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

38–514 PDF 2007

NEXTGEN: THE FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCEBROADCAST CONTRACT

(110–80)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 17, 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 

Brantley, Tom, President, Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFLCIO ........................................................................................................................ 5

Capezzuto, Vincent, Manager, Surveillance and Broadcast Services Program 

Office, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................ 5

Kefaliotis, John, ADS-B Program Director, Defense, ITT Corporation ............... 5

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 5

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

for Advanced Aviation System Development, The Mitre Corporation ............. 5

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 34

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 42

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 48

Salazar, Hon. John T., of Colorado ........................................................................ 52

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Brantley, Tom .......................................................................................................... 54

Capezzuto, Vincent .................................................................................................. 62

Kefaliotis, John ........................................................................................................ 76

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

Sinha, Dr. Agam N. ................................................................................................. 100

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Capezzuto, Vincent, Manager, Surveillance and Broadcast Services Program 

Office, Federal Aviation Administration, responses to questions from the 

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 73

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

for Advanced Aviation System Development, The Mitre Corporation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................... 110

vi


38514.001
vii


38514.002
viii


38514.003
ix


38514.004
x


38514.005
xi


38514.006
xii


38514.007
(1)

HEARING ON NEXTGEN: THE FAA’S AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE-BROADCAST, ADS-B, CONTRACT 

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

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

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Committee will come to order. The Ranking 

Member will be here momentarily, and I will go ahead and get 

started. 

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 

NextGen: The FAA’s Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 

Contract that was recently entered into by the FAA. 

Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent to allow a new Member of our Committee, Ms. Laura Richardson, to participate in the 

Subcommittee hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I will begin my opening statement and then recognize the opening statement by the Ranking Member or comments or remarks, 

and I see Mr. Hayes is sitting in for Mr. Petri. 

I welcome everyone to the Subcommittee hearing today. A major 

part of the FAA’s NextGeneration Air Transportation System Plan 

to transform our air traffic control system is the transition from a 

ground-based radar to a satellite-based surveillance system. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast or ADS-B, as it is commonly known, is key to enabling technology for that transition. 

Within the last 60 days, the FAA has taken two major steps forward with ADS-B. At the end of August, the FAA awarded a performance-based service contract valued at almost $1.9 billion to a 

consortium led by the ITT Corporation. The ITT team is required 

to build, own and operate a system that will provide nationwide 

ADS-B surveillance and broadcast services by as early as 2013. 

Earlier this month, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require aircraft operating in certain classes of 

airspace to equip with ADS-B Out avionics by 2020. 

Over the last several months, the FAA has described ADS-B as 

the cornerstone and the backbone of NextGen and the future of our 

2

air traffic control system. I agree that ADS-B is technology that 

holds enormous promise. 

It is potentially much more accurate than radar which may help 

the FAA and airspace users utilize our airspace more efficiently. It 

can enhance safety by providing surveillance to areas that cannot 

be covered by radar and by granting pilots greater situational 

awareness. It may also enable the FAA to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in costs by downsizing its ground-based infrastructure. 

That said, reasonable expectations must be set about what relief 

ADS-B can realistically provide for the type of meltdown and 

record-setting delays our system has faced this summer. Unfortunately, the American people have been led to believe that the silver 

bullet solution for the gridlock that we saw this summer is a new 

satellite-based surveillance system. 

The truth is ADS-B will not provide significant tangible benefits 

for several years and then only in conjunction with other NextGen 

technologies that are many years away from implementation now. 

It is time for the rhetoric to stop and for the Administration to 

start explaining all of the ifs and whens about ADS-B and the 

NextGen system. 

Some have pointed out that ADS-B is a relatively mature technology that is not highly complex. We should not underestimate the 

technical challenges of building and integrating this new system 

into the NAS. As with any modernization program, there is clearly 

the potential for setbacks and slippage as far as implementation is 

concerned. 

In addition, even if the ITT team meets the FAA’s ambitious 

schedule for deploying ground infrastructure and services, how 

quickly ADS-B can deliver major benefits will be determined largely by how quickly users equip. The FAA’s proposed rule does not 

mandate ADS-B by users until the year 2020. 

Furthermore, some of ADS-B’s most advanced applications and 

capabilities, like reduced separation and standards and aircraft 

self-separation, have received the most public attention. However, 

the FAA first needs to demonstrate that ADS-B performs as well 

as our current radar base system before these capabilities can seriously be considered. Moreover, some of these advanced capabilities 

require ADS-B In avionics which the FAA did not mandate in its 

proposed rule. 

Given that, the FAA has advertised ADS-B as the future of the 

air traffic control system. Everyone should understand that the 

FAA has placed a tremendous amount of responsibility in the 

hands of the private sector. 

Instead of adopting a more traditional acquisition strategy for 

ADS-B, the FAA had opted for a service contract approach whereby 

the ITT team will build the ADS-B ground stations and own and 

operate the equipment. The FAA will pay subscription charges for 

ADS-B broadcasts transmitted to aircraft and air traffic control facilities. 

The FAA has estimated that its contracting approach will save 

the Government roughly $820 million over the next 30 years and 

cut about five years off of the deployment schedule. Regardless, I 

believe that there are inherent risks in this strategy. Both ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38514 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
3

gress and the FAA must provide vigorous oversight over this contract. 

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

I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Before I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening statement or remarks, 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. 

With that, the Chair recognizes the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for an opening statement or his comments. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would 

like to join you in welcoming our panelists here today and also 

thank you for scheduling this hearing. 

Two months ago, as you point out, the FAA awarded the long 

awaited ADS-B contract to the ITT Corporation and published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking on the system ground stations and 

equipage standards. These are two major milestones in the transition to a satellite-based surveillance air traffic control system, and 

I certainly would join in applauding all involved in the process. 

The new system will improve safety by increasing positioning accuracy and, according to our Federal Aviation Administration, has 

great potential to increase our capacity to handle the potential 

three-fold increase in traffic that is projected over the next 20 to 

30 years. 

As we know, the transition to the new system will not be simple. 

I am glad we have the opportunity today to learn more about the 

contract itself, the contractor, ITT, and what role the new system 

will have in the effort to modernize our air traffic system. 

Strong oversight, both internally at the FAA and here in Congress, will be critical to the success of the transition. A lot is riding 

on a smooth and hopefully uneventful transition to the new system. 

