request are going on right now.

Ms. NORTON. Well, you will find this Member certainly supporting you on that.

Ms. VAN DE WATER. We appreciate that.

Ms. NORTON. Now, the Chair is back and the Chair will be informed that I sure kept it going with questions. [Laughter.]

In fact, Madam Chair, I think some at the table may be glad to

see you back. [Laughter.]

Mrs. MORELLA [resuming Chair]. Ms. Norton, I’ve never had any

doubt about the fact that you would continue to engage them in

questions. I understand from my chief of staff that you have covered some of the other issues I was going to cover—helicopters, etc.

86

I don’t think I’m even going to hold the panel any longer, but I

do want to reiterate what I heard, and that is that we will have

the interim final rule by the end of the month, which means that

general aviation will be operating at Reagan National Airport, and

that it won’t be long after that we’re going to also have operations

at the DC three airports. Did you ask about that thrust when they

take off?

Ms. NORTON. You may want to ask that.

Mrs. MORELLA. All right. Good. I had a question that I particularly wanted to ask with regard to the deceleration. I think you do

it currently, the thrust-back, the thrust cut-back management procedure. One of the noise abatement procedures that was in place

before September 11th was the requirement of the imposition of

thrust cut-back management procedure, where power is reduced at

1,500 feet, and I just wonder about why have the FAA and the Department of Transportation not allowed this procedure to be resumed since operations at Reagan National Airport have been allowed to resume normal operations? I mean, they are, what, going

south but not north?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes, thank you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairman, you are correct. To your latter

point, why was that not—why did we not go back to the normal

noise abatement procedure, the power reduction at 1,500 feet,

when we first resumed commercial operations, and it is because the

full-power departure was a part of many of the elements of the security protocol that enhanced security at the airport, things like

strengthening the cockpit doors and air marshals and other items

that I know you’re well familiar with.

As we’ve worked with the other agencies of Government and as

we’ve added additional security measures since the resumption of

commercial flights, we’ve gotten to the point where we could resume, taking all of that into account—the noise abatement process—so we are doing that. Following Secretary Mineta’s announcement on the 27th, we have clearly had to work with the airlines

who needed to do some refresher training with the pilots to make

sure that we could implement this across the board, and that’s underway as we speak.

Mrs. MORELLA. I’m going to give each of you an opportunity, if

there’s something that Congresswoman Norton did not mention or

that I did not mention that you would like to in your final comments. Please know, too, that our next panel will particularly be

interested in noise abatement, and there may be some questions

you can anticipate that they will ask or want to ask or present in

their testimonies that you might want to respond to right now.

Maybe I’ll just go to each of you. Mr. Brown, anything?

Mr. BROWN. No, ma’am.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Wilding.

Mr. WILDING. I would only take the opportunity to thank you

both again for what you did to get Washington National reopened

last fall and what you’ve continued to do to keep the pace of its reopening up. It has been absolutely invaluable and very, very much

appreciated.

87

Mrs. MORELLA. And thank you for your leadership, Mr. Wilding.

You have always been there were advice and counsel and moving

ahead in action.

Ms. Haskins.

Ms. HASKINS. Similarly, I would just like to thank the panel very

much for having the hearing today and having an interest in the

general aviation at Reagan National.

Mrs. MORELLA. And we will look into that definition, too.

Mr. OLCOTT. We’ve very encouraged by the tone of this meeting,

and we look forward to a resumption of general aviation into Washington National at an appropriate time.

Mrs. MORELLA. Very good.

This has been a splendid panel. Thank you very much. Thank

you for your patience, too. I know Ms. Norton took care of anything

I might not have had a chance to ask. So I thank you and I’m going

to dismiss the first panel. Thank you, Ms. Van de Water, Mr.

Brown, Mr. Wilding, Ms. Haskins, and Mr. Olcott.

Barbara Favola, Dave Gries, and Donald MacGlashan—I want to

thank our second panel for being so patient. It did, however, give

you an opportunity to listen to the statements that they made, and

maybe you, like us, had an opportunity to learn something from

their timelines and statements and meeting yesterday, and so we

want to continue with that. Could I ask you to stand and raise your

right hand so I can swear you in?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mrs. MORELLA. Three panelists have all responded affirmatively.

I do want to welcome you, Ms. Favola, chair of the COG Committee on Noise Abatement at both National and Dulles Airports; Dave

Gries, chair of the Palisades Citizens Association Committee on

Aircraft Noise; Donald W. MacGlashan, board member of CAAN,

Incorporated, whom we have been involved with over many, many

years. Thank you very much for being here.

I will let you commence with your testimony, Ms. Favola.

STATEMENTS OF BARBARA FAVOLA, CHAIR, COG COMMITTEE

ON NOISE ABATEMENT AT NATIONAL AND DULLES AIRPORTS; DAVID GRIES, CHAIR, PALISADES CITIZENS ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON AIRCRAFT NOISE; AND DONALD W.

MACGLASHAN, BOARD MEMBER OF CAAN, INC.

Ms. FAVOLA. Thank you, Congresswoman Morella. On behalf of

the Council of Governments, we extend our thanks to you for

hosting this meeting, and we also thank you, Congresswoman Norton, for your efforts in helping us restore Reagan National Airport

to its full operations. In fact, your entire committee has been very

helpful in this area.

