U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

38–249 PDF 2007

THE TRANSITION FROM

THE FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION TO

CONTRACTOR-OPERATED

FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS: LESSONS LEARNED

(110–76)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 10, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Belger, Monte R., Vice President of Transportation Systems Solutions, Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management ................................................................ 25

Boyer, Phil, President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association .......................... 25

Cipriano, Joseph R., President, Lockheed Martin Business Process Solutions .. 25

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 4

Staples, John, Director, Office of Flight Services Program Operations, Federal 

Aviation Administration ...................................................................................... 4

Washington, James H., Vice President for Acquisition and Business Services, 

Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration ............................. 4

Zuccaro, Matt, President, Helicopter Association International .......................... 25

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 40

Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida ................................................................................ 48

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 54

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 57

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

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Boyer, Phil ................................................................................................................ 65

Cipriano, Joseph R. ................................................................................................. 77

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L. ...................................................................................... 83

Washington, James H. ............................................................................................ 100

Zuccaro, Matthew .................................................................................................... 110

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Illinois, letter to Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary of U.S. Department of 

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 47

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Anonymous letter to the Committee ...................................................................... 113

Holodick, Daniel, letter to the Committee ............................................................. 114

Venable, Robert M., letter to the Committee ........................................................ 118

Wade, Jay, letter to the Committee ....................................................................... 119

vi


38249.001
vii


38249.002
viii


38249.003
ix


38249.004
x


38249.005
xi


38249.006
xii


38249.007
xiii


38249.008
xiv


38249.009
xv


38249.010
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE TRANSITION 

FROM FAA TO CONTRACTOR-OPERATED 

FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS: LESSONS 

LEARNED 

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. 

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chair will ask all Members, staff and everyone to turn electronic devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 

Transition from FAA to Contractor-Operated Flight Service Stations: Lessons Learned. 

Before we begin, I would ask unanimous consent to allow a new 

Member of our Committee, Ms. Laura Richardson, to participate in 

the Subcommittee hearing today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I am prepared to give my opening statement and recognize the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening statement or remarks, 

and then we will go directly to our first panel of witnesses. 

I want to welcome everyone to our Aviation Subcommittee hearing on the Transition from FAA to Contractor-Operated Flight 

Service Stations: Lessons Learned. 

The FAA awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.8 billion privatization 

contract to consolidate 58 flight service stations nationwide into 18 

including 3 new hubs and maintain and manage the system. It was 

during this consolidation that pilots started reporting problems: 

long wait times, dropped calls, missing flight plans and specialists 

ill prepared to brief pilots on requested routes. 

An incident this past Sunday illustrates how important it is for 

the FSS to work properly. This past Sunday, October 7th, there 

were several pilots who violated the temporary flight restriction 

over Emmitsburg, Maryland. President Bush was there for a firefighters’ event and flew from Camp David. There were a dozen pilots who violated this restriction, many because of incomplete information from an FSS. This is one example of how the flaws in the 

FSS system can adversely affect pilots. 

I will include a firsthand report from one of the pilots from this 

last Sunday’s incident into the record, but I will briefly summarize: 

2

A pilot attempted to call an FSS three times before being connected. Once connected, the briefer gave incorrect information, saying he checked the route and the member would not encounter any 

special use airspace or TFRs. Soon after, the pilot was diverted to 

Hagerstown, Maryland, and interviewed by the Secret Service. This 

situation became worse when the pilot contacted an FSS to leave 

Hagerstown. 

Stories like this one are all too common under the contract-out 

FSS system. We must and we can do better. I believe that the FAA 

needs to do more aggressive oversight of this contract. 

After numerous letters and conversations with the former Administrator, Marion Blakey, in May of 2007, I am pleased to see 

that the FAA has stepped up its effort to make sure that Lockheed 

Martin is meeting its performance goals required by the contract. 

The FAA embarked on this consolidation effort because it believed that Lockheed Martin’s FS21 would deliver flight services 

with greater efficiency while continuing to provide a high level of 

safety at a reduced cost. Costs continue to increase on this contract 

because of delays and adjustments wanted by Lockheed Martin 

which will reduce the expected cost savings. I am interested in 

hearing from the FAA and the DOT’s IG whether the expected cost 

savings anticipated in this contract by the FAA are being achieved. 

The DOT IG also released a report of the controls over FSS contracts and made a number of recommendations. I am interested in 

hearing from both the FAA and the DOT IG whether these recommendations were implemented and what we have learned in 

this process. 

I am also interested in hearing from Mr. Boyer and others who 

represent the users of the FSS. They are here today with us, and 

I hope that they will provide some feedback for us so that we can 

learn what we can continue to do to ensure pilots get safety critical 

services they expect and need. 

Ultimately, regardless of who has the contract for this service, 

the FAA is responsible for ensuring that the users get everything 

they need from the system which includes quality customer service 

and safety. I want to learn more about what the FAA is doing to 

achieve those goals because the lessons from this contract will have 

a huge effect on how we deal with contracting out the ADS-B system. 

With that, I again welcome all of our witnesses today, and I look 

forward to hearing their testimony. 

Before I recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Petri, for his opening statement or comments, I ask unanimous 

consent to allow two weeks for all Members to revise and extend 

their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

At this time, the Chair would recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This past summer, Lockheed Martin and the FAA finalized the 

transition of flight service station services from the antiquated legacy system to a modernized network integrated system. This process was the result of a nearly two year transition effort during 

3

which 58 facilities were consolidated down, as you point out, to 18 

modernized facilities providing roughly 90,000 briefings per week 

at an estimated cost savings to the Government of roughly $2.2 billion over the life of the contract. 

However, as with nearly any transition of this size and complexity, problems arose including lost flight plans, long hold times 

and system outages. My office heard complaints in this area as 

yours did. Compounding these problems was the high call volume 

during the busy summertime flying season. 

While this Subcommittee should certainly look into the problems 

that have arisen during the transition period, we should also remind ourselves about how quickly the problems or most of them 

have been solved. For instance, there were problems with Lockheed 

Martin’s FS21 automated system interfacing with FAA legacy systems. Yet, workarounds were quickly developed by Lockheed Martin to bring the system back online. 

Proper agency oversight of the contract is clearly critical. In the 

case of this contract, the FAA has mechanisms built into the contract that incentivize good service and penalize poor service. The 

contract has 21 performance measures called Acceptable Performance Metrics and based on these metrics, Lockheed Martin is eligible for rewards or for penalties. 

Additionally, under the contract, any contract under-run or savings is returned to the Government if any one of the Acceptable 

Performance Metrics is not met. Because understaffing could lead 

to missing an APL and thus losing all savings, the contract 

disincentivizes understaffing. 

I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on these and 

other controls within the contract that ensure quality service for 

the users. 

As with any transition, flight service station briefings have 

changed. Pilots who may have talked to the same briefer for 15 

years are probably surprised now when they talk to someone new. 

While it may be a little different experience, the quality of the 

briefing is what is most important. Our aviation system is modernizing and flight service stations must do so as well. 

While the transition to Lockheed Martin’s enhanced system has 

been a challenge, surveys from the user community have shown 

satisfaction with how Lockheed Martin has responded to the issues 

that have arisen during the transition and show steadily improving 

grades on the quality of service. 

Now that the busy summer season is wrapping up, I look forward 

to hearing what Lockheed Martin is doing to ensure a seamless flying system in 2008. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back any 

time remaining. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and, before we 

introduce the first panel, would recognize my friend from North 

Carolina, Mr. Hayes, for brief remarks. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today. 

I think it is important to note that the concept is very sound. It 

started off very strongly. We developed a series of problems that 

have been pointed out by a number of users and user groups. I 

4

think Lockheed Martin, hopefully, will move as aggressively as possible to correct these problems, to put a sound system on a sound 

footing. 

I thank you for giving us a chance to take a look at some of these 

issues. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and at this time 

would introduce and recognize our first panel. 

First, we have the Honorable Calvin Scovel who is the Inspector 

General with the U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. James 

Washington, the Vice President for Acquisition and Business Services, Air Traffic Organization, FAA; and Mr. John Staples who is 

the Director of the Office of Flight Services Program Operations for 

the FAA. 

Gentlemen, your full statement will be entered into the record, 

and we would ask you to summarize your statement. 

Mr. Scovel, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JAMES H. WASHINGTON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACQUISITION AND BUSINESS SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; JOHN STAPLES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FLIGHT SERVICES PROGRAM 

OPERATIONS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the conversion of FAA’s flight service stations 

to contract operations. 

On February 1st, 2005, FAA awarded a 10 year contract to Lockheed Martin to operate the Agency’s flight service stations in the 

continental United States, Puerto Rico and Hawaii. 

FAA anticipates that it will save $1.7 billion by contracting out 

flight service facilities over the 10 year life of the agreement. These 

savings are based on consolidating the 58 FAA-operated flight service stations into 18 sites, deploying FS21, Lockheed Martin’s new 

flight services operating system, and reducing flight service specialist staffing levels, approximately 1,900 to 1,000 specialists. 

At this point, the consolidation is nearly complete, and FS21 is 

operational. The transition was not an easy one. Hindsight is 20-

20 but, clearly, deploying a new operating system and debugging 

it during live operations while consolidating 58 locations down to 

18 and acclimating an entire workforce to a new system all within 

a 6 month period was a very ambitious undertaking. Significant 

problems in providing services to users occurred during the transition including long wait times, dropped phone calls, lost flight 

plans and poor briefings. 

In May, we issued an interim report on this outsourcing effort. 

Our testimony today is based on that audit work and ongoing work 

to monitor the transition. Today, we would like to discuss three 

issues regarding this undertaking. 

First, we found that FAA established a series of effective management controls over the initial transition from FAA to contract 

operations. For example, FAA used a contract mechanism, fixed 

5

price plus incentive fee, that allows for careful monitoring of the 

contractor’s performance. 

FAA also implemented a series of internal controls to enforce the 

contract. For example, at the onset of the contract, FAA realigned 

its existing headquarters flight services office to oversee the transitional, operational and financial aspects of the flight services contract. 

FAA maintained an evaluation group to conduct operational reviews of flight service stations, and FAA included 21 performance 

measures in the contract against which Lockheed Martin is evaluated. Lockheed can earn up to $10 million annually in bonuses for 

meeting those measures but can also be financially penalized for 

not meeting them. 

In our opinion, these controls are important mechanisms to manage the contract going forward. 

Second, while the Agency implemented effective management 

controls over the initial transition, Lockheed Martin experienced 

significant problems during the consolidation phase of the 

outsourcing effort. Lockheed experienced a 10 month delay in developing FS21 which led to a very aggressive consolidation schedule during the busy summer flying season. 

In addition, because of the delay in development, Lockheed began 

installing and using the system in live operations with known deficiencies. As a result, significant problems occurred in providing 

services to users. It appears that many of those problems have now 

been resolved. 

However, for future undertakings of a similar nature, several lessons learned can be gleaned from this experience. They include ensuring that new systems are fully developed before being deployed, 

paying sufficient attention to human factor issues such as 

acclimating a workforce to new systems, and taking swift and decisive intervention actions when outcomes, even intermediate ones, 

fail to meet requirements. 

Third, key watch items going forward. With the consolidation 

now behind us, Lockheed and FAA must focus on three key issues: 

One, meeting acceptable levels of performance over the next several months. Currently, Lockheed is not meeting 13 of 21 performance measures. It is important to recognize, however, that most of 

the problems occurred in the second and third quarters of fiscal 

year 2007 while the transition was ongoing. With the transition 

ending, we would expect performance to improve. 