I look forward to our witnesses identifying some of the major issues 

associated with the transition and controls built into the contract 

to address those issues. 

Input from the national airspace system users will also clearly be 

very important. After all, what good is a new surveillance system 

if it fails to serve the users’ needs? To that end, I look forward to 

hearing how the FAA plans to utilize technical experts from the 

aviation community as they move ahead with the implementation 

and transition to the ADS-B system. 

While I am pleased with the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

progress so far, we have a long way to go before we achieve full 

NextGen. I look forward to working with the aviation community 

as we continue to move toward that goal. This new system is the 

first tangible step in the process, and let’s make sure that we get 

it right. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, who is going to 

enter a statement into the record and make brief remarks. 

Mr. SALAZAR. I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4

I just wanted to thank the FAA for their forward thinking, and 

I just want you to understand that the State of Colorado is fully 

invested in the NextGen air system. 

I am very concerned, however, about the air safety along the 

mountains and the ski country of Colorado. So I just want to make 

sure whenever we move forward and how we move forward, that 

we take into account the ski areas and the mountainous areas and 

Rocky Mountains area in general of this great Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your allowing me to 

make a few comments. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly appreciate what 

you are doing here today. 

I think sometimes you worry about my level of enthusiasm about 

this project being too high, for those of you in the audience who 

don’t know, when the Chairman sees me coming. 

We are going to be talking about ADS-B and how we need to 

have a different role here. The FAA has a great product to sell, another service to impose on folks. 

When we get through this, my friend, Mr. Salazar, is going to get 

his plane back and he is going to make sure that he has ADS-B 

in it because he doesn’t want to live without it. It can be that good 

if all the different components come together and make this thing 

work. 

Mr. Scovel, we are glad to have you here today as the on-staff 

paid skeptic to make sure that we keep track of the things as managers and overseers that we need to do. 

I want to be sure that every component of aviation, whether it 

is AOPA, NATCA, Vinny Capezzuto, the technicians, everybody 

sees, appreciates and invests in a cooperative, collaborative way in 

this system that can provide a tremendous boost in safety first but 

in convenience and a whole host of other things. 

Don’t be misled. This is not the answer to air traffic delays. It 

will be help, but again this is not the answer. Here, my enthusiasm 

comes from the fact that we have something here that the flying 

public and the airlines need to be on board and fully invested as 

quickly as possible. Implementation is the key. 

There are 210,000 customers sitting out there, waiting to be sold. 

If we give them a high quality product at the lowest possible price, 

which competition ensures, then not at the day but at the beginning of the day, we are gong to have something that will dramatically improve safety, convenience and people will say, gosh, for 

once, the Government got it right. 

Mr. Chairman, I got carried away. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Let me say both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Salazar have talked to me 

frequently about ADS-B, and they have some very interesting ideas 

and are strong supporters of getting the program moving forward 

and getting to the point of implementation, and I appreciate that 

very much. 

The Chair will now introduce our witnesses in the order in which 

they are seated. Again, we welcome all of you here today. We have 

met in roundtable discussions with, I think, all of you in the past 

5

more than once about ADS-B, and we are pleased to have you here 

in the Committee hearing. 

First, let me introduce Mr. Vincent Capezzuto who is the Manager of the Surveillance and Broadcast Services Program Office 

with the FAA; the Honorable Calvin Scovel who is the paid skeptic, 

I have down here, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation; Mr. John Kefaliotis, who is the ADS-B Program Director, Defense with ITT Corporation; and Dr. Agam Sinha, who is 

the Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for Advanced Aviation System Development with the MITRE Corporation; and Mr. Tom Brantley who is the President of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists. 

Gentlemen, we welcome all of you here today and, as always, 

your full statement will be entered into the record. The Chair 

would ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes or 

less, and we will give Members the opportunity to ask questions. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Capezzuto. 

TESTIMONY OF VINCENT CAPEZZUTO, MANAGER, SURVEILLANCE AND BROADCAST SERVICES PROGRAM OFFICE, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION; JOHN KEFALIOTIS, ADS-B PROGRAM 

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE, ITT CORPORATION; DR. AGAM N. 

SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, 

THE MITRE CORPORATION; TOM BRANTLEY, PRESIDENT, 

PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Congressman Petri. 

At this point, I would like to show you a quick video that will 

illustrate how ADS-B functions. 

Well, I thought I was going to show you a quick video. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Now this was not covered under the ADS-B contract, was it? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. It was not, and it is also not biting into my five 

minutes. We will just move on if that is okay. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the FAA’s 

contract for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast System 

or ADS-B, the cornerstone of NextGen. As the Director of Surveillance and Broadcast Services in the Air Traffic Organization at the 

FAA, I have responsibility for oversight of this performance-based 

contract. 

ADS-B is a new service for the FAA and has the potential to 

transform the NAS. In order to develop this service, we have crafted an innovative and closely monitored contract with the ITT Corporation. 

We appreciate the role that Congress has already played in developing this contract. In fact, our confidence in this contract is directly due to Congress’ oversight and input as well as contributions 

6

from other Government entities and participation by the gamut of 

other industry stakeholders such as the pilots, the airlines and the 

manufacturers, to name a few. We welcome the Members’ continued oversight to help us manage the contract moving forward. 

The ADS-B contract has scalability and flexibility which leads to 

greater service availability in the NAS. 

ADS-B equipped aircraft receive satellite signals and transmit 

the aircraft’s precise locations to air traffic controllers and pilots. 

Both pilots and controllers will, for the first time, be able to see 

similar real-time displays of air traffic. Pilots will know with greater accuracy where their own aircraft are, and the displays will 

show them all the aircraft in the air and on the ground around 

them. 

In addition to improved safety in the sky, ADS-B can help reduce 

the risk of runway incursions. Additionally, ADS-B has the capability of increasing efficiency and capacity in the NAS which, in 

turn, helps to reduce the delay problem. With this technology, we 

will be able to provide services to the people and places that we 

never have before. 

The scalability of ADS-B allows us to adapt the technology for a 

variety of purposes. The contract also gives us greater flexibility 

because it allows us to deploy the technology more rapidly and 

more easily than we could have on our own and in areas where we 

have never had radar. 

General aviation pilots will have enhanced safety features in 

their cockpits. Pilots in Alaska will be able to navigate the rough 

terrain there more easily. Aircraft over the Gulf of Mexico will have 

greater flexibility to use different altitudes and have reduced separation minimums. 