Let me go ahead and just briefly explain a little bit about the

committee I represent. I chair the Committee on Noise Abatement

at National and Dulles Airports. Sitting on my committee are representatives from several local jurisdictions. I, myself, am a representative on the local Arlington County Board, the local governing body. We also have the Airplane Pilots Association represented

on our committee and the Air Transport Association. We have citizen representatives from all of our local jurisdictions. The National

88

Business Association and other groups are represented. I’m happy

to submit a membership list to you.

Let me go on and just highlight a few of what we consider to be

effective noise abatement strategies.

We were delighted, of course, that Reagan National Airport resumed operations, and we are also delighted that the river route

was reinstated, so we thank you very much for your work with Secretary Mineta.

CONANDA has always viewed the visual river procedure as a

major component in noise mitigation. The river path procedure requires airplanes to fly over the Potomac for 10 miles north of National and five miles south. When this noise mitigation procedure

had been held in abeyance, we received increasing outcries from

communities in Arlington and the District of Columbia. Also, we received outcries from citizens in Fairfax and Montgomery County

and the city of Alexandria. So I cannot emphasize enough our

pleasure in seeing the river route reinstated, and I think that the

citizens in the region are very grateful for that.

Another issue that was related to the reopening of Reagan National Airport was the nighttime curfew. Post September 11th

there had been a hard and fast nighttime curfew employed at

Reagan National Airport. The citizens in the region were very

pleased with that. As you can see, most people expect and really

value quiet time in the evening, and this hard and fast rule had

prevented aircraft flights later than 10 p.m., or earlier than 7 a.m.

As was mentioned earlier by the earlier panel, this policy had

been in effect—well, a policy prior to September 11th had allowed

planes to come in during that time period, but they had to meet

considerably lower noise thresholds, and at the time that policy

was negotiated between the Council of Governments and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the citizens essentially

thought that they were getting a hard and fast nighttime curfew

because we had set the noise level so low. Technology has advanced

to a point where planes can now meet the lower thresholds and

come in between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Citizens would like that reexamined, because the homes that are very close to the airport still

feel some jarring and that nighttime period is very disturbing for

them.

The third procedure I’d like to highlight is the thrust cutback

management procedure, and we appreciate the questions that came

up on that issue.

Like the river corridor path, the thrust cut management procedure incorporates a power reduction at 1,500 feet, while maintaining a climb-out of about 500 feet per minute. Prior to today’s testimony, we were under the impression that this was only used for

those flights that were going southbound and they were not being

used for northbound operations; however, if I heard correctly, I believe Mr. Brown said today that they were considering reinstating

it for northbound, so that would be very helpful.

I also want to reiterate the comments that Congressman Moran

made earlier about the value of the perimeter rule. We view this

as helpful not only in noise mitigation, but also in air traffic management, because National we view has an airport which can handle short-term flights, flights originating within the 1,250 miles,

89

and thereby enabling Dulles, which has extra capacity, to handle

the longer-haul flights, so we really viewed it as an effective management tool.

Looking forward to the future, I’d like to note that COG very

much supports Congressman James Oberstar’s call for an Apollolike investment by the United States and Europe to develop a new

green engine. We’re hopeful that if, in fact, enough resources are

brought to the table, perhaps this could be created within 10 years,

and we believe it would substantially lower the noise decibel levels

that the airplanes are currently flying at.

Last, I would like to note that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Mr. Wilding, who was on the earlier panel, mentioned that the Authority is in partnership with COG to start the

Part 150 study. We had originated this a couple of weeks before

September 11th, and we are very hopeful that the process will

again be kicked off, and COG is taking enormous steps to ensure

there’s adequate public participation and all the stakeholders will

be brought to the table, so we appreciate the fact that the Part 150

study was, in fact, noted by this committee.

We continue to appreciate your oversight on noise mitigation

issues. We understand the Federal Aviation Administration has

many issues on its plate, and it is sometimes difficult to achieve

a balance with noise and quality of life issues, so the interest of

your committee has been very helpful, and we encourage your committee to stress to FAA that we, in fact, want to make noise as important an element in their decisionmaking process as some other

factors.

Once again, I thank you very much for holding this hearing, and

I look forward to your questions.

Mrs. MORELLA. I thank you very much for your excellent testimony orally and written testimony, which will be in the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Favola follows:]

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Mrs. MORELLA. David Gries, glad to welcome you here as chair

of the Palisades Citizen Association Committee on Aircraft Noise.

Mr. GRIES. I guess we press first. Thank you, Madam Chair, and

particular thanks to Ms. Norton and her staff, who have lent a

sympathetic ear to those of us in the Palisades who are gradually

going deaf.

Mrs. MORELLA. I know some in Montgomery County, too.

Mr. GRIES. I really just want to make three brief points, searching for noise mitigation measures that are doable, that are practical, and that would allow Reagan National to operate at a high

level of capacity and benefit the city, but at the same time would

alter slightly the balance between benefiting air traffic—air travelers and those who live under the flight paths. So these three points

deal with: first, the curfew; second, a somewhat complex subject

called ‘‘hush kits’’; and, third, the subject of the altitude of takeoffs

and landings.