An important point, Mr. Chairman, is that if the contractor’s performance does not improve over the next several months, it could 

indicate fundamental problems with how Lockheed Martin operates 

flight services. FAA must closely monitor the contractor’s performance in terms of the APLs. 

Two, achieving the anticipated savings. Ensuring that savings 

estimates are being met each year is critical because most of the 

anticipated savings are expected to be achieved in the out years of 

the contract. 

Three, maintaining adequate staffing levels and providing sufficient training of flight service specialists to meet users’ needs. A 

significant concern is that Lockheed expected to have 1,000 specialVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:03 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38249 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
6

ists on board at the end of the transition. As of September 1st, 

2007, they had only 842 specialists. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Scovel. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Washington. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the FAA’s transfer of 

automated flight service stations to a contractor-operated system. 

My name is Jim Washington. I am the Vice President for Acquisition and Business Services. I also serve as the Acquisition Executive for the FAA and accompanying me is John Staples who is our 

Director of Flight Service Program Operations. 

As we plan for the transition to the next generation of air traffic 

control, we continue to manage to the FAA’s first priority which is 

safety. As the flight service program proceeds, we and our contract 

partner, Lockheed Martin, continue to ensure that this responsibility is not compromised. 

Let me take a moment to quickly review the history of the automated flight service contract. On February 1st, 2005, the FAA 

awarded a performance-based contract to Lockheed Martin to provide flight services to general aviation pilots. The contract was 

awarded following a 15 month feasibility study which we began in 

2003. 

The total cost of the award was $1.8 billion covering an initial 

performance period of 5 years with consecutive options for a total 

of a 10 year contract term. FAA expects to save $2.2 billion in capital and labor over 13 years. 

The contract contains 21 metrics known as Acceptable Performance Levels. Those performance metrics allow the Government to 

measure contract performance and quality of service to the customer. 

On February 22nd, 2007, Lockheed Martin began the process of 

implementing their FS21 program. The end state configuration for 

the automated flight service stations in the continental United 

States including Hawaii and Puerto Rico will ultimately be 18 facilities. 

As is typical with the deployment of a new system, issues developed. Many of these were anticipated and mitigations put in place 

prior to the start of the transition. However, some system impacts 

were more significant than anticipated. 

Pilots began reporting excessive call wait times, dropped calls, 

lost flight plans and specialists who were unfamiliar with the expanded area of knowledge. Additionally, reports of problems with 

issuing, disseminating and coordinating notices to airmen were reported. 

FAA has taken timely action in response to these problems. We 

are holding Lockheed Martin accountable for meeting the requirements of the contract. Lockheed continues execution of a corrective 

action plan outlining the steps to be taken in each of the deficient 

areas that have been identified. 

7

At the FAA, we review recordings of air to ground radio and telephone communications between pilots and Lockheed flight service 

personnel to validate their performance data. FAA performs facility 

inspections at Lockheed Martin flight service stations. This includes over 2,100 quality assurance calls placed to Lockheed facilities. 

The National Weather Service also examines Lockheed weather 

briefers and provides results of those examinations to the FAA. 

Call hold times and abandoned calls have decreased over the 

past several weeks. While pilots may still experience longer wait 

times during peak periods, the average call wait time is now consistently below 45 seconds, down from the 8 minute hold times experienced in mid-May. 

Ongoing analysis and oversight continues in order to determine 

if additional corrective actions by Lockheed Martin are necessary. 

Contingent upon Lockheed’s meeting the specified performance 

levels, the contract allows for either a financial incentive from the 

FAA or a penalty against Lockheed Martin for failure to meet an 

Acceptable Performance Level. A penalty is charged unless Lockheed Martin’s corrective action plan is accepted by the FAA. Quarterly and more frequent executive level meetings provide the venue 

for performance discussions between Lockheed and the FAA. To date, FAA has levied approximately $12.2 million in financial 

penalties to Lockheed Martin in cases where performance levels 

were not met. Where Lockheed met or exceeded the performance 

levels, awards totaling $6 million were paid by the FAA. 

Actions taken by the FAA and Lockheed Martin are showing results. We continue to monitor Lockheed Martin’s operational performance by conducting internal evaluations and requesting feedback from users such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

as well as results of evaluations conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. 

Congress provided the FAA with the authority to establish the 

Air Traffic Organization as a performance-based organization. FAA 

is committed to meeting our responsibility by providing appropriate 

oversight and management of this performance-based contract for 

flight services. We continue to be responsive to our customers, and 

we continue to work with Lockheed Martin to provide the level of 

service which our customers expect. 

I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. This concludes my testimony, and I would be glad 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you and recognizes Mr. Staples 

at this time. 

Mr. STAPLES. I have no formal statement at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. 

Mr. Scovel, let me ask you just a few questions. Obviously, in 

your testimony, both your written testimony and your summary 

this morning, clearly you had questions as to the effectiveness of 

the FAA managing the transition. 

What have we learned from this as we move forward with another outsource contract on ADS-B? What are the lessons learned 

here in the transition? 

8

Mr. SCOVEL. Good morning again, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by noting that FAA is justifiably proud of its role 

in the department as one of the components that actually operates 

things as opposed to other modes which serve as a conduit for 

funds and grants and which have some limited oversight responsibility. FAA is proud of its role as an operator. 

However, when it undertakes an effort like this or in the upcoming ADS-B effort, it must change its role from one of being an operator to one of being an overseer, engaging in oversight. The formula for oversight is pretty simple: monitor performance, evaluate 

effectiveness, implement lessons learned. 

We believe that using this as a case study, FAA initially implemented this contract effectively but going forward its execution was 

lacking, and let me draw a couple of key examples. 

First, in this one, we knew that FS21 was a key to the consolidation effort, yet that system was not entirely debugged before it was 

put into operation. It was debugged during live operations, in fact, 

and that was a key part of many of the complaints by private pilots 

as they tried to engage flight services. 

Second, attention to human factor issues, in this case, we had a 

consolidation effort that required a workforce being relocated from 

outlying facilities to some hub facilities and other consolidated locations. They were undergoing training in new geographic locations 

and a new operating system at the same time. We think that perhaps oversight of that aspect was lacking. 

Third and perhaps most telling, we think that swift and decisive 

and early intervention was lacking on FAA’s part once severe problems were noted during the early spring and summer flying season, 

and a flood of complaints and calls began to reach FAA from disgruntled private pilots. 

That leads to me one final point, and that is getting input from 

users, sir. We think that while AOPA and other users had some 

input at the beginning of the process, clearly as the contract was 

moving forward, FAA’s approach, we believe, was one of we will 

hold them. We will hold Lockheed to the terms of the contract. 

They were slow in responding to complaints from the users, and 

we think had they paid key attention earlier, that would have 

given FAA a much stronger role in overseeing the implementation 

of the contract. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You talked a little bit in your testimony about the 

staffing levels. You mentioned the key points that we have to move 

forward on, and the third point was staffing. 

It is apparent to me and I would just ask you the question in reviewing and preparing for this hearing. The fact that Lockheed 

only had 800 specialists on staff, it is pretty clear that they did not 

have the manpower to adequately respond to the number of inquiries and the services that were required by the users. Would you 

agree? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Manpower is key. In fact, in our May report, we 

identified staffing as a key concern of ours, and we recommended 

at that time that FAA undertake a more detailed examination of 

Lockheed’s staffing effort. FAA initially disagreed with that recommendation. 

9

However, in early September, it too recognized the severity of the 

staffing problem because at that point, as of September 1st, staffing which was supposed to be at 1,000 had fallen to 842. On September 7th, FAA sent a letter to Lockheed, requesting a plan of action and milestones so that FAA could better monitor Lockheed’s 

implementation of the staffing requirements. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Based upon what we know today, do you believe that the FAA will achieve the $1.7 billion in savings that was 

promised under this contract? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We believe $1.7 billion is achievable. However, it is 

too early at this point to say whether it will actually be reached. 

Keep in mind, please, sir, that we are talking about a 10 year contract. We are in the very early years of it. 

Many of the savings, the great bulk of the savings are estimated 

to be achieved in the out years of the contract. For instance, the 

first two years of the contract, savings of $5.3 million have been 

estimated. In the last two years of the contract, savings of $434 

million are estimated. 

There is a lot of time between now and then, and there is a lot 

of time for extra expenses and costs to eat into the estimated savings that will hopefully be achieved in the last years of the contract. It will require detailed examination and oversight by FAA 

throughout the entire contract in order to achieve that whole $1.7 

billion in savings. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, that is one of the issues that concerns me 

about ADS-B and the contract, aggressive oversight. 

Let me move on to Mr. Washington. 

Mr. Washington, Lockheed Martin has requested, I think, close to $150 million in adjustments to the contract based upon, I think, 

significantly higher wages than what the FAA instructed the bidders that the wages would be. 

I would like you to comment on the labor rates that the FAA 

gave to the bidders at the time that they were bidding. Was there 

a difference or a misunderstanding on wage rates? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, we are in receipt of a formal claim from Lockheed Martin for just over $100 million, and the central issue there is about the 

wage determination associated with the salaries for specialists in 

the operating flight service stations. 

The initial award of the contract was based on a formal wage determination that was established by the Department of Labor in 

addition to the actual salary payments to flight service specialists 

at the time they were still employed by the FAA. 

A combination of the Department of Labor information as well as 

the actual salary payments to the workforce that was available to 

Lockheed Martin at the time we initiated the contract award provided the overall set of information related to the projected costs 

of paying the salaries for flight service operators. 

There is some discussion about the extent to which there was either misunderstanding or misinformation provided in the formal 

contract communications between the FAA and Lockheed Martin. 

So we fully intend to resolve that difference. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Is the adjustment somewhere in the neighborhood 

of $100 million to $150 million that Lockheed is requesting? 

10

Mr. WASHINGTON. I believe it is, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. What point do you expect that you will resolve 

that issue? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. We are in the process of conducting discussions with our counsel at the FAA and intend to address a schedule 

for resolution of that claim in the next weeks. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You heard, Mr. Washington, the Inspector General testify that in certain aspects of the contract, that the FAA has 

not provided proper oversight. I want your comment. Would you 

agree with that? 

Are there areas that if you could go back and do it over again, 

specifically, what would you do better regarding oversight? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, in the context of lessons 

learned, we have absolutely stepped into a very complex oversight 

responsibility which, I might add, combines the fact that FAA retains ultimate responsibility for assurance of safety in the system. 

The difference here is that we rely on the service provider and 

Lockheed Martin who actually owns and operates that system to 

provide both the equipment and the appropriate trained expertise 

in terms of people to provide that quality of service which the customers expect. 

In our oversight experience, we have discovered some lessons 

learned in two particular categories, and one of those happens to 

be the testing routines that lead up to the actual implementation 

or the operational use of new automation which is relied on by specialists in order to provide briefings to pilots. The level of detail 

that is associated with that testing routine prior to operational use 

is what the FAA would apply a greater level of rigor around than 

what occurred in the recent transition. 

Another specific area of lessons learned is related to staffing. In 

that discussion, I would suggest that it is a combination of the total 

number of operational staff specialists who are available in the system in addition to the availability by a facility to address specific 

demands on the system and address the more complex airspace situations around the national airspace. 

So the availability of specialists while training is going on on a 

new automation platform is where we would apply greater oversight and advice than what may have been exchanged between the 

FAA and Lockheed Martin. 

I would also add that we increased our level of surveillance and 

executive level of contract oversight when it became apparent that 

problems were arising in the system which exceeded the expectations of both Lockheed and the FAA. 