With the greater coverage and accuracy of ADS-B, we will be 

able to predict where aircraft are and we will be making the NAS 

that much more reliable. 

The contract requires ITT to have the system ready for use by 

2010 and expand coverage nationwide by 2013. The first stage of 

the contract is worth $207 million with options worth an additional 

$1.6 billion. 

With a system as important as ADS-B and the price tag that 

comes with it, we want to make sure that we are working responsibly with the taxpayers’ dollars. We are keenly aware of the risks 

inherent to new technology and new procedures, and we are safeguarding against them as best as we can. 

ADS-B’s potential is enormous. It is integral to our ability to 

achieve NextGen and to handle the tripling of today’s air traffic 

predicted by 2025, but we do not want to oversell these capabilities. 

The only way we can present a realistic picture of our goals is to 

double-check our accomplishments along the way. 

We have designed the contract to include several required milestone events that will help us track progress and test the system 

as each piece is completed. Further, we have created additional incentives and disincentives throughout the contract to maximize the 

contractor’s commitment to success. 

Finally, we have a building block plan for the contract. First, we 

build. Then, we test while we create the appropriate procedures for 

7

use, and only after the groundwork has been laid, do we deploy the 

technology nationwide. 

If the contractor is unable to achieve certain milestones, the FAA 

may consider it in default of the contract and may cancel the remainder of the contract. 

The first milestone is set for May 2008, when the contractor is 

to test the uplinking of traffic and weather information to pilots. 

With this aggressive time line, we are not wasting any time in requiring our contractor to deliver. These milestones give us concrete 

measures of the contractor’s progress and if needed, allow the FAA 

to adjust the program early on or redirect resources as needed. 

Our goal is not only to test technical performance but also to test 

business performance. We also have other oversight measures built 

into the contract to include preliminary design reviews and critical 

design reviews that enable us to track the contractor’s progress and 

success. We also have risk mitigation procedures in place, which require ITT to work with the FAA to resolve any issues that might 

arise in the course of the contract. 

Some of the major incentives for our contractor are embedded in the additional $1.6 billion options that the FAA can choose to exercise or not. Depending on proven contractor performance or if the 

FAA does not receive the benefits anticipated in a particular area, 

these options would allow the FAA to unilaterally stop the contract 

in whole or in part. 

Additionally, the contractor is allowed, subject to FAA approval, 

to develop the data for other aeronautical uses, which would result 

in a reduction of the costs of the contract to the FAA while allowing 

the contractor to recoup its investments. 

We are confident that this system of carrots and sticks will afford 

the FAA considerable oversight of the contract, encourage the contractor to excel in performance and allow seamless integration of 

this important new technology. 

FAA is a safety oversight agency first and foremost, and the certification of the data is critical to our mission to ensure safety is 

maintained and enhanced for the flying public. 

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

happy to answer any questions that you or the other Members of 

the Committee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Capezzuto. 

The Chair now recognizes the Inspector General, Mr. Scovel. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify 

on the FAA’s efforts to develop and deploy ADS-B. At the request 

of the Chairman, we are examining the risks to this important effort and FAA’s contracting approach. 

We recognize that ADS-B has enormous potential to enhance capacity, improve safety and fundamentally change the way air traffic is managed. However, a full disclosure of costs, expected benefits and risks is needed. This is a complex, long term effort that 

requires significant investments from both Government and airspace users. 

Given FAA’s history with developing new technologies and its approach for ADS-B, we believe that an extraordinary level of oversight will be required. 

8

Today, I will discuss three major points. First, realistic expectations need to be set for the benefits ADS-B will deliver in terms 

of capacity and reducing delays. ADS-B will not provide near term 

capacity benefits or relief from record level delays at the Nation’s 

most congested airports. 

FAA’s plans call for the ADS-B ground infrastructure to be in 

place by 2013, and airspace users are not expected to be equipped 

with new avionics until 2020. 

FAA does expect to see benefits in the 2009 time frame in the 

Gulf of Mexico from ADS-B where radar coverage is limited. 

We note that FAA intends to mandate ADS-B Out, the broadcast 

of aircraft information to ground systems, but the majority of benefits rely on ADS-B In and the display of this information in the 

cockpit. However, costs and requirements for ADS-B In and cockpit 

displays, which could shift more responsibility to the pilot, are not 

well understood. 

We think FAA needs to provide Congress and stakeholders with 

a much clearer path for moving forward with ADS-B and realizing 

much needed capacity improvements. 

Second, ADS-B has demonstrated important benefits in Alaska 

where radar coverage is limited. However, ADS-B implementation 

in the continental United States, which involves supplementing 

and ultimately replacing radar, is a complex undertaking. 

The widespread introduction of ADS-B faces a number of risks. 

They include user acceptance, frequency congestion concerns, development and approval of procedures that can capitalize on ADS-B 

and software modifications to existing controller displays and automation systems. All these risks could materially affect the cost 

schedule and expected benefits of ADS-B. 

Finally, FAA has decided to rely on a service contract approach 

for ADS-B. This means that the Government will not own the 

ground infrastructure but will pay for broadcast services. A heretofore unseen level of FAA contract oversight will be needed. 

Over the years, we have documented numerous problems with 

FAA’s major acquisitions that resulted in million dollar cost increases and schedule slips measured in years. Problems are directly traceable to, among other things, poor contract oversight. 

FAA has never before relied on a service contract to introduce a 

revolutionary technology into the NAS. 

As we testified last week, the experiences with flight service stations underscore the importance of strong oversight of contractor 

efforts. Important lessons learned focus on greater insight into contractor efforts and how problems are solved. The stakes are much 

higher with ADS-B and the need for oversight greatly amplified. 

To FAA’s credit, the Agency intends to use several controls to 

help manage the contract, including techniques for measuring cost 

and schedule changes and performance metrics. However, these 

controls are not fully in place. Once established, FAA must execute 

them properly and hold the contractor accountable. 

An important oversight mechanism is the establishment of a performance control board. This board, comprised of FAA and contractor personnel, is expected to monitor ADS-B performance, review changes to the system and mutually resolve disagreements, 

all very important responsibilities. 

9

This board is not yet in place, and its charter is not finalized. 

The overall comfort level with FAA’s approach will increase only 

when this board is firmly established, and roles and responsibilities 

clearly defined. 