First is the curfew. A good bit has been said, so I won’t dwell on

it. I think we all realize that there was no curfew in effect before

September 11th. There was a curfew briefly in effect after September 11th, and we have now returned to the former procedures.

But, as was brought out by Ms. Norton’s questioning 10 minutes

ago or so, the fact is that the decibel level measurements at the

end of the National runway that are used to determine whether a

plane can land after 7:00—10 p.m., and take off before 7 a.m., were

put in place many, many years ago, and the result of this is, as aircraft engines have become more quiet—which is, of course, a blessing—more and more planes can meet that threshold and that

means that the number of planes landing during those hours is increasing very rapidly.

Second, those planes that do land during that time period and

do not meet the decibel level requirement at the end of the runway

are, we think, fined in a very sporadic and perhaps haphazard

manner. We have the statistics. They’re public figures. The last

month I think that I’ve seen was August of last year 16 planes

were fined minimal amounts. If we cannot reinstate the curfew—

and, of course, that is our wish—we hope that these decibel measures can be looked at again, the fines can be looked at again, and

the procedure for levying the fines can be rigidly enforced so that

an airline which violates them feels the pain. At the moment the

fine is so low it is the equivalent of another five or six passengers

on the plane, so it is almost no deterrent at all.

And, again, the number of planes flying during those hours is increasing rapidly, and if nothing is done, Reagan really will be a 24-

hour airport, and the people that live under the flight path will

have more and more trouble.

Let me move to hush kits, this rather obscure term. When the

Congress passed a major aviation bill back in the 1990’s, it said

that on December 31, 2000, no plane could use Reagan National

that did not meet the FAA’s stage three engine noise standard. Unfortunately, in the dark of night an amendment was slipped in saying that a stage two engine fitted with what is called a hush kit

would be allowed to use Reagan National, and a good deal of the

trouble that people under the flight path suffer comes from these

hush-kitted aircraft. These are very old airplanes—727s, DC–9s,

97

and some early model 737s. They have stage two engines which are

thunderously noisy. They are fitted with some high-technology gear

which does mitigate the noise level somewhat. And in theory, in

ideal weather conditions, and probably in the deserts of Arizona

and New Mexico, they can meet stage three standards, but they

don’t meet them here. We know from observation in the Palisades.

We can recognize these aircraft, and we know that they are the

main offenders.

What we would like to request the committee to do is ask for a

study from either MR or FAA or both of the feasibility of eliminating hush kits from Reagan National. They are not suitable for an

in-city airport, and their elimination would make a great difference.

My third and final point has to do with altitude. The FAA has

three recommended altitude points that pilots are requested but

not required to follow as they come in and out of Reagan National

to the north. Six miles out they are supposed to be at 1,800 feet—

this is roughly over Delcarlia Reservoir; four miles out, 1,200 feet,

roughly over Georgetown Reservoir; three miles out, 900 feet,

roughly over Key Bridge.

Now, these are recommendations that are in the manuals of all

the airlines, and what we would like to see happen is for these recommendations to become requirements, no longer voluntary but required, and with a penalty structure attached to them. Of course,

there is a radar track on every plane going in and out of the airport, so it is quite easy to know which airlines are flying below

these recommended altitudes.

Now, again, anecdotal evidence by observation in the Palisades

area—and I’m sure this is true in part of Ms. Favola’s area in Arlington and probably south of the airport—a good many planes are

below these levels. And if you combine a plane that is flying below

the recommended altitude with a hush kit, you have noise which,

according to the decibel meters that we use in the Palisades, can

go as high as 90 decibels, which the FAA considers the level that

can induce deafness.

So I think here is a step that can be explored in a practical way,

would not in any way inhibit the commercial use of National nor

reduce the frequency of flights, but would raise the altitude level

of those planes that are violating the recommendation and, frankly,

would make us very happy in—those of us who live under the

flight path.

Let me just close with an observation that I brought back from

a recent visit to Europe. The FAA ruled long ago that the day/night

average of aircraft noise in the United States, so long as it did not

exceed 65 decibels, would be suitable, and specifically that means

that only 13 percent of the people under the flight path at 65 decibels day/night average would be seriously inconvenienced. I was

very surprised to find in Europe that level is 57 decibels, not 65

decibels. Now, since these are logarithmic scales, there is a very,

very great difference between 57 decibels and 65 decibels.

In inquiring further, I discovered that there are no hush kits in

Europe. They are against the law. No 727s can fly into airports

that are close to population centers. No DC–9s can use those airports. In short, the Europeans are ahead of us. They, of course,

98

have a higher population density around many of their airports

and they have met that problem in a way that would also be suitable in the United States—again a matter that the committee

might want to look at.

I thank you for your time.

Mrs. MORELLA. I thank you. Thank you for the succinct suggestions that you made, Mr. Gries.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gries follows:]

99

100

101

102

103

104

Mrs. MORELLA. Now I’m pleased to recognize Donald

MacGlashan, board member of CAAN—Citizens for the Abatement

of Airport Noise.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Citizens for the

Abatement of Aircraft Noise appreciates being invited to participate in this hearing and to present its assessment of the noise impact on communities due to the emergency procedures and to offer

some ideas on how to improve the aircraft noise situation at

Reagan National Airport.