Lockheed had presented a plan to us that essentially provided for 

procedural workarounds in the event that some of the capabilities 

of the automation, which was planned to occur in future time 

frames, was not available. So FAA accepted their transition plan 

based on the workarounds that were presented to us. In specific 

cases, those workarounds were insufficient to meet the demand 

without significant call wait times and lost calls and other concerns 

that you have heard addressed in this discussion this morning. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Based upon lessons learned here in the early 

stages and the issue concerning wages regardless of if it was a 

miscommunication or whatever it may have been, do you anticipate 

11

that the Government and the taxpayers will achieve the $1.7 billion in savings that the FAA told us that they would achieve? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that our 

projected savings will meet that target over the lifetime of the contract. 

We have already experienced significant savings. In fact, we were more than $50 million ahead of our budget target for the very first 

year of this contract award. In fiscal year 2007, we are making significant progress as well in terms of the actual costs of the contract 

as compared to our projections. 

So we are off to an encouraging start, and certainly these future 

adjustments that are required will have some impact on the total 

cost of the contract, but we do not expect that to have a significant 

impact on our projected total savings. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We are obviously concerned about savings, but we 

are more concerned about safety and making certain that the pilots 

get the information that they need when they need it and that the 

services are provided either by the contractor or, as I pointed out 

in my opening statement and as you pointed out, the FAA has the 

ultimate responsibility regardless of who is holding the contract. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the distinguished Ranking 

Member, Mr. Petri, for questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am interested if anyone on the panel really would comment. 

Mr. Scovel mentioned that the FAA has been an operating agency, 

and this is a major contract with contract oversight responsibility 

over a period of years which is probably not going to be unique as 

we go forward with the new technology and a pretty sophisticated 

series of technologies for the new satellite-based system. 

Do you feel that FAA either in-house has adequate expertise to 

manage this process or the ability to contract out with people who 

can inform them as to things that they need to know to manage 

the process, or are there any changes we should be making or 

thinking about making in the legally authorized tools that the 

Agency could have to make sure that people from the user community and the catering community making all this equipment and 

understanding the technologies help inform the Country as how to 

do it best by advising the FAA or working with them? 

Do you have any comment on any of that? 

Are we okay? Is the Government able to manage these multibillion dollar projects without any risk that they will lose control of 

the process? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

I think there is always risk, naturally. However, I would think 

that, using this again as a case study, I would note that in our 

opinion FAA did a good job in the initial phases of the contract in 

structuring it, in identifying performance measures and through at 

least the first fiscal year in monitoring the execution. 

It was only later, after the delay in the implementation of the development of the operating system and then the rushed consolidation schedule, that FAA began to run into problems. We attribute 

that more to a mind set, to an attitude, if you will, rather than to 

a deficiency in any expertise, technical expertise or in manpower 

on the part of the Agency. 

12

We are confident that the Agency, of course, can learn from experiences like this and apply it, hopefully, to upcoming projects like 

ADS-B, but it will require dedicated attention from top level leadership at FAA in order to drive these lessons home. 

Mr. PETRI. Another area that I wonder if you could comment on, 

a lot of Members of the Committee have been hearing there were 

some 1,600 people who had to go through this transition. I guess 

there was an indication that there would be every effort made to 

find other assignments for people within the FAA and manage this 

transition, but there are evidently some 300 or more people who 

have not found another assignment. 

I just wonder if either of you could comment on this or what, if 

there is something, that still remains to be done that we can be 

helpful with or what lessons have been learned from handling the 

individuals involved in this whole situation. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Petri, I will defer to FAA here in a moment, but 

I will note that in any transition like this from a Government-operated system to a contractor system, there will be dislocations. I 

know that is an unfortunate sounding antiseptic term when we are 

talking about the impact on people. 

I will note too, and I think it is included in my statement, that 

Congress made the policy determination to protect FAA employees 

who were within two years of retirement at the time this 

outsourcing was first initiated by providing that those employees 

within two years of retirement, Government retirement, could continue as FAA employees. Any time a line like that is drawn, some 

will fall outside the line and some, regrettably, will be very, very 

close to qualifying and being included in that line. 

My office hasn’t had an opportunity to study in detail the impact 

on individuals and the decision making process that went into that 

part of the contract, but we do note that the Congress did do what 

we believe was certainly its best at the time. 

Mr. PETRI. Excuse me. Go ahead. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

Let me address the complexity of this contract arrangement because the FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey, at the time and 

those of us in senior positions of responsibility did not approach 

this anticipated competition lightly. We understood that the single 

most significant challenge in this outsourcing process would be the 

impact to the people and their careers and lives in the process of 

awarding an outsourced contract. 

So, at the time that we announced the competitive process back 

in July of 2005, we had some 2,300 specialists on board, currently 

FAA employees. We extended early retirement opportunities to 

that workforce in the hopes of allowing people an opportunity to exercise an additional option that would not have otherwise been 

available to them, stepping into a reduction in force process in October of that year. 

Out of those 2,300, more than 1,200 employees ended up retiring 

from that affected workforce. We were successful in achieving reassignments to other FAA positions for some 456 of those affected 

employees, and that was directly related to the FAA Administrator’s special policy that was put in place, offering these affected employees special placement opportunities. 

13

In addition to that, in their wisdom, the opportunity that Congress extended to the FAA, which I believe is unprecedented, which 

Mr. Scovel referenced a minute ago, allowed some 99 individuals 

an opportunity to be re-employed with the FAA, most of which had 

taken on positions with Lockheed Martin in order to reach their retirement eligibility. 

I think that is a very significant step which adds to the measures 

which FAA was able to initiate within our own authority and control. That also allowed us to reduce the impact on more than 500 

individuals that actually experienced a reduction in force. 

Now, keep in mind that at the time we initiated this RIF process 

in October, 2005, the Lockheed Martin extended employment opportunities to 100 percent of the operating specialists, administrative personnel, secretaries and managers that were currently on 

board at flight service stations. So there was an opportunity for all 

of those individuals to choose to take on employment with Lockheed Martin with the receipt of a recruitment bonus in addition to 

the potential for future benefits related to health and 401(k) retirement savings opportunity as well. 

What I am suggesting is that between the FAA and Lockheed 

Martin, that there was a combination of factors that provided for 

some mitigation of the impact to those personnel as we stepped 

into this outsourcing event which we understand had significant 

impact on the lives of those individuals. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think others may have questions on this process and other aspects. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The first question is for Mr. Washington. I thought it might be 

appropriate to ask you since your last name is Washington. I am 

from Washington, and the question is about Washington. 

In talking to the pilots in my area, one of the more unusual complaints but relatively common for them is that the voice recognition 

system that is being used for some reason does not adequately 

identify or adequately hear Washington when they call in and they 

are asked what State are they from. I don’t know if it is because 

of Washington State versus Washington, D.C., and so they end up 

in this voice mail hell that a lot of us get into. 

I am curious if you have heard that complaint and if something 

is being done or can be done about that. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Congressman. 

I have not heard about that specific complaint in the system, and 

I would respectfully request that you may pose that question to 

Lockheed Martin in the following panel. 

We follow up on specific complaints about problems in the system, and we have a very dynamic process between the FAA and 

Lockheed Martin to ensure timely resolution of the complaints once 

they are validated. This particular one, however, I am not familiar 

with. 

Mr. LARSEN. It is fairly usual and probably isolated to Washington. 

14

What steps are you taking to reduce or eliminate the problems, 

specifically, call wait times and dropped flight plans? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. There have been a number of significant improvements in the automation system that Lockheed Martin has 

brought into use at all the flight service stations, and so that is the 

primary improvement factor that has allowed us to experience 

fewer complaints overall and specifically significant improvement 

in call wait times and lost calls over the duration of this contract. 

So it is a combination of the automation improvement and introducing specific new capabilities to the automation platform which 

have been done in several sequences, and there are two or three 

additional system improvements that are scheduled to be installed 

by Lockheed Martin which will add corrections to the system that 

don’t presently exist. 

Mr. LARSEN. What are those improvements? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. I will ask Mr. Staples to pitch in here, if I 

may. 

Mr. LARSEN. Fine. 

Mr. STAPLES. There have been a series of software drops to the 

FS21, and four of those remain to be implemented. The call wait 

time that you referred to, specifically, has gone down significantly 

and continues to drop to less than about 40 seconds average wait 

time across the system at this point. 

I think that in the longer term, looking toward this, the major 

improvements will be incremental in terms of more specialists 

being trained, the end of the training on the FS21 system, increased proficiency on the use of the FS21 system which will lower 

the briefing times, now at approximately five minutes to something 

less than four. At least that is what we believe is going to occur, 

and that is what Lockheed is trying to make happen. 

So, technological improvements have largely made the difference 

so far, but in the longer term this is really an operational air traffic 

kind of environment that needs to work on these kinds of problems, 

not only on the hold time but on the local area knowledge, efficiency of the system, utilization and the correct employment of 

staffing across the multiple flight areas that Lockheed Martin is 

operating. 

Mr. LARSEN. With regards to staffing and local area knowledge, 

there are a couple of major events, probably several major events 

that happen in the U.S. One of them is in my district as well. It 

is the Experimental Aircraft Association Fly-In, the third largest in 

North America behind Wisconsin’s and I think maybe Hattiesburg’s 

if I am not mistaken. 

We had some problems over the last two years. In talking with 

the director of the fly-in, I think she is still trying to sort out who 

is she supposed to be talking to, whether it is FAA in planning for 

this or if it is Lockheed in planning for this fly-in which takes place 

in July every year. 

I will grant that perhaps with the transition taking place at the 

most inopportune time of the year, during the springtime when the 

flying season really begins, certainly in the Northwest when it begins, that there was some major hiccups the first time around. But 

the second time around, this last year, they continued to have problems in who they were supposed to speak to. 

15

Can you speak to, in planning for large-scale planning events 

like this, who are folks supposed to be speaking with and planning 

with? Is it the contractor or is it FAA? 

Mr. STAPLES. Congressman Larsen, the FAA is the initial contact 

for this kind of request, and you can send those requests. Just have 

your director contact my office of Flight Service Program Operations in Washington, D.C., and we will take them through the 

process. 

This is a special service kind of piece of the contract. Lockheed 

has paid separately for each one of these events. The FAA approves 

them. There is essentially a contract negotiation that takes place 

with Lockheed Martin, and then Lockheed Martin executes. That 

is a separate piece to the contract. 

Mr. LARSEN. So the FAA approves the contractor, approves the 

step that the contractor will take to manage the activities for that 

particular event, but it goes through the FAA first? 

Mr. STAPLES. Yes, Mr. Congressman, it starts with the FAA. If 

it is not on a list that we have already told Lockheed that they 

have to do like the Albuquerque Balloon Festival, the Oshkosh FlyIn, those kinds of things, the request comes to us. We approve it 

and pay for it. Essentially, that is the individual contract for that 

event. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I would 

just make one more comment about local knowledge. It is important. 

We have a specific weather pattern in the Northwest called the 

convergence zone, the Pacific Northwest Convergence Zone, that 

nobody in Phoenix or Denver knows about. But when my pilots call 

and get transferred over to Phoenix and Denver and have to try to 

get weather briefings from them, they are talking to the wrong people. 

So I think it is important that, and we will talk to Lockheed 

about this too as well, certainly about improving local knowledge 

wherever that person who takes a call is sitting because this is a 

particular weather event that really does wreak havoc at certain 

times of the year including major fly-in times of the year. That is 

very important for our folks for flying to be able to access weather 

information on. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Washington and recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Staples, if I could zero in on your for a minute, Mr. Larsen 

spoke about a problem that has been consistent throughout and 

that is quality of briefing as it relates to local area and general 

knowledge. What is the relationship that you and the FAA have between yourselves and Lockheed to solve the problem of local knowledge on the part of the briefer and quality of that briefing? 