Key watch items for FAA oversight going forward include managing requirements and having the right in-house expertise and 

skill mix for effective management and oversight. It cannot be business as usual with ADS-B. A different model of oversight is needed. 

The Air Traffic Organization must shift its role from providing a 

service to maintaining direct, sustained oversight. 

We are concerned that FAA could find itself in a situation where 

it knows little about the system that is expected to be the foundation of NextGen. FAA must take steps to ensure it effectively addresses this risk. 

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

to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee might have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Scovel, and now recognizes, for five minutes to summarize his testimony, Mr. Kefaliotis. 

Mr. KEFALIOTIS. Thank you, Chairman. 

ITT wishes to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify 

about ADS-B, the vital program which is an essential building 

block of the NextGen air transportation system. We recognize the 

critical role of the Committee in exercising program oversight and 

in authorizing the necessary taxpayer dollars to make the program 

viable. 

ITT, along with our teammates, is honored to have been selected 

to be the FAA’s partner in the ADS-B program and, through this 

program, to serve the Nation’s air traffic control needs. 

ITT believes the FAA is to be commended for the efficient and 

professional manner in which this procurement was conducted. Salient elements of the FAA’s procurement process were open and frequent communications with industry, adherence to the process and 

schedule promulgated early and procurement activities, and an effective statement of Government requirements. 

ITT believes the contracting approach developed by the Government strikes a proper balance between allowing contractor efficiency and providing solid means for FAA oversight and control of 

ITT activity. 

Notably, the contract provides a period and processes to ensure 

that the developed service fully meets defined requirements to include safety, security and radio frequency spectrum constraints, allows for continuous Government monitoring of deployed service, 

and provides significant financial incentives for contractor team 

performance. Finally, an FAA-defined performance control board 

allows continuous involvement of the FAA in system development, 

deployment and operation. 

The contracting approach has also provided a mechanism to ensure the continuity of the service for which ADS-B assets are deployed. The FAA required vendors to submit succession plans as a 

part of their proposals. ITT’s plan appoints AT&T a successor for 

the very unlikely contingency of a triggering event. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate that ITT is proud to have 

been chosen to be the FAA’s partner in this vital initiative and 

10

state that ITT and its contractor team are fully committed to the 

success of this program. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Sinha. 

Mr. SINHA. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Congressman 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. 

ADS-B is a well defined, tested and globally accepted system concept for air traffic control surveillance. Although first made operational in the United States, specifically in Alaska, ADS-B now is 

being accepted and introduced around the world for ATC applications. 

It is used for tracking aircraft, both while in flight and on the 

airport surface. Aircraft pilots and ground vehicles’ drivers also use 

ADS-B to monitor positions and velocities of other aircraft and 

ground vehicles. 

ADS-B provides highly accurate, plus or minus three feet, position of aircraft; faster update, one second, for better tracking; speed 

and direction data of the aircraft and the ground vehicles. In addition, ADS-B ground stations can be sited and installed more easily 

than radars, permitting aircraft surveillance in heretofore inaccessible geographic locations such as the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. 

There are two fundamentally distinct types of ADS-B avionics 

configurations, commonly known as ADS-B Out and ADS-B In. 

With ADS-B Out, an aircraft or ground vehicle transmits ADS-B 

reports but does not receive reports from other ADS-B sources. 

With ADS-B In, they can not only transmit reports but also receive 

reports from other aircraft, ground vehicles or ADS-B ground stations. 

These reports can include graphical and textual weather information as well as other flight information such as pilot reports and 

Notice to Airmen. 

The improved surveillance, accuracy, integrity, latency and availability made possible by ADS-B will enable reduced aircraft separation standards to improve NAS capacity; comprehensive tracking of 

aircraft and vehicles operating in the air and on the airport surface 

to improve safety, security and operational effectiveness; improved 

access to under-utilized airspace and airports; improved four-dimensional trajectory information for better gate to gate airport operating efficiency and flight path conformance monitoring; flexible 

assignment of responsibilities on the ground and in the cockpit as 

needed to support decision-making and workload balancing; adaptive flexible spacing and sequencing of aircraft; improved collaborative air traffic management among flight and airport operators, 

service providers and other stakeholders. 

Add to these improvements, the reduced weather impacts to traffic flow and airport access made possible by the use of an accurate 

weather picture and other advisory information; and we can see 

that ADS-B is an enabler of several key NextGen capabilities. However, the extent of ADS-B’s benefits mentioned earlier will vary depending on the environment, whether it is radar or non-radar, and 

the aircraft equipage, ADS-B Out or ADS-B In, and how many aircraft are equipped. 

11

Additional ADS-B benefits are possible based on new concepts in 

varying stages of exploration such as improved approach operations 

in instrument conditions due to the ability to electronically see 

proximate aircraft. 

This can help us increase the capacity for paired approaches to 

closely spaced parallel runways as well as independent approaches 

to parallel runways down to 2,500 feet; improved departure operations in the most congested terminal areas by reductions in departure spacing afforded through delegation to flight crews; improved 

safety in the air through enhancements to onboard collision avoidance systems and on the airport surface through direct cockpit 

warnings of potential conflicting traffic; reduced controller workload through more equitable sharing of spacing and separation assurance responsibilities between ATC and pilots. 

In closing, let me summarize my main messages. ADS-B is a well 

defined, tested and globally accepted surveillance technology that 

provides better performance than legacy technologies. ADS-B offers 

benefits from both mandated ADS-B Out and voluntary ADS-B In 

capabilities, and they accrue to both the FAA and NAS users. 

The timely realization of ADS-B benefits is dependent on achieving appropriate ground automation system upgrades. This is beyond other ground automation systems like ERAM, avionics equipage and operational procedures. 

ADS-B is a cornerstone capability for NextGen as several of the 

key NextGen improvements require it. It is imperative that ADSB associated research and program implementation as well as the 

other NAS systems it leverages be managed closely so that the full 

set of projected benefits can be achieved. 

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

answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brantley. 

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

on the ADS-B contract. 

PASS represents more than 11,000 FAA employees throughout 

the United States and overseas including the employees who install, repair and certify the systems making up our air traffic control system. 