After the airport was reopened and airport capacity began increasing, the emergency procedures of rapid climb-out and straightline course imposed a heavy noise penalty on our communities.

When the airport capacity reached 77 percent, the daytime noise

became nearly continuous, and for many people there seemed to be

no relief. Now, after 8 months, the regular noise abatement procedures are supposed to be restored so we can return to where we

were before September.

However, the question is: should we? We’ve had a forced experiment in new flight procedures which, although painful for some,

have given us information and suggested ideas that we would have

not have learned in normal times. So what did we learn? For the

first night or two of the curfew, some people said it was the first

good night’s sleep they’d had in a long time. However, once the

military patrols went into full effect, thousands of people found

they could not sleep or felt sleep deprived much of the time. CAAN

received many phone calls and e-mails from agitated citizens about

the nighttime noise.

What we have learned is what scientists have been saying for the

past two decades, that is, that people who cannot get sufficient

REM sleep are putting their health at risk. The intrusion of patrol

planes every 10 to 20 minutes has been an excellent example of

this effect. With the airlines now returning to the late evening and

6 to 7 a.m. flights, and with the prospects of more nighttime

flights, we may well experience what we had with the military patrols—a serious sleep deprivation problem. Therefore, when one

combines the need for nighttime security with health benefits, one

can see that a full curfew is good policy.

The rapid climb-out procedure has also taught us a lesson. CAAN

suggested testing this idea to the FAA and the Airports Authority

6 years ago. We thought the faster the planes gain altitude the less

noise people would hear. Our single caveat was that stage two

hush-kitted aircraft, because of their higher noise levels, be excluded from the test.

Now, as a result of the emergency, we can see that we underestimated the noise from the new stage three aircraft. At normal

climb powers, close-in residents were still bearing an undue noise

burden from these so-called ‘‘quiet’’ planes. What needs to be done

is to conduct our suggested test to find a less-intrusive climb profile. It may take only a small reduction in climb rate, especially if

the river course idea described below is adopted. The recent Boeing

announcement of an automated aircraft throttle control for noise

abatement would directly support this suggestion.

105

As for the hush-kitted aircraft, I agree with David that all hushkitted aircraft at National should be banned. Instead, we should be

using more of the quieter regional jets.

As part of its emergency procedures, the Government also intended to study the use of the Global Positioning System [GPS] to

narrow the path of the straight-line course. A District resident, Mr.

Matt Thorp, who may still be here, offered a better solution—use

GPS, but fly a segmented course which approximates the middle of

the river rather than a straight line. Now that the straight-line

course requirement has been removed, the idea still offers a good

solution for noise abatement. Instead of using the 328 radial in bad

weather or at night when the pilots can’t see the river, GPS could

be used to steer an agreed-upon course at all times, not only to the

north but also to the south. This would reduce noise for all the

river communities.

In conclusion, CAAN thinks there are ways to improve security

and noise abatement at National if the Government is willing to

work with the communities to find them.

Thank you.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. MacGlashan.

[The prepared statement of Mr. MacGlashan follows:]

106

107

108

109

Mrs. MORELLA. You can tell I’m going to have a vote, but I think

I will ask a primary question which gets to what each of you has

reflected in terms of the hush kits, in terms of the curfew, the minimum altitude. I’m wondering, as part of the FAA 150 process, can

those issues, particularly the effectiveness of hush kits, as well as

the minimum altitude, can they be examined? Are they part of

what is going to be looked at?

Ms. FAVOLA. I’ll take a crack at that. We have the noise compatibility study, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

has actually hired a consultant. We believe that some resources

will be available to help analyze the data and to coordinate citizen

comment and the comments of other stakeholders. So the answer

to your question is yes, I believe that the procedures we’ve talked

about today can be examined in the Part 150 process.

Mrs. MORELLA. Right. So is there a role that you see for this subcommittee to try to urge that it be fully considered, or would you

like to offer any comments other than—and I note that you’ve mentioned several. You mentioned a GAO study or report, but would

this not be the appropriate route to take?

Ms. FAVOLA. That would be—well, it would be helpful if we could

report back to you on the progress being made with the Part 150

study. It would also be helpful if you wanted to send a letter to the

committee—I am co-chairing the Part 150 process—indicating your

interest in some of these issues and asking that the Part 150 Advisory Committee actually consider them. I think those steps would

be welcome.

Mr. GRIES. Could I just amplify?

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes, indeed.

Mr. GRIES. I am the D.C. citizens’ representative on the Part 150

Committee, and I strongly support what was just said. I think a

letter from the committee would give us some real ammunition on

getting some of these things under study and dates set for completion of studies and an opportunity then to reach some conclusions

and make something happen. It would be a big help.

Mrs. MORELLA. Would you agree, Mr. MacGlashan?

Mr. MACGLASHAN. I would agree with that, yes. I also am a citizen representative on that Part 150 Committee, so all three of us

I think will be participating in the actions of that committee, and

I would concur that, if your committee could urge the co-chairs of

that committee to make sure that they consider these particular

points that we’ve brought up, I think it would go a long way to help

spur the action on that effort.