In other words, you know the problem. How do you go at it since 

Lockheed holds the contract? What is the process? 

Mr. STAPLES. Congressman Hayes, we have no specific metric associated with that, but it is a recognized problem. So the way we 

would deal with it is by collecting complaints from the user community. 

16

This, of course, is a well known problem that was pointed out by 

AOPA early on and one that has been exacerbated by the fact that 

when Lockheed consolidates, in many cases, flight station specialists that were in a given area don’t transition to the hubs, especially if the facility is a closing one and is not a continuing facility. 

So this causes an immediate shortage in local area knowledge for 

the area that was operated by that flight service station. 

This is one that we monitor and will continue to monitor in our 

staffing oversight initiative that we just started recently. This is a 

thing that we had not expected to have to do, but it is clear to us 

that we are going to have to step into this area and make sure that 

on a flight plan area by flight plan area basis, that Lockheed is 

providing enough trained specialists. So that is going forward, what 

we intend to do. 

What has past, in my belief, created this situation or exacerbated 

it was when they consolidated into larger hubs and closed many of 

the facilities. 

Mr. HAYES. What sort of training program does Lockheed have 

in place to correct those deficiencies and how are you following up 

with that? 

Mr. STAPLES. The Lockheed Martin training program thus far 

has been focused on bringing people into general familiarity of the 

FS21 system and bringing new specialists into the flight service 

workforce. I think it is approximately 100 people that they have 

brought into that area now. 

Their local area training that you specifically asked about is not 

encountered until they go to the area where they are being assigned and, at that point in time, start to learn the anomalies of 

the specific conditions associated with that flight plan area. 

We will monitor it by looking at the amount of people that they 

have trained in any given flight plan area. 

Another thing that contributes or has contributed to this problem 

in the past, which Lockheed seems to have made pretty good 

strides in fixing, is getting a pilot caller to the right specialist. 

They are reporting to us that they are between 86 and 88 percent 

in that area now. 

In other words, if a pilot wanted the Raleigh area, he would get 

that 86 or 88 percent of the time. If the hold time for that specific 

area looked like it was going to be too long, the pilot can opt to 

just take the first briefer that is available in the system. So I think 

that technology piece has been helping. 

I think the longer term is a training issue, specifically, and it is 

a focus area that Lockheed Martin has to continue to flesh out. 

Mr. HAYES. I would encourage you to encourage them to be very 

aggressive in stepping that process up. It is interesting to note how 

much technology is available now. 

Again, speaking to Mr. Larsen’s issue, there are a number of 

things that no matter where you are, the same person can be looking at the same information but the local knowledge issue, because 

of the needs of that specific pilot, are very important. 

Last but certainly not least, what is the aggressive plan, Mr. 

Washington and then Mr. Staples, that the FAA has to use this 

particular process to transition into Next Generation and ADS-B, 

lessons learned, so that transition can be as smooth as possible and 

17

again the FAA can help people understand that equipping is good 

for them and good for the system? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

We are certainly aware of the challenges as we step into 

NextGen transition on a larger scale and have applied those lessons in the dynamic process of awarding new contracts including 

the most recent action related to ADS-B. We are constantly sharing 

lessons learned within the program management workforce at the 

FAA and looking at the planning and the implementation details 

that are appropriate to apply to the next challenges. 

I would also suggest that each of these initiatives takes on a 

unique set of concerns and issues, and so while we have one set 

of complexities associated with this particular flight service 

outsourcing, that this is quite unique to what we are addressing in 

the set of challenges in front of us for ADS-B. I anticipate we will 

have a much more detailed discussion on that subject here later 

this month. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I might ask unanimous consent to enter Mr. Mica’s statement 

into the record. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Without objection. 

Mr. HAYES. One other request for Mr. Washington and the FAA, 

would you just give the Committee the aviation side, a one pager 

with a proposal going forward? Okay, this is what we have learned, 

and this is how we are going to apply it successfully to help ADSB and have people understand there are more opportunities than 

there are challenges. We are going to be different in the way we 

do this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure for me to be here and nearly represent Oshkosh, 

Wisconsin. It is just out of my range, but my dear colleague, Tim 

Petri, represents them very well. 

I just have a few questions. Which one of the three of you are 

responsible for overseeing this privatization effort and privatization 

contract with Lockheed Martin? 

Mr. STAPLES. Mr. Congressman, I am responsible for that as the 

Director of Flight Services Program Operations. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. So you are responsible for examining not 

just the contract but its execution? 

Mr. STAPLES. That is correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. In the report offered by Mr. Scovel, in the exhibit which I have here, there are test scores, measurements of 

how the contractor is doing. If I read it correctly, 13 out of 20 

measurements have the score of failed. 

How are they really doing if they failed in 13 out of 20 and what 

are the 3 most critical failures that you would identify that would 

be important for this Congress to understand with regard to the 

traveling public’s safety and also the aircraft owners? What are the 

three greatest failures that have occurred so far? 

Mr. STAPLES. As the Director of Flight Services Program Operations, my focus has always and will continue to be on safety. So 

18

anytime we are failing, the operational error, the operational deviation kind of Acceptable Performance Level, then that is something 

that we need to focus on first. 

I understand that long wait times are inconvenient and they 

have an economic impact, but the safety ramifications for errors in 

the system is of the greatest concern. 

Now I have to say that Lockheed Martin has been operating the 

system for seven fiscal quarters now, and for the first sixteen 

months they did extremely well. Most of those Acceptable Performance Levels, I believe, they only failed three in the first quarter of 

this past year. 

It wasn’t until the transition to the FS21 system and the aggressive nature of that where they really started encountering many 

more problems than we had expected. We knew that there were 

going to be some difficulties with the workaround, but this far exceeded what we expected to happen. 

I guess I provided you the answer with the first two. I guess I 

am not sure I can answer the third one off the top of my head, but 

there are some. 

Anything that is associated with safety and their safety evaluations, in particular, are done by our FAA safety oversight organization which is independent from my organization. 

The quality of briefings that the pilots receive, that is measured 

by my office which is listed on the sheet that you showed as Acceptable Performance Level 2A. That is the most heavily weighted 

aspect of the performance measures. They are not all equal. 

So after the safety evaluations, I would say the facility evaluations and our evaluations of the pilot briefing. 

Mr. KAGEN. Let me ask you about one issue I take rather personally. I can recall when I was flying into an airport in my district 

and, when we came in, suddenly there was a construction truck 

pulling across the runway. We did a Sky King maneuver and avoided impact, but airport managers reported that they couldn’t file notices to airmen to alert pilots about runway closures or lighting 

outages. 

What, specifically, has taken place by you or Lockheed Martin to 

correct this? 

Mr. STAPLES. The processing of aeronautical information, specifically notices to airmen that you talk about, has been a problem for 

several weeks now. This, although it is not specifically measured 

by the metrics, falls into one of the areas of where we had to 

change and make more aggressive our kind of oversight. 

This is an area where we had to specifically contact Lockheed 

Martin and ask for a corrective action plan in this area because of 

the communication, we believe it is communications internal to the 

Lockheed Martin system and the way that they were handling 

those communications that created the initial NOTAM problem. 

In the last three or four weeks, we have been getting reports of 

improvements in that area. So I think what they have done in 

terms of some of the technological routing of their calls, which was 

the primary thing that they did, and also establishing a process for 

talking to the FAA as one of the primary sources of getting this 

aeronautical information to the system by the air traffic control. 

Mr. KAGEN. You are working hard to improve communications. 

19

Mr. STAPLES. We are, absolutely. 

Mr. KAGEN. I realize my time has expired, but if I may ask the 

Chairman just if I could inquire because I haven’t read the contract. Are there any economic or punitive damages that take places 

in this contract if they don’t execute it properly? 

Does it cost them money? Do we get any taxpayer money back? 

Mr. STAPLES. Yes, we absolutely do. The first seven quarters, we 

have assessed them what we call credits which is financial penalty, 

something over the order of $12 million. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much and I yield back my time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are actually going pretty much on the line of my 

colleague who just started here. When you say—excuse me, sir, Mr. 

Staples, over here. 

When you say, $12 million in credits, when I look at a contract 

that was supposed to achieve savings of $1.7 billion, $12 million 

really doesn’t sound like a lot of money. I think this Committee 

probably would be appropriate to know in line what percentage of 

those credits are in line of what is actually being paid because my 

guess would be that is a pretty low percentage. 

A couple questions in addition to that that I would have: Originally with this contract, how many contractors responded and how 

close were they in terms of the bid? Was it a decision of expense? 

Was it a decision of capabilities? What was that decision? 

Mr. STAPLES. Congresswoman Richardson, I would like to answer 

the second half of that first. I can’t. I don’t really have any knowledge. 

There were five bidders—one of them was the Government—for 

this service. I wasn’t part of that, so I can’t really answer that 

question. I will have to answer that for the record, I believe. 

In regards to your first point, the Acceptable Performance Levels 

and the metrics and the financial penalties associated with that are 

a percentage of the target profit that Lockheed Martin has on this 

contract. For example, if they had 10 percent of the contract value 

for a year was their target profit, the Acceptable Performance Levels are taken against that amount. 

I think that might put it in context in terms of your question. 

At least, I hope so. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I think it would be appropriate, if the 

Chairman would allow, that you would provide this Committee 

with what those details are. 

I would venture to say that it shouldn’t be based upon profit. It 

should be based upon the work that was performed which based on 

the testimony and the reports that we have, that was inadequate. 

My next question is Lockheed Martin was entitled, in turn, to 

earn $10 million annually in terms of bonuses. Were those provided 

last year and also is it projected to be supplied this year? 

Mr. STAPLES. Ten million dollars is the maximum amount that 

they can earn in any year for exceeding performance levels. Of that 

$10 million, in their first year of operation where reportedly they 

received a B plus from the user community in terms of their operation, they were awarded $6 million in awards. 

20

That amount for the fiscal year 2007 won’t be calculated until 

next March, and that is directly related to the Acceptable Performance Levels that they exceed and those which they fail. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So you mean to tell me that based upon the reports that we have in addition to the amount that Lockheed Martin 

was paid for the contract, they received an additional bonus of $6 

million? 

Mr. STAPLES. That is correct. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Have you been required to provide additional 

oversight based upon some of the problems that have occurred with 

this contract? 

Mr. STAPLES. We have absolutely had to change our oversight. 

The concept of putting measures in place and monitoring those and 

taking action as a result of those failures, inadequate in some 

areas, are an operational kind of situation. This included not only 

system development but operation of the system, and we had to 

have some management indicators that are much more real time. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Has that been billed back to the contractor? 

Mr. STAPLES. I am sorry? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Have those expenses been billed back to the 

contractor? 

Mr. STAPLES. This is really a redirection of my workforce and has 

minimal financial impact, but no. The answer to your question is 

no, we have not billed them for that. We do that internally. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and recognizes 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess my question really would probably be best directed to our 

friends at FAA. How many outages of service occurred in 2005 

while FAA managed the flight service stations and did the Government keep records on that. If so, how do these outages compare to 

those experienced by Lockheed Martin? 

Mr. STAPLES. I actually don’t have the information for 2005. We 

would like to take that for the record if we could. 

Mr. DENT. If you would be kind enough to provide that information to the Committee, it would appreciated. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman 

Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Petri, for 

joining together to hold this hearing. It has been a long time in the 

coming. 

We have waited patiently while FAA moved ahead with the privatization scheme, get an opportunity to put it in place and see 

what the effect is, all the while being besieged by the general aviation community about the problems with the startup. Of course, 

they were holdover problems from the previous system that was 

not operating well. 