When fully implemented, ADS-B can be a useful tool for pilots 

and air traffic controllers to use in maintaining proper separation 

of aircraft while allowing more efficient use of our Nation’s airways. PASS and the employees we represent welcome this advancement in air traffic control technology, but we will not give up our 

focus on safety in all modernization efforts. 

It is our understanding that the FAA plans that ADS-B, unlike 

our current radar systems, will not be properly certified and all 

maintenance will be the responsibility of the contractor. Certification is a process in which a certificated FAA technician checks 

and tests systems or equipment periodically to ensure that the systems or equipment can safely remain in service and provide the advertised service while not negatively impacting any aspect of the 

NAS. Certification is also performed before returning a repaired 

system to service. 

12

The FAA’s own orders label certification as an inherently governmental function and, as such, it can only be accomplished by FAA 

employees. For decades, all NAS systems and services directly affecting the flying public were required to be certified. 

However, shortly after the ADS-B contract was awarded, the 

FAA made changes to its time-tested certification program. In its 

update to the maintenance handbook effective October 1st, 2007, 

the FAA changed the order so that only FAA-owned systems can 

be certified. In other words, the FAA has not only changed the criteria to allow ADS-B to be deployed without requiring certification 

but actually went so far as to prohibit full and appropriate certification of all systems it does not own. 

PASS has learned that the FAA intends to perform what it is 

calling service certification on ADS-B which would allow the FAA 

to certify the service based on users telling the Agency that the 

service works. In other words, the controllers will have to rely on 

the users—pilots and vendors—to tell the FAA that there is a problem. There will be no internal FAA quality checks as there are 

today. 

PASS is certain that ADS-B must be fully and appropriately certified to ensure its safe operation. In the opinion of the experts, 

FAA technicians in the field, with the complete elimination of system certification for systems not owned by the FAA, there will be 

no way to independently determine if the system is safe. 

It should also be noted that this new interpretation of the Agency’s certification criteria would apply not only to ADS-B but also 

to any system or service that is not owned by the FAA. Any future 

contract awarded by the Agency that provides for vendor-owned 

equipment or services would be barred from the FAA certification 

program. 

The NAS is not just one piece of equipment but rather a complex, 

integrated system that includes thousands of distinct smaller systems, all of which interface with one another, and aviation safety 

depends on oversight of the entire system. FAA employees are the 

only people anywhere with such a detailed knowledge of the intricacies associated with NAS systems and operations. Placing responsibility for a system as vital to air traffic as ADS-B entirely 

in the hands of the private sector threatens the safety of the flying 

public. 

Furthermore, in order to have sufficient redundancy to avoid 

service interruptions, there also must be employees present who 

fully understand the different types of service. Since ADS-B will be 

an entirely vendor-run operation, the Agency will be held hostage 

to the vendor’s response time which will, at the very least, result 

in longer delays and will leave the FAA with no in-house capability 

should the vendor fail to live up to the contract. 

PASS strongly supports modernization of the NAS but never in 

a manner that compromises the very foundation of safety upon 

which our current system is based. PASS asks that Congress direct 

the FAA to fully and appropriately certify all NAS systems and 

services, including ADS-B, that meet the criteria for certification as 

defined by the Agency prior to October 1st, 2007, without regard 

for ownership of such systems and services. 

13

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would entertain any questions 

that anyone may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you, Mr. Brantley. 

Mr. Scovel, in my opening statement, I raised concerns, as you 

did, with the issue of raising unrealistic expectations on the part 

of the Administration. 

I am not here today to beat up on the Administration. I support 

ADS-B. I think we are moving in the right direction, but when the 

Administration came out with their budget proposal on February 

the 14th and throughout the process until we passed the House 

bill, the message to the American public and to the Congress was 

pass our budget proposal because we have to move forward with 

NextGen. 

As we went through the busiest season that we have seen in recent history, this summer, and had unprecedented delays and cancellations, the people kept hearing, well, we need NextGen, and it 

was like we are going down to Target or Wal-Mart or some place 

and buy something off the shelf, plug it in and our problems are 

going away. 

One, you raised the same issue in your statement that we need 

to be realistic as to what NextGen can deliver in terms of delays 

and capacity and so on. I wonder if you might elaborate on your 

statement. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You mentioned the term, realistic expectations, and we would 

certainly second the use of that term. As you and other Members 

of the Subcommittee have noted, ADS-B will have no impact on 

delays at the Nation’s busiest airports in the near term. 

As Mr. Capezzuto and others have stated today, the contract between FAA and ITT calls for installation of the ground infrastructure by the year 2013. FAA has mandated, or proposes to mandate, 

the initiation of ADS-B Out aboard user aircraft not until the year 

2020. Clearly, that is a long time from where we stand today in 

late 2007. 

I should also note, however, that ADS-B Out, which is the initial 

part of the system that will be implemented, does not propose to 

have the promise to address congestion and delays at the Nation’s 

busiest airports. It is only the second part of the ADS-B system, 

the ADS-B In system, that will allow aircraft and other users conceivably to reduce separation standards and increase capacity. 

So we would urge caution on the part of the Committee and 

other members of the aviation industry and the traveling public before they invest too much unrealistic expectations in ADS-B itself. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I also noted in your statement and I think Mr. 

Brantley as well—and I will ask you, Mr. Brantley to comment on 

this—one is that you are concerned that the FAA may find itself 

in a situation where ITT knows a lot about the system and the 

FAA knows very little about the system. 

I made note in my opening statement that we are all aware that 

under the contract, that ITT will build, own and operate the system and will have a contractual arrangement where they will actually purchase for transition. 

I just wonder if you will elaborate, Mr. Brantley as well, your 

concerns about the FAA, at some point, knowing very little about 

14

this new system and ITT folks knowing a lot about it which might 

imply to some that ITT would have a monopoly on this system. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we should note that our assessment at this time indicates that FAA has negotiated a very robust 

and aggressive contract with ITT. It has been successful in that regard. The skill set that it brought to the contracting process up to 

this point has given it this enviable position. 

The contract as it goes forward, however, will unroll in a series 

of phases, and certainly the initial phase between now and 2013 

presents the need for FAA to have a skill set. As ADS-B Out 

unrolls to 2020, perhaps a different skill set will be needed, and 

certainly with the advent of ADS-B In and full implementation 

throughout the NAS of ADS-B’s capability, yet another skill set 

may be needed. 