Mrs. MORELLA. Well, I thank you very much. I know that Congresswoman Norton agrees with me and this is what we will do.

We will draft a letter. If you’d like to draft something for us, feel

free to do so. If not, we will draft it, in terms of asking for full consideration because of the noise and the desire to mitigate.

You know, you may remember, Mr. MacGlashan, not only did we

meet many times and with CONANDA on this issue, and we even

got money put into the budget of even NASA to look at noise abatement, so this has been a problem that has abounded. And we did

the same thing with an FAA bill that had to do with research and

development. It has been around for a long time, all of the procedures and what can be done for noise abatement, because there is

110

just no doubt that it has an effect on so many things, not only traffic but the minds and hearts of people and families and all of that.

So I will go to vote and I’ll let you again ask questions, and then

maybe I’ll come back in time—I think it is one vote. Ms. Norton

is going to ask a few questions. I’ll run over and vote and try to

run back as fast as I can. At the last pause when I left we actually

had three votes. This time I think I only have one, so I’ll get some

exercise and I’ll defer to Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much, Mrs.

Morella.

Yes, I do have several questions. First, I think that Mrs. Morella

was wise to bring out the way in which the 150 process can handle

some of these issues, if not most of them; however, I thought there

was testimony that the hush kits were slipped into a provision of

this body and are a matter of law. Is that correct that the stage

three engine standard was a matter of law and then somebody

slipped into the statute the hush kit notion, which then allowed

stage two engines, too? And that raises the question of whether or

not the 150 process can do much there.

Mr. GRIES. As I understand it, it all happened at the same time.

It was a single bill. It prohibited stage two aircraft from coming

into National, and before the bill actually reached the floor an

amendment was added in committee that permitted these hushkitted planes to qualify, and then the bill was passed.

Ms. NORTON. And then the bill was passed, which means that

the notion that hush kits are allowed on stage two planes is a matter of law. If it is a matter of law, it cannot be changed by an administrative process.

Mr. GRIES. That’s right.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. May I inject just a comment in that regard?

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. There is legal precedent for a jurisdiction to

eliminate a noise problem from the area. The problem we have

with Reagan National is the fact that it is owned by the Federal

Government. And it could still possibly be carried in the courts, if

you want to take it that far, that the hush-kitted planes could be

eliminated. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York

eliminated an entire helicopter service from Manhattan just on

that rule, and so there may well be a way to eliminate these hushkitted airplanes from an individual airport.

Ms. NORTON. I’m going to ask my staff to look at the provision

in law and then look at the 150 process to see whether there is a

flexibility, rather than—I mean, I’d be perfectly willing to put a bill

in, particularly since I’m on the Aviation Subcommittee. Obviously,

it might be easier to do it administratively if we could.

Do you have any idea how many of these stage two planes with

hush kits are flying around our area?

Mr. MACGLASHAN. At the last report I heard, which was about

3 or 4 weeks ago, that there’s about 7.5 percent of the aircraft at

National that are hush-kitted airplanes.

Ms. NORTON. Say that again? How many?

Mr. MACGLASHAN. It’s 7.5 percent.

Ms. NORTON. My goodness.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Which seems like a very low number.

111

Ms. NORTON. Seems like a high number to me.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Does it? OK. Well, just to give you an illustration, Minneapolis Airport did a study on this problem and they

found that with 25 percent of their fleet mix which were hushkitted aircraft it generated 69 percent of the noise at the airport.

So it gives you an indication of how bad the hush-kitted airplanes

really are, and if Mr. Wilding were here, I think he would agree,

because he has commented before that yes, they are very bad. Even

though they supposedly meet the stage three——

Ms. NORTON. Right.

Mr. MACGLASHAN [continuing]. Standards, they very, very marginally meet those standards, and they had to play some tradeoffs

in order to get them across the line, so to speak. And the reason

that the newer-manufactured planes are better is because they exceeded the stage three standards by two or three dB.

And there are some people in—even in the scientific world, as

well as the airport communities, that say, well, an individual can’t

discern a difference in the noise level unless it is 10 dB, and I can

assure those people I would have no trouble distinguishing a hushkitted airplane from a new manufactured stage three airplane,

which if there’s only three dB difference gives lie to what they’ve

been saying about it. So there is a difference.

Ms. NORTON. And flying after 10:00?

Mr. MACGLASHAN. I wouldn’t let them fly at any time.

Ms. NORTON. I’m talking about what are they doing now?

Mr. GRIES. I don’t think they can fly out.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. No, they can’t fly now because they can’t meet

the noise restrictions.

Ms. FAVOLA. They can’t meet the lower noise thresholds.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Favola, did you have a point you wanted to

make on that point?

Ms. FAVOLA. Well, I was just going to say, Congresswoman Norton, that you bring out a very good point about what the Part 150

process can and cannot do. I view it as a very open process where

we can make recommendations on a number of issues, and those

recommendations would have to be reviewed by FAA and, of

course, we may end up with situations where some legislative action would be required, so——

Ms. NORTON. So perhaps we should go through that process first?