The stories that we have heard of pilots being put on waits for 

as long as 15 minutes, in some cases, longer and then hanging up, 

flying without the weather information, not getting NOTAMs, not 

being to get route of flight briefings and filing their flight plans 

21

and then finding that they were lost or they weren’t received or 

they were improperly entered. There are all sorts of these problems 

that you can expect with a startup but not in aviation, not when 

service is so crucial. 

I remember the era of consolidation from the hundreds, 330 or 

so flight service stations. That was, if you can believe it, an era before Phil Boyer. It is hard for many to believe there was a general 

aviation before Phil Boyer, but there was, even before Monte 

Belger came to his ascendence within the FAA. 

There was just calamity through the general aviation community. Oh, my God, this is going to be terrible. It is not going to 

work. We will be up there in the sky, and we won’t get the information. 

In fact, I won’t mention his name but a pilot with whom I flew 

as a contract service, said, this is just going to be terrible in Minnesota, and I am going to show you. We are flying from Ely to Duluth, and a line of thunderstorms is out there on the horizon. 

He kept flying toward it and saying, now when this new system 

goes in and I call for information about that weather system out 

there and I don’t get it, we are going to be in the soup and I am 

going to show you. 

I said, Eddie, cut the BS out. Turn the God damn plane around 

and miss that storm. 

Now, just as Mr. Larsen pointed out a little while ago, there are 

many places in the Country and northern Minnesota being one of 

them, Washington being another, where there are unique local 

weather systems that the local observers understood, and they 

were very good at warning pilots. They didn’t have the fast-moving 

technology and the equipment that they needed to stay on top, stay 

ahead of fast-moving weather systems, but they knew the locality 

and they gave people right information. 

If you are up in Washington and you call in—and that was the 

fear early on in this conversion to automated flight service stations—and you get somebody from Phoenix, they don’t know what 

the weather is in Washington and you get bad information. So that 

transition was long and painful. 

But in its early stage, the consolidation, in Minnesota, I went 

from Minnesota to, oh, at least a dozen other States as the Chair 

then of the Aviation Subcommittee and found pretty much the 

same thing. It was like the neutron bomb had gone off. The facility 

was built. The equipment was installed, but there were no people. 

Eventually, we got the people trained. Air traffic controllers, 

weather specialists put in place, and then the equipment was outdated. The FAA simply wasn’t making the investment, wasn’t making the budget requests. They weren’t keeping up with what needed to be done to keep those facilities at the cutting edge of state 

of the art. 

I plugged in at several places and listened to controllers. A DC10 overhead, calling in, asking for weather information and the 

poor, harried controller saying, look, I don’t have time to deal with 

you. Call in to the en route center. Here is their number. Get the 

information. I am overloaded here—and they were. 

22

But at the start of this new contract system, you had 2,200 controllers. They went down to 850, and Lockheed says they need to 

grow to 1,100. 

I want to get back. Mr. Scovel and Mr. Washington. What were 

the specific assumptions upon which FAA based its decision to privatize? 

The next question, you know, is going to be have they met those 

assumptions? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure 

to see you again. I recall the remarks that you shared with our 

ATO leadership summit here in town recently, and a lot of the discussion there was associated with improvements that are needed in 

the system which we all care about very much. 

I would suggest that this was an outsourcing action which is distinct from privatization in one very significant way, which is that 

the FAA and the Federal Government continue to have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the quality of service is what the 

customers expect. 

We have not turned this over lock, stock and barrel to a private 

entity to own, operate and run on their own. This is very clearly 

an oversight responsibility the FAA continues to have, and so we 

take that responsibility very seriously. 

As you indicated a moment ago, Mr. Belger and Mr. Boyer are 

two of the folks who have had a significant part in addressing the 

multiple concerns as we stepped into this plan for an outsourcing 

award, and so the competition resulted in the FAA making a best 

value determination. 

That is to say the proposal which we received from Lockheed 

Martin and which the FAA accepted resulted in the best combination of a technical concept to provide services as distinct from FAA 

continuing to own and operate the system in addition to the total 

cost of providing that service over and over again. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It was cost and service, but the cost part of it was 

driven by the budget reality that OMB wasn’t giving FAA the 

funds it needed, or DOT, or FAA wasn’t asking for the funds that 

they needed to upgrade the technology of the automated system, 

isn’t that correct? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. That 

is a significant factor that contributed to a feasibility decision 

which the FAA Administrator reached. 

I would suggest there was another significant factor which is 

that in addition to our inability to keep modern technology and 

tools available for specialists to use, that we were simply unable 

to make fast enough changes in terms of the service improvements. 

So the service improvements that we anticipate achieving as a result of this contract, ultimately for the users of the system, will 

really be the greatest value as a result of that contract award. 

The FAA allowed for a three year transition period from the time 

of contract award to achieving the end state configuration of Lockheed Martin’s new system. What Lockheed has done is to accelerate their schedule with the hopes of delivering improved services 

to the users more quickly than that three year schedule. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Scovel, do you agree with that assessment? 

23

Mr. SCOVEL. Somewhat, sir, if I can address this perhaps from 

a different angle. 

You asked about assumptions. Rather than addressing the political reality that perhaps drove the decision, which I fully acknowledge is beyond my purview, looking rather at the operational assumptions, I think first of those would have been the need for a 

new operating system, FS21, in this case, which it was further assumed if implemented on a national basis would permit consolidation and eliminate the need and expense for many of the local facilities that you mentioned earlier. 

The second operational assumption would be sufficient staffing, 

properly trained, to take full advantage of that operating system 

and provide the desired level of service to the user. 

I think experience has shown us that there have been gaps, deficiencies in both of those assumptions over the last two years. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Washington, you are right. I wrote in my 

notes, decision to privatize by outsourcing. The saving grace is that 

FAA does hold ultimate responsibility. 

What I want to know now is has Lockheed Martin made the investments in technology, in the equipment to upgrade the service 

from what FAA had in place previously? 

Secondly, then, what authority do you have over Lockheed Martin to prod them to keep upgrading, to keep investing if that is the 

principle of outsourcing? 

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, Lockheed has been quite responsive to our concerns that we 

have identified, in many cases, in advance of operational issues 

showing up. We have conducted executive level conversations on a 

frequent basis in addition to sending formal contract communications to Lockheed that require them to identify corrective actions, 

and indeed they have been responsive in each of those cases. 

We are in constant dialogue, and there is a continuous process 

that involves the partnership that FAA and Lockheed have for ensuring this quality of service factor is actually delivered. 

Now, yes, there have been gaps as Mr. Scovel and others have 

identified, and we acknowledge that the operational impacts exceeded what we expected to occur during the actual transition period that began last spring. We redoubled our efforts in the oversight responsibility that Mr. Staples leads for the FAA, and we believe we have been more timely as a result of doubling those efforts 

and specific oversight steps. 

Lockheed has been responsive by making specific technology corrections in addition to procedural steps which I believe they are 

prepared to discuss in more detail later this morning. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Lockheed says that they have handled some six 

million calls in their testimony later on. That is about what the 

AFSS were doing in 2005 and 2006. What are the savings? 

On the savings side of this outsourcing, how much do you attribute to cost savings to FAA in equipment acquisition and how 

much in cost savings on personnel not having these people on the 

public payroll? 

Mr. STAPLES. Mr. Chairman, I can answer that specifically for 

you for the record, but in general I would like to say that the vast 

majority of savings associated with this contract are the cost avoidVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:03 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38249 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
24

ance associated with staffing reductions. My guess is approximately 

$150 million of that savings would be associated with capital investment that we didn’t have to make, that we were in the process 

of making. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Scovel, have you validated these cost savings 

on equipment side and on personnel side? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I don’t believe my staff has, sir. I would need to 

check with them in order to get back with you on the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would ask you to do that, to provide that information for the Committee. I think it is very important for our understanding. 

FAA, as you observed in your opening remarks, is an operating 

agency and one of relatively few that we have in the Federal Government. There are many other opportunities for outsourcing that 

would trouble me and to which I would take great objection. 

Unfortunately, I have to say that over a long period of time, the 

flight service activity has been sort of a stepchild of the Agency. It 

has not been given the status and the standing that it deserves. 

We have the most robust general aviation system in the world. 

There are some scattered ones elsewhere. China, with its great 

opportunity for growth and growth in commercial aviation that it 

is now experiencing, still has not developed a general aviation concept. 

In fact, there is a great story. As far as a great story, I don’t 

know. It is an astonishing story of a flight attendant for a Chinese 

airline company—I don’t need to mention which one—who worked 

20 years, saved her money and then retired. 

Stayed in the U.S. Went to flight training school. Got her pilot’s 

certificate. Bought an aircraft. Bought a single engine general aviation aircraft. I won’t say which company. 

Crated it up and shipped it to China where it still remains in a 

crate because she can’t get permission to fly because the flight 

service management, their equivalent of FAA, is run by the military and they don’t know what to do with general aviation. Even 

though it is a very different regime than Europe, they don’t have 

a fraction of the GA operations we have in the United States. 

So we are going to watch this very, very carefully. 

Our newest Member suggested having a report by FAA to the 

Congress. We will hold hearings every three months if we have to 

and have you come back and personally report to us to monitor the 

progress, but we are going to stay on top of this 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar and let me 

thank our witnesses from the first panel today. 

Let me say to Mr. Scovel, Mr. Washington and Mr. Staples that 

we intend to aggressively provide oversight to the Agency and to 

make certain that you are providing oversight over the contract 

with Lockheed Martin. 

I can assure you that we intend to follow up with additional 

hearings concerning this contract to make certain that Lockheed is 

performing as they should and that the Agency is enforcing the 

contract and when there are incidents where they are not performing, that we in fact penalize Lockheed and do as you have 

25

done in assessing over $12 million in penalties or whatever the 

term is you call it. 

We thank you, and at this time we would dismiss the first panel 

and ask the second panel to come forward. As you are coming forward, I will introduce the witnesses on the second panel. 

Mr. Phil Boyer who is the President of the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association, who has testified before this Subcommittee 

many times; Mr. Matt Zuccaro who is the President of the Helicopter Association International; Mr. Joseph Cipriano, the President of Lockheed Martin Business Process Solutions; and Mr. 

Monte Belger who is the Vice President of Transportation Systems 

Solutions for Lockheed Martin Air Traffic Management. 

With that, gentlemen, as you are coming forward and taking 

your chairs, as you get ready to testify, let me say that your entire 

statement will be included in the record. We would ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes. 

With that, the Chair recognizes, for five minutes, Mr. Boyer. 

TESTIMONY OF PHIL BOYER, PRESIDENT, AIRCRAFT OWNERS 

AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION; MATT ZUCCARO, PRESIDENT, 

HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL; JOSEPH R. 

CIPRIANO, PRESIDENT, LOCKHEED MARTIN BUSINESS 

PROCESS SOLUTIONS; MONTE R. BELGER, VICE PRESIDENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS, LOCKHEED 

MARTIN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My gosh, Chairman Oberstar, I can’t imagine a Country without 

general aviation. Who would the airlines have to blame for not paying their fair share, clogging the system, congesting the major airports and everything else? They need general aviation over there. 

I am here to talk about what you mentioned as a matter of fact, 

the flight service system changes that were needed. We feel it was 

the right thing to do and the right time to do it. We had a very 

antiquated system, as you said, and while I wasn’t in the seat at 

AOPA when we consolidated from 317 stations to 61, I was a pilot 

then. 

Prior to the change of the decade, we produced the largest book 

we have ever put together, and it is called AOPA’s Roadmap to 

Flight Information Services for the Future. We never showed it to 

anyone other than the Inspector General of the DOT, and we are 

waiting to figure out. Here is a service that is primarily used by 

general aviation. 