Given the length of time between 2007 and when full ADS-B capabilities may be realized, 2020 or in the years immediately following that, skills currently available in FAA may move out. They 

may retire. They will move on. Certainly, FAA will be challenged 

at each step along the way to acquire the skills that will be necessary to give it the robust contractual oversight capability that it 

will need. 

Currently, we see going forward, and this would be for the immediate future, that a skill set would be needed along these lines: 

telecommunications expertise, signals processing, and systems engineering and integration. Finally, when we are talking about user 

involvement and potentially the use of pilots and human factors 

needed in order to fully implement ADS-B, FAA will need to have 

expertise in that area in order to ensure that the contract can be 

properly executed. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Brantley, would you briefly follow with your 

concerns? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In addition to what Mr. 

Scovel said, and I do agree with his assessment on the assumption 

that everything works well and that the vendor remains in place, 

my concern is, however unlikely or remote the chance, if the Agency found itself in a position where it had to take over the ground 

stations—either the vendor defaulted or the Agency decided that 

they weren’t performing and they canceled the contract or whatever the case—the Agency would not have the in-house capability 

to do so. 

So, at that point, they would no longer have a choice. They would 

be essentially stuck even if they felt that the vendor couldn’t perform. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Capezzuto, would you like to respond to the 

concerns expressed by Mr. Scovel and Mr. Brantley on that issue? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

As I understand it, I just want to point out that the contract let 

to ITT is really a sub-element of a full system. As was mentioned 

by Mr. Scovel, the avionics is the driving force behind this. It is 

really about having the aircraft with the proper avionics, and that 

is where the accuracy and integrity information is actually collected. 

So this is the inverse of looking at radar. Where radar derives 

the information, now the information comes from GPS and aviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38514 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
15

onics. That information is transferred to the ITT sub-element 

which is then brought to our service delivery points where the FAA 

is playing the systems integrator. Our role is to pull this together, 

collect the data, submit that data to our regulator to get approval 

to use it for air traffic controllers to separate air traffic with. 

To do any of this, we are governed by our safety management 

system, and that is first and foremost to us. Whenever we build a 

system, we are governed by the safety management system and we 

put the proper controls in place. 

Mr. COSTELLO. What does that mean, the proper controls in 

place? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. The way this contract was developed, we have 

three years to develop it co-jointly with ITT. I know we call it a 

service contract, but we are actually going through design reviews 

with them. We have designed the performance specifications and 

provided it to them. We are doing the oversight as they develop the 

system so that we build in security and safety up front. 

After the deployment of this, we will have the capability to recognize what that proper data is at the service delivery point, and 

these are quantified requirements, things like availability or latency. These are things that can be measured, and you use those 

for certification of that information. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So those who may be concerned, as Mr. Scovel 

just mentioned and Mr. Brantley, about turnover as time goes on, 

you have no concerns about that? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. I think the other piece that is missing in this 

conversation is that the radar that we are going to keep in there 

as the backup. As part of this investment, we are only really removing 50 percent of our secondary surveillance radars, which essentially are overlapped right now and not used as a redundant 

function. 

So what we are doing is slimming our particular inventory of secondary surveillance radars, but we have two things going for us. 

One, we are keeping all the primary radars, and we are keeping 

50 percent of the secondary surveillance radars in our inventory as 

the capability of a backup. Then, additionally, we have in the specification of the contract that the provider has to have an independent validation of the information that is coming from ADS-B 

or the avionics. So, in all cases, we have the capability. 

Then, finally, as we do today, we have procedural backups. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We have other Members here who have questions. I have a final question, and then I will come back. I do have 

a few others. 

Mr. Brantley, you talked about the certification process and that 

the FAA came back and changed it. I wonder if you might elaborate on the current system as far as certification is concerned 

versus what the FAA has proposed or what the change has done. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Certainly, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Currently, any system, there are several criteria, but the two 

main ones, any system that is providing real-time positional information or that is providing data that is used by pilots or air traffic 

controllers, that is going to affect what a plane does, anything that 

meets those criteria has to be certified. Now that had no restrictions based on who owned the system or service. 

16

However, the change that the Agency made seems specifically 

targeted, at least in part, to allow the approach the Agency has 

chosen to take with ADS-B. I think it would be hard to argue that 

ADS-B won’t meet that criteria. It may be a matter of time. The 

argument may be over when it meets the criteria, but it will. So 

I think that is at least part of what is driving the change in certification. 

I think also we need to keep in mind while the Agency talks 

about verifying or certifying the data, that is one step in certifying 

a system or service today. There are many other things that are 

checked. There are tests run on the systems themselves. There are 

system parameters checked. There are interfaces with other system. So it is not just the data that comes out the end that is 

checked to certify something today. 

Apparently, the approach that is going to be taken here is the 

Agency will verify just the data and based on that, without having 

any knowledge of what is going on with the system itself, they will 

certify the service. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. 

It is fascinating. I wonder if maybe you, Mr. Capezzuto or one 

of the other panel members could discuss this from the point of 

view not of the FAA or the contractors but from the point of view 

of the pilots or the airline companies, the users. How is this? 

They have to make expenditures and buy some equipment or 

rent it. At what stage is it going to make sense for them to do it 

if there is a dual system out there and we are phasing this in? How 

is this really going to work? Could you discuss that? Is there a 

plan? 

I am thinking in the back of my mind we are going to digital TV, 

and everyone is saying out there that they are going to send coupons eventually to people to equip it. Maybe it is different than 

that. 

Maybe the pilots and the industry is already way ahead of the 

Government, and they have the stuff in their boxes already. Could 

you discuss how the two things are going to work together? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Let me start by saying that ADS-B has been in 

the Agency’s research and development area for probably nine 

years. The cargo airline industry, a series of other airlines, pioneer 

airlines have basically participated in the development and testing 

and demonstration of this technology over those nine years. 

We have essentially accelerated this or moved to the next phase 

with implementation based on those successes both up in Alaska 

and right here in the Ohio River Valley. So there were a lot of demonstrations that proved where the technology was. 

We are essentially right now working on what is called an Air 

Traffic Management Advisory Council. We have an ADS-B Working 

Group that will have access to the aviation industry as the customer of the NAS where they understand the development of the 

strategy of this program, where we discuss some of the issues, such 

as the backup analysis which was done in concert with aviation industry, so they understood what we were delivering and what the 

decision meant. 