Ms. FAVOLA. Well, I do think we should consider it in the Part

150 process, absolutely, because we will have all the stakeholders

at the table, but I’m willing to pursue—if you want to put something on a fast track regarding the hush-kitted issue, we’re certainly willing to work with you on that.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I think we need to lay a predicate on this

issue of just what they do. If we want them eliminated, it seems

to me we are going to have to establish what you say with your

own ears, Mr. MacGlashan, you can establish. We’re going to have

to establish whether these things work. They were clearly put in

to the law as it was passing through without the kind of testimony

that would have allowed Congress to make that distinction. Now

the question is who—you know, I can ask Mrs. Morella to work

with me, to do it through the GSA. I think you indicated the FAA

or some existing agency to do it.

112

Ms. FAVOLA. Well, the Part 150 process is part of the FAA purview, so——

Ms. NORTON. You need to, when you consider this issue, indicate

to us whether you think an existing Government agency should do

it or whether we should get an independent evaluation through the

GAO.

Could I ask you, now that there has been the reinstatement of

the river route for takeoff and landing, if you note—if there’s a notable difference that you can detect now.

Mr. GRIES. I could speak for the Palisades. A different group of

people are now complaining. The radio beacons that were followed

during the period immediately after the airport opened sent planes

over a different part of the community, and suddenly people who

had not noticed the problem began to complain. I think your office

heard a lot of those complaints.

Ms. NORTON. But is it status quo ante?

Mr. GRIES. No. This was the procedure followed after the airport

reopened. Now that we are back to the procedures in effect before

September 11th, the old group of citizens are burdened with the

noise and they don’t complain as much because they’ve lived with

it forever.

But I might take this opportunity to correct one point I think has

not been clearly stated. In theory, pilots follow the river now on

takeoff and landing. In practice, they don’t follow it, for the most

part, on takeoff, and there is a very simple technical reason—that

is, a modern jet climbs at such a rate that the angle of the cockpit

window is such that the pilot can’t see the river, so for the most

part they follow one of the radio beacons off the end of——

Ms. NORTON. Can the radio beacons see the river?

Mr. GRIES. In general, the beacon most often followed is over the

river as much as it can be, but since a radio beacon is a straight

line—it is actually a vector, but it is essentially a straight line for

at least the first five or six miles from the end of the runway.

Ms. NORTON. But, again, this is status quo ante?

Mr. GRIES. This is status quo ante. Yes.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. That’s why the GPS approach that the Government was going to investigate offers an intriguing solution to

this problem.

Ms. NORTON. Yes.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Because then we could follow the river to

whatever extent that we want to by using a segmented course, and

the whole thing could be automated through the autopilot and

flight management system of the plane.

Ms. NORTON. You indicated that there were fines when the decibel levels were exceeded and that happened fairly frequently. Why

would a pilot exceed the decibel level? I didn’t understand. Would

that be unintentional? Is that somebody who doesn’t know what

he’s doing?

Mr. GRIES. You know, I don’t know the answer to that, but the

statistics which were distributed to all of us show a certain number

of fines each month for aircraft that have exceeded the level at the

end of the runway after 10 p.m., and before 7 a.m., so I assume

it is some combination of humidity and thrust and—but I don’t

really know the answer. I really don’t.

113

Mr. MACGLASHAN. I think the fines are levied against an airline

who, if it has a plane that does not meet the standards for the

nighttime restrictions, and if it leaves at 10:01 it is apt to get a

fine, or if it lands before 7 a.m., the airline can receive a fine for

doing that. We have witnessed planes out in Montgomery County

who were sitting there kind of circulating because they arrived

early at the point where they were going to go down from the

American Legion Bridge down the river, and so they had to sit and

circle for 3 or 4 minutes until the time ticked over and then they

could come in. So the fine structure is not based on noise as much

as it is the fact that it’s the wrong kind of airplane to be flying in

the nighttime hours.

Ms. NORTON. I would be interested in knowing whether or not we

have too weak a standard for these so-called ‘‘curfew hours.’’ Could

the average plane today, given the advances and the state-of-theart such as it is, meet those threshold levels if they wanted to and

fly on in here between 10 and 7:00?

Ms. FAVOLA. I don’t know if the average plane could meet it. I’d

have to look at exactly what is flying into National and get some

assessment of whether or not they could meet the lower noise

thresholds. I do think, though, that there is public interest in reexamining those thresholds, because at the time the agreement was

negotiated it was clearly the expectation that planes would not

meet it, so the neighbors, in effect, were getting a curfew.

So there’s interest in maybe going back and looking at the

thresholds, and if, as you say, more planes than we expect or we

would like can actually meet those lower thresholds, maybe they

are not low enough, or maybe we need to take a different approach.

But certainly nighttime noise is a major irritant for constituents in

our greater Washington area, as you well know, Congresswoman.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. I would add that a given plane, like a 757,

which has not been allowed back quite yet, can be certified because

of its weight aspects. It can be certified to be one of the planes that

can come in and out of National whenever it pleases. Other versions of exactly the same plane with a different weight certification

cannot. So you have a combination, depending on what certification

that the plane has received, and in some cases they are not allowed

to operate at National, in other cases they are.

Ms. NORTON. It does seem to be everything is going to have to

be on the table. Is the FAA providing experts to this process?