As a matter of fact, the consultant we used for the book wrote 

this quote: ‘‘Never before has AOPA or any organization undertaken a study such as this.’’

We came up with seven different scenarios on how flight service 

may be modernized for the future. We live in a world of the Weather Channel, radar in the airplane, all kinds of changes, and were 

still well aware we had an antiquated system with years and years 

of trying to upgrade it. 

Well, along came this process called the A76, and that is what 

created a catalyst for us to turn to this book and say we should 

support this, once again, not privatization, the outsourcing. We 

started educating our members long before the FAA even put out 

26

bids for contracts, saying, look, it is time. We have to change. We 

tried this within Government. It isn’t working. 

Lockheed Martin was selected for this process. You know what? 

Our role changed. Our role changed from supporter to watchdog. 

Yes, we supported Lockheed Martin. It is a company with a proven air traffic record. They run oceanic services. This is kindergarten compared to what we face in ADS-B and other things which 

are graduate school. 

We gave them all the feedback we had gotten over the last few 

years, this book and others, in terms of what could be done with 

the system, and we emphasized from the first meeting on local 

knowledge was going to be the key. Yes, you could consolidate 

down, but you still have to take care of those unique weather patterns. 

Well, the transition began. You know what? I have to compliment them. They took over an existing system, and we got 

through Katrina better than we would have under the old system, 

but the transition really began in April when they started switching over to their own new equipment. 

It was probably too aggressive on consolidation, but I will let 

them speak to that. Too aggressive, I know from the users of the 

system. 

There is a promised web portal coming where you can go and get 

information. We are still waiting on that. I got a, thank goodness—

and you do remember back to here, Mr. Chairman—DUATs, the 

Direct Users Access Terminal where you can brief by computer. 

The DUATs numbers have soared because people had problems 

with the flight service station system. 

Well, FAA oversight, that is what we have been talking about 

today. FAA announced the contract. Well, we are done with flight 

service now. We don’t have to worry about it any longer—and literally walked away. 

I applaud you for this because finally we are beginning to see 

them coming back. I will never forget a call on Sunday after your 

letter to Marion Blakey about this. Phil, what is going on here? 

Why haven’t you called me sooner on this? 

Marion, we have been telling your people including your deputy 

for weeks, there is a problem. 

Well, you are just doing this to posture because the FAA financing bill. 

I said, I am not. My members hate this. Over 400,000 members, 

and you know what? They are mad as hell at me for supporting 

this change and then getting them into the system they are today. 

Don’t believe me. These are quotes from 10 days ago on the 

screen right now. If you see, these are members. They are in your 

district, Congressman Larsen, at least I know for the Arlington 

Show and others. 

These are 10 day old quotes: I cannot trust the briefers. They 

don’t have the background or aviation knowledge that we need. 

FSS briefing is a thing of the past. 

A recent AOPA survey, we just did this about 10 days ago, of the 

customer. Is the customer the FAA or is the customer the pilots for 

Lockheed Martin? 

27

In a brief survey of the customers, 64 percent were satisfied or 

very satisfied with the service. Gee, in the IG statement, they show 

84 percent as an acceptable level of performance, and yet they have 

not done that yet because they are still putting together the survey. 

Under FAA standards, if you were to take a written test at the 

FAA, 70 percent is a passing grade. Below that is failure. 

Where do we go now? Well, you have heard from the FAA. 

I believe they should give you maybe not a hearing every 90 days 

but at least a report to this Committee and remember the words, 

Chairman Oberstar, equal or better. We heard those in the eighties 

as the transition went. Until we get equal or better service because 

if we keep getting less service, eventually there will be no flight 

service. 

The FAA must demonstrate stricter oversight. Let’s look at these 

performance metrics. You set those in cement early. Are they the 

right ones? Are these 21 the right ones and shouldn’t we relook at 

those? Let’s seek more aggressive feedback from our pilot community. 

Where do we go now with Lockheed Martin? Well, continued 

service improvements, briefer local area knowledge, you have heard 

it here. That has to be improved. Measure the quality of the briefing, not just the phone metrics, not how fast the phone is answered. You could wait five, ten minutes if you want a briefer from 

Minnesota or you can wait twenty seconds so they make the metric 

and get anyone, anywhere. 

Fulfill the promise of this web portal that they put out there and 

let’s get more pertinent information on their own web site right 

now, not just the successes they have had. 

We are a part of this. We were a part of making it happen. We 

weren’t a part of selecting Lockheed Martin or a part of the A76 

process, but you know we are a part of this. We tried to educate 

ahead of time. We tried to keep our head up high during this process. 

Next month, in 500,000 copies of our magazine will go a card 

that indicates to pilots how to brief under the new system. There 

are changes. Congressman, there is a number your pilots can 

punch in instead of speaking the word, Washington, but they don’t 

have the information. So that will be here. 

We have an online course at significant expense. It is in the 

works now. It will be up and ready at the end of the year, 20 minutes online web, how to brief under the new flight service station 

system. 

We have been sharing and will continue to share our pilot surveys with Lockheed Martin and the FAA, but we will keep wearing 

our hard hats until ‘‘equal or better’’ service is really put out there. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Boyer. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Zuccaro. 

Mr. ZUCCARO. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Congressman 

Petri, Chairman Oberstar and the rest of the Members of the Committee. 

My name is Matt Zuccaro, and I am President of the Helicopter 

Association International. We are a professional trade association 

28

whose members operate over 5,500 helicopters flying in excess of 

2.3 million flight hours each year across a wide spectrum of uses. 

Obviously, we are here this morning to discuss the FAA transition to the contractor-operated flight service stations and hopefully 

to draw valuable lessons to be applied to similar FAA initiatives 

such as the recently awarded Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast or ADS-B contract. 

As Members of this Committee are aware, helicopters play a critical role in the Gulf of Mexico energy exploration and production 

process, transporting supplies and employees to and from over 

5,000 oil platforms within an area that extends 500 miles along the 

Gulf shoreline and 200 miles out over the water. 

The helicopter activity and operational complexity of these operations is comparative to some of the most congested airspace in the 

Country. Each year, nearly three million passengers are transported and over 4,000 flight hours are flown by helicopters. Each 

day, an average of 650 plus helicopters conduct over 5,000 flights, 

transporting approximately 10,000 passengers at altitudes normally below 5,000 feet. 

Currently, within this operating environment, the FAA air traffic 

control system cannot see and cannot communicate with the helicopters operating in the offshore environment. Accordingly, with 

ever changing weather that occurs in the Gulf area and the critical 

nature of the mission, reliable, timely and accurate communications with the flight service stations are critical to flight safety and 

operational efficiency. 

Earlier this year, helicopter traffic in the Gulf Region was negatively impacted when transition to contractor-operated flight service stations resulted in the closure of several flight service stations 

in the Gulf Region. The flight service contractor, apparently unfamiliar with the unique aspects of the offshore environment, underestimated the negative impact that these closures would have on 

our industry. 

As a result, helicopter pilots immediately experienced delays of 

30 to 45 minutes when filing flight plans, resulting in excessive 

hold times. Furthermore, even when the flight plans were filed, 

they were lost by the contractor or missing when the pilot made 

a call for the clearance. 

The contractor personnel manning the flight service operation 

centers were unfamiliar with the particular flight protocols for the 

Gulf of Mexico and appeared to lack knowledge of the special instrument flight bridge structure for the helicopter flight plans in 

the Gulf. In some instances, the operators were connected with 

flight service personnel located thousands of miles away from the 

local area. 

The situation resulted in significant delays, loss of operational efficiency and a potential negative safety of flight impact, especially 

when one considers how this situation could have affected thousands of offshore workers on the rigs had the 2007 hurricane season brought forth a major storm to the area. 

To accomplish the mission that the helicopter pilots are tasked 

with each day, it is essential that seamless and uninterrupted service be provided by the vendor. Flight delays and cancellations cost 

the energy industry lost production and millions of dollars. Simply 

29

stated, the Gulf of Mexico is indeed unique and requires special 

procedures along with dedicated and knowledgeable personnel 

staffing the flight service stations. 

Unfortunately, during the transition to the contractor-operated 

flight service stations, tremendous FAA institutional knowledge regarding helicopter operations in the Gulf of Mexico was lost, and 

the plea of our members fell on deaf ears. 

Only after direct intervention by the FAA senior management 

and Members of this Committee did Lockheed Martin sit down 

with our industry in Houston to address the concerns, develop procedures and processes to meet the needs of the members, familiarize themselves with the operations in the Gulf and, most importantly, to ensure safety of operations from the Panhandle of Florida 

down to Corpus Christi, Texas. 

I am happy to inform the Committee of the positive results of 

that meeting. Local Gulf of Mexico operating procedures have indeed now been written and a dedicated direct phone line with calls 

restricted to Gulf of Mexico operators has been established by Lockheed Martin. It eased the operator and pilot difficulties when contacting the flight service station. Additionally, the personnel staffing the flight service station now appear to be more knowledgeable 

of the local operations and requirements and the environmental 

protocols within the Gulf of Mexico. 

Our concerns are now focused on the recently awarded ADS-B 

contract which is similar in scope and concept to the flight service 

program. As part of the NextGen initiative, ADS-B will usher in a 

new system that will dramatically change how air traffic is controlled. 

Under the ADS-B initiative, the prime contractor, ITT, not the 

FAA, will build the ADS-B ground stations, own and operate the 

equipment with the FAA paying a subscription charge for the 

broadcast service transmitted to the properly equipped aircraft and 

air traffic control facilities. 

As many on the Committee know, HAI has partnered with the 

FAA in the form of a memorandum of agreement to facilitate Phase 

I implementation of the national ADS-B initiative in the Gulf of 

Mexico which also includes low altitude weather and communications capabilities. The helicopter industry has made a significant 

commitment to assist the FAA with Phase I by providing in kind 

services valued in excess of $100 million over the life of the project. 

To date, the approach of the FAA’s taking and laying out this 

program with ADS-B Phase I, we consider to be unprecedented. 

The Agency is, in fact, listening and working closely with the helicopter industry as this initiative moves forward. 

Now that the vendor for the ADS-B project has been selected, we 

look forward to working with them on a most exciting endeavor. I 

sincerely hope that as we move forward with ADS-B and the serious work gets underway that I will not have to return to your doorstep, seeking assistance again. I am optimistic that initiatives such 

as this hearing will avert such a situation with regard to the implementation of ADS-B technology, the first phase of the NextGen system. 

I thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with you 

this morning. 

30

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Zuccaro, and the 

Chair now recognizes Mr. Cipriano. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Costello, 

Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Committee, my name is 

Joe Cipriano. I am President of Lockheed Martin Business Process 

Solutions. I am joined by my colleague, Monte Belger, Vice President of Lockheed Martin Transportation Security Solutions. 

Monte represents the technology elements of our AFSS program, 

and I represent the business, process and people elements of the 

program. We both thank you for the opportunity to share the 

progress we have achieved in this unprecedented competitivelysourced program. 

Flight services are intended to help promote safe flight operations, and safety is our highest priority. Many general aviation pilots rely on the knowledge and skills of flight service personnel. 

These personnel provide pilots with information such as pre-and inflight weather briefings, flight planning assistance and aeronautical notices. They can also provide in-flight support to pilots 

who are lost or in need of assistance. 

In February of 2005, the FAA awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to consolidate 58 legacy sites in the continental United States, 

Puerto Rico and Hawaii into 18 upgraded automated flight service 

stations with estimated savings to the taxpayers of $2.2 billion over 

13 years. 

In October of 2005, Lockheed Martin took over the operation of 

the existing flight service stations and began the process of modernizing the facilities and equipment, relocating over 400 flight 

specialists, training over 1,000 flight specialists and introducing 

new services to the pilot community. 