17

In fact, they also participated in the development of the business 

case that we put forward to go through the investment analysis 

that concluded in awarding this contract. So I would say that the 

industry has been involved. 

I think what we recently chartered this summer was an Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee as part of doing the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Again, many of the same members from the ATMAC 

ADS-B Working Group were involved, but now it has expanded 

even further. In that group, we were chartered with our first deliverable, which was a report to talk about how you can early 

incentivize the operators such that they wouldn’t wait until 2018 

or 2019 to comply to the 2020 rule. 

In that report, which is now out on the web, it represented the 

aviation industry’s desire to see incentives, either in the form of 

manufacturers being provided incentives or tax rebates where they 

could lower the cost of ADS-B. Likely that would increase equipage 

at an earlier rate and at a higher magnitude and then we would 

also look at incentives for the airlines in such a way that they 

would also be incentivized to acquire ADS-B at an earlier state. 

Just one other thing to point out is we are working also with our 

international partners. In Canada, they deploying ADS-B in the 

Hudson Bay. In Australia, they are using ADS-B right now to separate air traffic in the en route or high altitude. Europe currently 

has a program under SESAR. CASCADE is the name of the program, in which they are looking to develop pioneer programs and 

move forward with this. 

We are working in concert with the rest of the world so that we 

globally can implement this properly. 

Mr. PETRI. With the international carriers, there will be continuity. So when they fly from one airspace to another, it will be 

compatible or the same system? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Yes, sir. We have been working closely with 

them to ensure that we have total global interoperability. 

Mr. PETRI. Do you have an idea of what kind of investment we 

are talking for different categories of plane users? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Yes, sir. If you are talking about the total cost, as you are calling it, for the user it is approximately $6.9 billion, 

and that captures the 210,000 aircraft. Most of the 200,000 are 

general aviation, and you are looking at about 10,000 in the air 

transport category. 

Mr. PETRI. A person who is buying a Piper, well, probably not a 

Piper. They wouldn’t participate in this necessarily. They would 

use a smaller system. 

If you are buying one of these corporate jets, how much would 

that cost? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. The price varies as a function of if you are buying a brand new corporate jet and it already has a multi-function 

type display, already has GPS on board. So you can see prices for 

the general aviation community. It ranges from $10,000 to $15,000. 

When you are looking at the air transport, it is upwards of $40,000, 

$50,000, and it can go upwards of $160,000. 

It depends on the vintage of the aircraft. As you know, if you are 

doing retrofits versus it coming off the assembly line as a forward 

fit, then you really get a huge reduction in the cost. The prices I 

18

was giving you were the capture, acquire, acquisition costs and 

then implementation of it into your aircraft. 

Mr. PETRI. The new planes are already having it or it is on the 

drawing board? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Well, by putting out the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, what we have done is sent a strong signal of what the 

standards are for the development of ADS-B Out is. 

What has been going on are some of the manufacturers have 

been going on risk and building it into the system. So, today, there 

are aircraft with ADS-B in it. Europe, as well, has enforced this 

through some of their rules. What is happening is people are deploying with a version of the standard. 

What we just did by putting out the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is we clarified what version of the standard we are interested in at the FAA. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. You are welcome, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have the same concerns as Mr. Petri has. Most of us that own 

small planes outfit them with a 430 Garmin. Is that going to be 

usable in this case? Would it be part of the system or are we going 

have to scrap that and toss it out and put something else into our 

airplanes, Mr. Capezzuto? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. I understand your concern, sir. 

I mean what we are looking at right now is that the aviation 

manufacturers are looking to combine the avionics so that if you 

have a current mode A/C type transponder, what you can do is remove that and replace it with a unit that does the same function 

as well as ADS-B. So right now, Garmin does produce a system 

that is available, and it is ADS-B capable. Also, that is what they 

are using up in Alaska right now, and it is very successful. 

Mr. SALAZAR. If someone isn’t equipped with this equipment, he 

won’t be allowed to fly into certain airspace, is that correct? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Correct. The rule is an airspace rule. If we move 

forward with this, it would go into effect in 2010. You would have 

to comply by 2020. So, essentially, you are operating up until 2020 

without it or you choose to equip early. 

You mentioned that we would deploying ADS-B ground infrastructure by 2013. As part of that infrastructure, we would be providing an uplink capability, which essentially will allow weather to 

be viewed in the cockpit, and so we are looking at that as one of 

the ways to incentivize the general aviation community, such that 

they can acquire weather in the cockpit if they would buy the ADSB equipment. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. 

I have a question that Dr. Kagen wanted to ask. I hope I can 

read his writing here: Privatization of essential safety-oriented programs does not allow for our Government to walk away from its responsibilities. How will the FAA control a private corporation without owning it? 

Mr. Scovel, would you like to respond to that? 

19

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, sir, let me give it a try. As I understand the 

question, how will FAA control a private organization, a private 

company? 

Through the contract mechanism, and our review indicates to 

date that FAA has negotiated a robust contract. Through controls 

in that contract, FAA will attempt to control the performance and 

cost and schedule metrics. It has indicated that it will require ITT 

to use the earned value management system, which is a process developed by DOD to keep contracts on schedule and on budget. 

Perhaps, most important, FAA indicates that it, along with ITT, 

will comprise a performance control board which will monitor 

progress and evaluate effectiveness of execution of the contract as 

it goes along. 

If I can borrow Mr. Hayes’ term for myself, as the paid skeptic, 

we think at this point that all of those are to be commended, and 

we want to give due credit to FAA for inserting in the contract at 

this point those controls. If we have skepticism, it is due to the 

need to see proper execution and management of that contract as 

we go forward. 

We stand right now really at the starting line. Much needs to be 

done very quickly, even in the next few months. So we will have 

a track record built very soon and, at that point, we and you should 

be able to reach a plenary opinion, at least, as to FAA’s success on 

contract execution. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope you took my comment as a compliment, Mr. Scovel, because we need some skeptics around here when Government is at 

their work. 

Several questions here, Vinny, you can do a seven-minute statement in five minutes. When you and I first met, I had to get you 

to talk southern and slow you down. 

I did the math. Just so people understand, in my basic math, you could equip every one of those airplanes today for $1,260,000. Now 

that is oversimplification, but the point is the technology, given the 

competition and the desire of the part of the aviation community 

to use it because it is a tool that makes them safer and saves them 

fuel and all kinds of things, is the key for Mr. Salazar and my 

friend, Leonard, and others to getting this thing done. 