Mr. MACGLASHAN. They will tell us what each plane, given its

weight and characteristics, would generate in terms of noise. They

supposedly test every single plane, and they come out with a document which tells you what the various noise levels are for landings

and takeoffs and sideline noise.

Ms. FAVOLA. You’re referring to the Part 150 process——

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I am.

Ms. FAVOLA [continuing]. And if we’ll have enough technical

expertise——

Ms. NORTON. Exactly.

Ms. FAVOLA [continuing]. To work through these issues? The

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has received an airport improvement grant, and through that grant they are hiring

outside experts to advise the committee. Certainly FAA will be a

114

part of this process, but they are not the up-front part. They sort

of read the recommendations and findings of the committee at the

end stage.

Ms. NORTON. Well, that’s very important to know, that you have

funds to—because if you want to think outside the box and not

just, you know, improve on or maybe not improve, frankly, by looking at the same configuration, then you’re going to have to say,

‘‘OK, suppose we were to begin again?’’ And then you’re going to

have to think, even if you were to begin again, ‘‘What is the stateof-the-art of airplanes?’’ You can’t take the whole industry and turn

it upside down in the 150 process. So this is going to take a lot of

deep thinking, not only on your part but deep advice from people

who understand everything they’re supposed to understand because they’re experts in the state-of-the-art on planes and noise

and flying, so it is important that you have those funds.

Ms. FAVOLA. Yes. That point is very well taken, and we will not

be shy about consulting with you if, in fact, we don’t feel the resources are being brought to the table on that. So I appreciate your

comment.

Ms. NORTON. I fought very hard in committee to preserve the perimeter rule as it was. Actually, when you consider what was on

the table, we did pretty well. I mean, it would have just blown the

thing apart. It took a lot of work. I’m appreciative that Bud Shuster, who was the chair of the committee, worked very closely with

me. But we do have, what is it, 757s? We have these planes coming

in from Arizona, places all across, quite unnecessarily, I think. Perhaps you will remember when Dulles was under-used or BWI was

under-used, because everybody thought if you didn’t land at Washington at Reagan National something was wrong with you. Maybe

you weren’t high enough in the pecking order. I’m not sure what

it was, but everybody had to land here. Now, of course, people have

recognized that this is a region and a very prosperous region and

it makes more sense to land at Dulles and BWI in many ways, and

BWI has done marvels in becoming very competitive with National

by the way it prices its services.

But we have had some violations of the old perimeter rule, and

I, frankly, had hoped that after September 11th that’s one thing

that would go. They would say, ‘‘Well, certainly after September

11th you don’t need to have these big planes flying out to the west

coast,’’ but we still have a few of them that do.

And, of course, as I guess it was Mr. Wilding indicated, only Congress can change that. I would be interested, however, in knowing

what, if any, effects you believe the small changes in the perimeter

rule have had, particularly with planes flying from the west coast

or from the far west, what effect those planes have had on noise,

if any.

Ms. FAVOLA. Congresswoman Norton, I’d like to provide that information for the record. We have such a skewed view now of what

has happened at National, because we’re still all thinking of the

post-September 11th, and I don’t have any information at my fingertips that would tell us, you know, sort of what the impact of the

perimeter rule was pre-September 11th, we were so engrossed in

the issues that happened after the tragedy. So I would be happy

to have that information submitted for the record.

115

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes, sir?

Mr. MACGLASHAN. I was just going to add that, say, for a 757

that would normally fly not a perimeter but within the 1,250-mile

thing, if you add enough fuel to go to the west coast it can add as

much as five dB to the noise level.

Ms. NORTON. To arm us in advance, there are always people

working around the edges of National Airport to find ways to get

within or beyond the perimeter rule. I hope that in your 150 process any changes that have occurred as a result of the perimeter

process can be noted and we can get whatever information we can

out of that in case we have folks coming at us again on that.

Finally, as I see our Chair has returned, I do want to end simply

by saying, although I indicated that your process would, of course,

benefit from outside experts, I cannot help but note that you who

do not claim to be experts have shown yourselves to be extraordinarily knowledgeable—I must say more knowledgeable than I

certainly was. This committee has learned a great deal from your

really extraordinarily knowledgeable testimony. The notion that

citizens have spent this kind of time on highly technical aspects of

noise abatement and of how planes operate has been something to

behold. I want to commend you on the way you’ve done your homework.

I must say to you that on matters like noise the Government

needs prodding. See, Government doesn’t think about noise. Government wouldn’t do anything about noise if citizens didn’t make

Government do something about noise. The Government thinks of

efficiency, it thinks about important bureaucratic—I don’t want to

use that word in the pejorative sense—but important bureaucratic

issues, but noise has to come from you, and you have educated us

this morning on noise, its effects, and even on what might be done

to mitigate its effects, so I just want to indicate my thanks to the

kind of homework you have done and the way you have educated

this subcommittee, and return the chair—I never did take the

chair—to our own Chair, Connie Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA [resuming Chair]. Thank you, Ms. Norton. And

thank you for your stream of questioning with these wonderful witnesses.

It is true, because what you have done is gone beyond the scope

of any job, any 9 to 5 job. You’ve done it because you have believed,

you’ve taken time from your family and from other activities in

which you might engage.