Since February of this year. Lockheed Martin flight services has 

provided six million flight services. We have handled approximately 

80,000 preflight calls per day with wait times averaging less than 

45 seconds. In-flight calls have virtually no wait time. 

During the early phases of transition, we experienced unacceptable service problems. These problems resulted in call waiting 

times that were too long and flight plans that sometimes became 

lost in the automated system. We also received an unacceptable 

number of complaints that flight service personnel were not sufficiently familiar with local areas they were briefing. 

We have given high priority to addressing these issues and have 

seen the results in improved services. Pilot complaints have decreased to less than one tenth of 1 percent. Each complaint is carefully analyzed and the pilot filing the complaint contacted within 

72 hours. Problems are addressed through equipment upgrades, 

procedures changes and training. 

I would like to now briefly share some of the lessons learned over 

the course of this transition. 

First, a baseline review of legacy system documentation should 

be accomplished prior to establishing program schedules. A significant early challenge we faced was acquiring documentation for 

interfaces with the national airspace. Documentation was inadequate to support systems engineering efforts and ultimately had 

to be developed by the program team. 

31

The team’s time spent to complete this work decreased the time 

available for systems transition and shifted the transition period 

into a time of high demand for flight services. 

Second was overstaffing during transition. In spite of making job 

offers to all the legacy FAA flight specialists including incentives, 

our initial workforce was significantly smaller than expected. The 

lower than expected number of trained legacy staff proved insufficient to support transition during a high workload period. 

Ultimately, adjustments to the transition schedule, accelerated 

hiring and rehiring retirees allowed staffing to catch up with the 

workload. We learned that overstaffing during major transitions is 

a good investment. 

Third, regularly communicate with all stakeholders and assure 

that effective outreach programs are in place to capture local area 

knowledge. The universe of interested people is large, and we need 

to set appropriate expectations with each group as well as keep everyone advised of progress. 

In response to what we have learned during transition, we have 

made improvements to respond to local requirements. For example, 

we have created dedicated phone service for pilots flying within the 

Washington, D.C. restricted flight area, Gulf of Mexico helicopter 

pilots and medical emergency flights. In short, we learned to architect nationally but to implement locally. 

Fourth, the FAA and Lockheed Martin must work together in 

partnership. Integrating the nationally-architected FS21 system 

with a regional legacy system flushed out a number of issues. To 

address concerns as they arise, we have now established weekly 

joint operations review meetings to ensure a smooth working interface between Lockheed Martin’s services and FAA air traffic operations. 

In conclusion, today the transition is nearing complete, but we 

are not slowing down improvements in process, training or technology. We continually work with the FAA and stakeholders to improve services to general aviation pilots, and we will apply best 

practices from lessons learned. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and we are 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Belger. 

Let me announce to everyone that we have four votes pending on 

the floor of the House. We have about five minutes. So we will hear 

Mr. Belger’s testimony, recess and come back after the last vote 

which I would expect we would ask everyone to be back around 

12:30. 

Mr. BELGER. Thank you, sir. I have no additional statement. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, the Chair then would take a few minutes 

to ask a few questions at this time. 

Mr. Boyer, you state in your written testimony that the FAA 

should have focused more on a qualitative performance assessment 

as opposed to the metrics system that they used. I wonder if you 

might elaborate more on that. 

Mr. BOYER. Well, I think you can work hard to use a call director 

and the metrics that come off of abandon rate, time to answer, et 

cetera. But, once again, what is the quality of the briefing? 

32

The best way you are going to find that out is by talking to customers of the service through some kind of satisfaction rating and 

to listen to them and their arguments as you have heard in your 

districts for members, I am sure, who are pilots. We need to put 

some subjective evaluations to this besides just the quantitative 

ones. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I am going to go to Mr. Cipriano at this time. 

We all have concerns, because of the experience with this contract, about ADS-B. You heard that from Mr. Boyer, Mr. Zuccaro, 

the Chairman of the Full Committee and many others. You have 

talked about lessons learned in your written testimony. 

I wonder if you might tell us why Lockheed had such an aggressive schedule in April of this year, moving forward with the site 

consolidations schedule before you fully developed and worked out 

all of the kinks and errors, to correct them, and why you chose to 

undertake the task during the busiest time of year, during the 

summer. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, sir, I will try to answer that question. Certainly, we would have rather not have done the transition during 

the busiest flying time, but we had two things that were driving. 

One, there was a need. There were facility leases that the FAA 

owned that were expiring on the 1st of October and equipment 

leases as well. We needed to be able to get out of those facilities 

and turn them back to the FAA. So we had that deadline facing 

us. 

Secondly, and this is probably the biggest issue, the workforce 

that we had was attrited. The workforce, when we acquired it, first 

of all, we started out with less people than we would have liked 

to have had. Then as the schedule slipped, the people had made 

plans to retire, to move on, to do other things, and we were losing 

folks. 

We could not operate the system with the number of people we 

were having. The FS21 allowed us to operate the system with half 

as many people. So the faster we could get to the FS21 system, the 

easier it would be to deal with this personnel problem. 

We were also hiring people and training them as quickly as we 

could and took other measures to deal with the workforce issue, 

but the problem was we had a diminishing workforce. The best way 

to address that was with a system that took less people. 

Mr. COSTELLO. A couple of other quick questions and I would ask 

you to be brief in your answer. 

On September 22nd, the system crashed. The FS21 system 

crashed on September 22nd, and it went down for a four hour period nationwide. I wonder if you could tell us the cause and, number two, what is the backup system when a crash like this happens. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, we do have a backup system, AISR, which is 

used, and we can do weather briefings and file flight plans when 

the system is down. 

September 22nd, I don’t recall a crash of the system on September 22nd. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You don’t recall? 

Mr. BELGER. August 9th, we had a relatively significant outage. 

We had a communication outage a couple weeks ago. 

33

Mr. CIPRIANO. September 22nd doesn’t ring a bell with me. If it 

did occur, we can certainly give you for the record the details. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I would ask you to submit that for the record. 

Also, you heard in my opening statement what took place this 

past Sunday. Do you have any information to share with us as to 

the cause of the lack of information on the part that the pilots received? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Well, we don’t have all the details yet. We are reviewing the tapes of all of the pilots that we talked to. The FAA 

has an investigation, as you know, underway. Regarding the pilots, 

we are cooperating with the FAA. 

At this point, we think we talked to four of the pilots at least, 

and we are reviewing the tapes and the information. When those 

details are known, I mean they will be known. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Last question before we have to break, Mr. 

Cipriano, you talked about lessons learned. Tell us about what you 

have learned and what you would do differently if you had to do 

it over again. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. I think the biggest thing we would do differently 

if we were to do this over again would be to work the people problem. In other words, try and expand the workforce before we started the transition process, so we would have a sufficient number of 

people to operate the existing system while we were training for 

the new system. That caused a great deal of our problems, the lack 

of trained workforce. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me say before we have to break here and take 

a short recess, I said to the first panel and I will say to you and 

I want Lockheed to know this. The FAA heard it, and I want you 

to hear it. 

This is not going to be the last hearing that we are going to hold 

on this subject, and we want to make certain that Lockheed performs to the best of its ability under the terms of the contract and 

that the FAA is doing their job to enforce the contract. We find the 

best way of making certain that those things happen is to continue 

to hold people accountable, and that is what we intend to do. That 

is the purpose of this hearing, to learn information, find out what 

needs to be done in order to provide the services that the users are 

entitled to. 

With that, the Chair will call a recess. When we return, the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, or his designee will be recognized to 

ask questions. 

The Chair will recess until 12:30. We stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LARSEN. [Presiding.] I will call the Committee back to order. 

Where we left off was with questions from Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for your testimony. I had one really not particularly formal question, just sort of an information question for Mr. 

Boyer. 

I am not a licensed pilot. I have, obviously, as everyone else, a 

lot of friends who are. 

People in our part of the world do a lot of sailing and do all over 

the Country too. There are always wonderful aids now that people 

buy, services on their BlackBerry or various other types of arrangeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:03 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38249 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
34

ments, weather channels and so on and so forth. I am just curious 

to know how all this fits in with that. 

We have this Government system. People are required evidently 

to check in and to get updates. 

But in the real world, people have now a number of different 

sources, and they probably often will check them, put in their flight 

plan. There may even be services that will give them, through 

some sort of weather channel or some other type of source of information, peril information. Sometimes it will agree. Sometimes it 

will be different but satellite-based and other information. 

Can you comment on all of that and if we maybe should be looking at trying to take advantage of some of these open source type 

things that exist or if it is not invented here and not done by the 

Government, then it is not right or whatever? 

Mr. BOYER. No. It is a very good comment, and I probably 

glossed over it when I said times are changing. That is one of the 

prime reasons we supported this and did our own study. 

When we set up the existing antiquated flight service station system in the eighties that the Chairman was mentioning before, 

there weren’t all those things there. 

You just talked about some enhancements. There are now boxes 

for $2,400. Put it on the plane or on your boat, and you can see 

the radar picture. You can tell if you are going into those storms 

that Chairman Oberstar was talking about. 

I think it is one of the reasons that we shouldn’t be too alarmed 

about staff reductions to a certain level because in a modern system you are not going to need all the same explanations. 

The portal that we asked that we finally get up and running is 

going to allow the pilot to be looking at their computer screen—we 

didn’t have that back in the seventies with the original system—

and the briefer to be looking at the screen and talking about the 

picture they are both seeing. So today’s system, what Lockheed has 

put in place and what we have endorsed as far as an overall system is taking advantage of those things. 

Nothing, however, beats an official briefing sanctioned by the 

FAA. Some of these things like the electronic system called DUATs 

are official briefings, but watching the weather channel does not 

give you that the President is going to be in Emmitsburg on Sunday and that there will be a restricted piece of airspace. So you do 

need that phone call, and you do need to talk to a briefer on certain 

pieces of information. 

Mr. PETRI. But the underlying technology is basically the same, 

the satellite system that everyone is plugging into. The idea of having the requirement that people check with the FAA or the now 

contracted out system is so to get specific information for that 

flight and also to get a more professional read on that weather information. 

Mr. BOYER. I was looking at our survey earlier, and that is exactly right. It is basically the same information. There are some 

things in the flight service station system that really only they 

have. Some of the NOTAMs, they are able to interpret their gobbledygook to the average person who gets it on a little PDA because 

a lot of it is encoded. 

35

I was noticing that a lot of the use of the system is the private 

pilot, the less sophisticated pilots. It is people flying VFR. It is a 

large amount of student pilots. These are the people who really 

need some assistance in getting a briefing, and these certified 

briefers do provide that assistance. 

Mr. PETRI. But we don’t require this for people who are piloting 

boats. I guess they are on their own, but people piloting planes get 

this service from the Government. 

Mr. BOYER. Well, I think piloting a plane gives you that added 

dimension of you are not on the water, the same as you are not 

driving a car. You can’t pull off the side, pull up to the shore and 

wait out a thunderstorm. You better darn well know where you 

are, and you are obviously dealing with that dimension which is extremely important. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I really would like to get the take from our panelists from Lockheed Martin on the questions to the previous panel on the personnel situation and your sense as to how it was handled and what 

lessons were learned and what maybe improvements could be 

made. There are a number of unhappy folks out there who don’t 

feel the system worked for them, and I wonder if you could comment on that. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. I know there are some folks that feel like they 

may have been impacted. All I can do is answer for what we did. 

What we did was match the benefit program and match the 

401(k) program that the Government had for their employees, and 

we offered that package to 100 percent of those people that were 

impacted by the outsourcing. We also offered relocation packages. 