I will just finally ask you, you have all been involved for many

years in this. Have you seen advancements? I mean, can you note

that—I know you’ve made a difference. Can you see you’ve made

a difference? If someone were to say, ‘‘Would you trace what has

happened with noise mitigation at Reagan National Airport and

Dulles Airport,’’ would you like to try that? Just any general comments you might have on that.

Ms. FAVOLA. I’ll take a crack at that.

Mrs. MORELLA. Feeling of success, too. Yes.

Ms. FAVOLA. This whole field seems to move very slowly.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes.

Ms. FAVOLA. It is very frustrating. And there are a lot of players,

and it is difficult to gain the necessary consensus to get changes

116

through very often. I do think the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has become more cooperative than it had been

when I initially started on my CONANDA Committee, and I also

am thrilled that we finally have Metropolitan Washington Airports

Authority, with the help of the D.C. government, finally did get

some airport improvement program dollars to actually start the

Part 150 study, so I thank you, Congresswoman Norton and all of

you who may have helped in that.

I really do think that this study will enable us to come up with

some creative ideas and to be at the leading edge of where noise

mitigation and quality of life factors can be for regions that have

an airport, I think progress is coming. We’ve had lots of challenges,

and it is hard to point to any one thing, but I can feel it, so I’m

hopeful 18 months from now we can come back and really have

something substantial to say.

Mrs. MORELLA. You know, we really do seem to be closer than

ever before in terms of finally getting a continued action that would

help.

Mr. Gries, how long have you been involved with the noise abatement?

Mr. GRIES. I think it is about 2 years on this committee, but I’ve

lived under the flight path for 10. So, in answer to Ms. Norton’s

earlier point, that’s why we’ve learned about this subject, because

we really have no choice.

I’d just add one thing very quickly to what Ms. Favola just said.

The largest changes that have occurred have been because of the

technology of aircraft engines. For example, some of the late model

Airbuses that are now using National are quite acceptable. Similarly, the late model 737s which are using National are more or

less acceptable. Our problems are with older airplanes. And so, as

the industry advances and faces the very high costs of operating

older airplanes, there will be continuing change, but it is very slow.

Mrs. MORELLA. Right.

Mr. MacGlashan, I bet you set the record for veteran status and

experience.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Maybe it’s a dubious record. I don’t know. I

have been involved with it now for 8 years, and——

Mrs. MORELLA. It seemed longer.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Well, I guess that goes back to 1994, I think

it was, that I first took up the hammer to try to make some differences.

As far as what I have seen—and I agree with David here that

a lot of it has been technology, and when I testified before your

Technology Committee 5 years ago I said that technology got us

into this problem and technology is going to have to get us out. And

I also said I think back at that time that we should be using more

of the regional jets, and I’m happy to hear that USAirways now

has at least partially settled with their pilots so that they may

start using more regional jets out of National, and that should help

the noise situation greatly, I think.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. I think what we have to overcome is the natural inertia of the aviation industry, itself, who do not like to change

anything. They get their procedures set down in black and white,

117

and then somebody comes along and says, ‘‘You must change this

type of procedure.’’ The Air Line Pilots Association rises up and

says, ‘‘No, we can’t do that. It makes that airport non-standard

with other airports in the country.’’ And I’d like to give the pilots

a lot more credit for being able to handle their airplanes so that

they could make adjustments for a given airport. No two airports

are exactly the same in how they are set up, and so these pilots

are perfectly capable of being able to handle Washington National

if they are given the proper training. And so I would——

Mrs. MORELLA. And flexibility.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. Pardon?

Mrs. MORELLA. And flexibility.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. And flexibility. Yes. Exactly.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. So that’s—and I agree with Ms. Favola that

the progress is very, very slow. But I think because of citizen

groups around the country keep the pressure on all the time, it sort

of helps drive the authorities to take hold and look at the problem.

Mrs. MORELLA. Well, actually, you just wouldn’t have—you’d

have very few changes taking place if you didn’t have a voice, and

you represent a lot of people.

Mr. MACGLASHAN. That’s right.

Mrs. MORELLA. And I hope that’s some encouragement to you,

that you are the ones that make participatory democracy really

work on behalf of a lot of others who don’t have the time or don’t

feel they have the power to give to it. So I thank you very much

for that. I remember when we used to count how many planes violated the slot rules, and I guess that will come back again, too, so

you’ve all been there for a long time.

I thank you. I know that Ms. Norton will fill me in if there is

something I’ve missed, and my staff will fill me in, but we will

write that letter on behalf of the 150.

And so now again I thank you, Ms. Favola, Mr. Gries, Mr.

MacGlashan, and I’m going to adjourn the meeting of this subcommittee. Thank you for your patience with my coming and going.

I know Ms. Norton handled it beautifully.

I want to acknowledge Russell Smith, my staff director; and

Shalley Kim, staff assistant, who has been recording this; Rob

White, communications director; Matt Batt, legislative assistant;

Heea Vazirani-Fales; John Bouker, who is the counsel on the minority side; Jean Gosa, deputy clerk on minority side; and thank

our recorder, Mary Ross, for the wonderful work that she does.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]

118

119

Æ