We offered employment bonuses, retention bonuses, all sorts of 

things to try to make that transition to the private sector as easy 

as possible. 

I can’t talk to what the Government did or didn’t do relative to 

the Government retirement piece of it. 

Mr. PETRI. Finally, and I suspect Mr. Larsen will want to add 

something, could you comment on what you are doing—I guess it 

is a training curve for many of your people with fewer centers and 

with new personnel in many cases—about the local knowledge 

question and interpreting the data to be most useful and relative 

for pilots in different parts of the Country? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Correct. To the extent that local knowledge was 

documented in a notebook or something, we captured that during 

our due diligence phase and made that information available on 

the computer to people that are briefing that particular area. 

But a lot of the local knowledge is in the heads of the briefers, 

and that is why we offered jobs to them and we tried to capture 

those people. Even though they might be briefing helicopters in the 

Gulf from Dallas-Fort Worth, they are people that we hired from 

Louisiana that were doing that same thing, that same job. 

Now we lost some of them because some of them didn’t want to 

move to Dallas-Fort Worth or were ready to retire and so forth. So 

there was a decrease in the number of those folks that resulted in 

some of the problems we saw in the reduction in local knowledge. 

But we captured that knowledge, and we incorporated it in training 

courses. 

36

We certify our specialists to be specialists in a particular local, 

area of operation, and we incentivize them to get certified. They 

have to be certified in at least one area, and we give them incentives to be certified in multiple areas with increased pay. 

Mr. PETRI. One last question, I am kind of curious on this. If it 

is working off of a common platform, and I know my travel agent 

works from home and interacts. Is there a reason why people have 

to be in a particular center if they have access to all the same 

knowledge? 

Then you can have call forwarding and do all kinds of things. 

Maybe you could have kept some of these people by letting them 

do this sort of thing. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. That is why we kept open the 20 locations instead 

of closing down to 1 or 2 because from a technical standpoint, you 

could have supported all the operations out of 1 large place. And 

so, we picked the places that we retained open in order to retain 

as many people as possible at the locations that had large numbers 

of people and that were in areas where people like to live where 

it was easy to recruit, good cost of living and so forth. 

But you are right, it could have been done. We could have done 

this and not closed any of the stations and retained all those people, but the costs would have been higher. We were in competition 

for a solution, and the solution we came up with, we believe, was 

the right compromise between all the different factors involved. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Unless another Member shows up, this will be the last set of 

questions unless Mr. Petri would like to do some follow-up. 

With regard to some staffing issues, I am assuming still your desire and your stated goal is to get to about 1,000 staff, and you are 

at about 850 or so. Is that about right? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. We are actually at 912 right now, and we have another 60 or so in training. So we are well on the way to get to 

1,000, but we are not staffing to a number. We are staffing to performance, and so we will add staff as necessary the meet those performance measures. 

Mr. LARSEN. This then gets to another set of questions. With the 

transition over the last couple of years, you mentioned there were 

some folks who were close to retirement or at retirement, so they 

took retirement. 

Do you have demographics on your current workforce then to indicate how many folks do you anticipate might be leaving within 

the life of the first five years of the contract and what is your plan 

to do further recruitment to replace those folks? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. We expect that we are going to continue to have 

significant attrition over the next several years because although 

we have added people. 

Mr. LARSEN. How would you define significant attrition? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. I would say greater than 15 percent a year. 

Mr. LARSEN. Fifteen; one, five? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Because the average experienced age of our workforce is still 20 years even though we have been adding new people 

out of school, but we have created relationships and created a 

37

training academy to deal with this issue. We have classes going on 

all the time, and we also have arrangements with Embry-Riddle 

and other universities that graduate students that have the basic 

knowledge necessary to go in this kind of work. 

We hire them, put them into our training academy and then we 

are flowing them as quickly as we can into the workforce to try to 

get ahead of this retirement wave. 

Mr. LARSEN. Just to summarize, paraphrase, that is, what I 

heard is you are going to staff up to a number. It is going to be 

around 1,000, but it will be more focused on the performance level 

required. 

Your attrition rate is about 150 folks per year. You are anticipating about 150 folks per year based on an 1,000 base. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Your plan then is to use the training academies and 

the training courses to fill those spots as you move forward. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. That is correct. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Belger, good to see you again and maybe you 

can answer a question about the internet portal. When do you anticipate that being operational and available? 

Mr. BELGER. Our plan is to put it out for initial use in December 

of this year. We want to get some real world experience with pilots. 

AOPA has offered graciously to help us get some pilots throughout 

the Country to have hands-on experience with it. 

We will learn from that experience, and we hope to have it out 

in the field next year after we go through this hands-on exposure 

later this year. 

Mr. LARSEN. So you will do a beta test not just on a region but 

as best you can an objective sample of pilots throughout the Country with AOPA? 

Mr. BELGER. Yes, sir. We would like to get a very objective sample of different types of pilots, pilots who use it in different ways, 

different parts of the Country, different times of day, different 

types of flight plans and really stress it before we put it out for the 

general use. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Boyer, any thoughts on that? 

Mr. BOYER. I think it is a good idea. We all do that when we 

have a new site, and it can’t come fast enough. 

We offered the best of our best. Actually, our air safety foundation, because this is such a safety of flight issue, is going to be 

using some of their contacts to supply whatever number of names 

they need. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. Have the problems in quickly issuing 

NOTAMs been corrected? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, sir, we believe they have. The reports we are 

getting back is there is a much, much improved situation. 

Mr. LARSEN. You mentioned the incentives that you providing to 

briefers. Can you talk through with us what the incentives specifically are with regards to local knowledge? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes. I will have to get back to you on the record 

with the exact amount, but if you are certified in more than one 

region in terms of local knowledge, it means you passed the test 

and your supervisor certifies you. Then you get more pay. 

38

I don’t know exactly what the amount is, but it is enough to encourage people to do that so that we have a bigger pool of people 

that are certified in local knowledge to route a call to in the busier 

areas. 

Mr. LARSEN. Is that the plan or is that happening? Are you seeing more people, more of your employees trying to get that second 

certification? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Yes, we are. I believe as they become more familiar with the new FS21 system and are more comfortable with it, 

then we will see even more people participate in that. 

Mr. LARSEN. When a pilot calls in and is routed to the next available specialist, if that specialist is in a distant geographical location from where the pilot is, it seems to me we can’t be guaranteed 

that that person is certified for the area. Is that right? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. That is correct. If you select next available specialist, then it is possible, about 12 percent of the time right now, 

you would get somebody that was not trained in the area that you 

are interested in. You can select a particular area, and you will 

talk to someone from that area that has a certification. 

Mr. LARSEN. But you will be in line, in the queue, until such 

time that person is available. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. Correct, but those queue times are coming down 

and, like I say, they are averaging 45 seconds. 

Mr. LARSEN. On the average of 45 seconds, is that on the initial 

call or is that on any call from beginning to when the pilot hangs 

up? That is does it include the transfer or just include the pickup 

in the first location? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. It includes from the time the pilot calls in until 

he is connected with a specialist. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay, alright. 

Mr. Boyer, I think in your testimony you had some thoughts 

about changes in the geographical location. It is better to hold on, 

be on hold for X number of minutes and get your answer versus 

45 seconds and not get your answer? 

Mr. BOYER. I think there has to be some education to that, so 

the pilot has a selection. There are a lot of things a pilot needs to 

do. 

Mr. Petri, you mentioned it. There are a lot of just transactional 

things that don’t need that, that knowledge. They don’t need that 

knowledge of, let’s say, Puget Sound where there are different 

weather patterns and just different areas of the Sound. And so, you 

can make that selection yourself. 

I know things have probably been, shame on us. I think our card 

will help with that, to get out that fact. 

I think the Achilles’ heel in this whole thing from the very start 

has been local knowledge. I was talking when you were out on the 

break. We have to look at how you impart that. 

I mean just consider yourself right here in Washington. Local 

knowledge: restaurants to go to, who is open when, what parking 

lots close at what time. That is local knowledge that is here in the 

head. 

The same thing goes to weather patterns, where those thunderstorms exist over, let’s say, the Blue Ridge Mountains or this or 

that. There has to be a better way to take that and translate it and 

39

then train pilots on it because I don’t know at the moment somebody who has been through the certification course—and we have 

them and we get them—that they always have what we really look 

at as pilots as the local knowledge that we need. 

Mr. LARSEN. In my initial round of questions earlier, I brought 

up some issues specific to Washington State, and I can do some follow-up with you all after the hearing on that specifically. But there 

is an additional issue, and I am wondering who we are going to 

handle that. 

The 2010 Winter Olympics are in Vancouver, British Columbia, 

in February and then followed up by the Paralympics in March. 

With any Olympics, there are a lot of issues, a lot of issues on the 

ground obviously with border crossings, and much of the U.S. traffic is anticipated to fly into, say, SeaTac or maybe into Bellingham 

and then drive across. 

That being said, in that same area, there are 33 to 40 individual 

airstrips or airports. You will have a lot of people flying around. 

The security shed during the Olympics is going to have an impact 

not just on the B.C. side of the border but certainly on the Washington State side. 

Are you anticipating that? Are you making plans for that with 

the FAA in terms of how to address the specific issues that will be 

involved with presumably flight restrictions in that area during 

that period of time? 

Mr. CIPRIANO. At this time, I don’t think we have started those 

discussions, but we certainly will in sufficient time to deal with it. 

There are a number of things that happen during the course of a 

year, airshows, even holidays when the traffic patterns change dramatically. I expect the campaign season that is going to come up 

is going to increase the number of restricted zones and so forth. 

We are always working those with the FAA to determine what 

the appropriate response and the appropriate staffing is, so we can 

get the right number of people dedicated to support those special 

situations. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It seems to me that folks in the flight stations 

will have to be trained specifically to the specific conditions surrounding this three to four weeks in February and two to three 

weeks in March of 2010. Based on my experience so far as a cochair of our own Governor’s task force on the Olympics, starting 

today is about three years late in planning for this. I would just 

encourage you to that, and we have been encouraging FAA as well 

as all the other Federal Agencies to keep this on the radar. 

Mr. CIPRIANO. I have it noted, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right, thanks. Those are all the questions 

I have. 

Mr. Petri? 

With that, I want to thank the panelists on panel two and, of 

course, panel one as well, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

40


38249.091
41


38249.092
42


38249.093
43


38249.094
44


38249.095
45


38249.096
46


38249.097
47


38249.017
48


38249.018
49


38249.019
50


38249.020
51


38249.021
52


38249.022
53


38249.023
54


38249.024
55


38249.025
56


38249.026
57


38249.027
58


38249.028
59


38249.029
60


38249.030
61


38249.031
62


38249.032
63


38249.033
64


38249.034
65


38249.035
66


38249.036
67


38249.037
68


38249.038
69


38249.039
70


38249.040
71


38249.041
72


38249.042
73


38249.043
74


38249.044
75


38249.045
76


38249.046
77


38249.047
78


38249.048
79


38249.049
80


38249.050
81


38249.051
82


38249.052
83


38249.053
84


38249.054
85


38249.055
86


38249.056
87


38249.057
88


38249.058
89


38249.059
90


38249.060
91


38249.061
92


38249.062
93


38249.063
94


38249.064
95


38249.065
96


38249.066
97


38249.067
98


38249.068
99


38249.069
100


38249.070
101


38249.071
102


38249.072
103


38249.073
104


38249.074
105


38249.075
106


38249.076
107


38249.077
108


38249.078
109


38249.079
110


38249.080
111


38249.081
112


38249.082
113


38249.083
114


38249.084
115


38249.085
116


38249.086
117


38249.087
118


38249.088
119


38249.089
120

Æ


38249.090