We have to reverse the role of Government. You have kind of 

done it by the way you have done this very innovative contract. 

Mr. Kefaliotis, we are really depending on you to demonstrate 

how well private industry can mesh with Government. As we have 

done with the RCI program for military housing, it can be done and 

should be done. 

Having said all that, we are going to reverse it now. It is not the 

Government mandating you do something. The Government has 

come up with a way to do something that is so much better, people 

need to be lining up to get it like they did for iPhone at 4:00 in 

the morning. 

20

We have gone from NDBs and ADFs—which are just way needle 

ball, and air speed—to something that is incredibly easy to use, incredibly accurate. 

Mr. Brantley has very good foresight into what we are dong here, 

and we are certainly not ignoring him. I would ask FAA, as in the 

past with the very important relationship there, to make sure that 

everybody understands what is going on. 

Let me get over here to a question before my time runs out. 

When we first started talking about this, my greatest criticism of 

the FAA is they came in selling the price, not the product. I finally 

figured out what the product was. I have been to Alaska twice, 

flown with it. 

I have been to China. A couple of guys, a Navy pilot and two 

former FAA employees, are building the system, selling it, installing it and maintaining it in China out of their hangar which is 

about like a garage. 

So the simplicity and the effectiveness is there. It is proven. It 

is not something that just appeared today. Those are the things 

that give me reason to be encouraged, enthusiastic and optimistic 

if we can look into the future. 

Vinny, you talked about the mode C transponders. Can you update folks on where we are now? 

When we first started, you had to have a box up in the plane, 

but six months ago that was the box. Now the box is integrated 

into a transponder. What do you see as the potential for the industry to bring in new technologies, smaller, lighter, less expensive? 

Give us a peek into that. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. I think this is exciting for the manufacturing industry, and they have been waiting for us to send that signal that 

we are moving forward with this. The contract award and the 

NPRM are certainly two strong signals to them. In fact, I just 

briefed the GA Manufacturers Association last week. In there, we 

are basically opening up the doors and allowing them to see what 

this contract is about. 

I will tell you there was a proposal. As part of the proposal process, ITT offered to spend corporate dollars, not out of our contract, 

but they will provide us insight and they will, at the Performance 

Control Board, provide us with status on how they are doing with 

this. What they have done is partnered through their Memorandum of Agreement with avionics manufacturers. 

Essentially, they realize that the worth of this contract is tied to 

avionics and people equipping early, and so to do that they are investing their own dollars in the development of a joint avionics 

package that basically combines ADS-B with the current mode A/

C transponders. Therefore, it now allows these new radios to replace your old radios, be interoperable with TCAS, the Traffic Collision Avoidance System, and be interoperable with our radar as we 

go through the transition point. 

I think those are innovations that we will see other avionics 

manufacturers jump on. 

Mr. HAYES. Absolutely. Let me cut you off just a minute before 

my time runs out and bring Mr. Kefaliotis in. 

Speak to Mr. Brantley’s concerns and Mr. Scovel’s and also to the 

issue of what is in this for private industry in terms of the incenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38514 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
21

tives for being really successful and the new equipment and processes that can be developed out of this. 

Mr. KEFALIOTIS. Congressman Hayes, on our side, we are installing a highly robust redundant architecture, a highly reliable system. The Government has as, I think, another innovation, specified 

technical performance measures against which the Government 

will judge the quality of the service we provide. 

We, IIT, have instrumented our system such that those technical 

performance measures will be constantly monitored. We will provide data to the Government, to the FAA through an interface, so 

the FAA can also constantly monitor our performance parameters. 

We have proposed, and the Government has accepted, an aggressive financial incentives penalties clause in the operational phase 

such that if we deliver services that do not meet the technical performance standards defined in the contract, we suffer pretty significant financial penalties. 

So, in terms of what the contract has done and what we plan on 

deploying, we are deploying a highly robust, scalable, safe and secure architecture that will meet the Government’s needs. 

In regard to certification, the FAA has specified, and again we 

are independently instrumenting our system and will constantly 

monitor the technical performance of our system. The Government 

has required us to independently deliver to a certification server in 

FAA premises, data relevant to the performance of our system with 

which the Government can independently evaluate and monitor our 

performance and certified data. So we feel very good about what we 

are doing, and we think the Government has done a very good job 

of ensuring that they can monitor us. 

We believe significantly in ADS-B technology. We believe it will 

deliver a significant benefit to the flying public and promises a potential for eventually dramatically enhancing the capabilities of the 

national airspace system. Thank you. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I ran over. Maybe 

we will get another crack at it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 

Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kefaliotis, under the contract that ITT has with the FAA, is 

there anticipation of any use of the GPS system, of the current system, or you are anticipating changes made to the GPS system that 

will increase the capacity of the GPS system? 

Right now, in the Armed Services Committee, we are struggling 

with do we go to 3F or stick with what we have. I am wondering 

what is your assumption about the capacity that that ADS-B will 

use of the GPS system and what is your assumption of the future 

of the GPS system and increased capacity within it. 

Mr. KEFALIOTIS. Our design for the ground infrastructure takes 

advantage of airborne GPS receivers and the data linking of position data from aircraft to our ground system. So, in that sense, just 

as an adjunct, the navigation system onboard doesn’t have to be 

GPS. It just has to be a navigation system that meets the performance requirements. 

22

But that said, GPS is the system that will meet performance requirements, and a robust GPS network is essential to the successful operation of this system. 

Mr. LARSEN. I would agree with that statement. My question is 

the assumption that the contract makes about the available capacity as we roll out ADS-B in the use of GPS. 

Mr. KEFALIOTIS. Congressman, I apologize. I am not sure I understand the question. In terms of the number of satellites and the 

constellation and the robustness of the GPS constellation? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. KEFALIOTIS. Our contract assumes the baseline GPS constellation. The rulemaking requires navigational accuracy for a position parameter that is quite stringent, and a robust constellation 

will dramatically aid in achieving that parameter. 

Mr. LARSEN. Okay. Well, it is an important question because we 

are walking through this in the Armed Services Committee as well. 

Mr. Capezzuto, what incentives do either GA pilots or transport 

airlines have to install the avionics between 2013 and 2020 or between now and 2020 other than that they damn well better? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Okay, so, again working closely with the aviation community is a recognition that we believe there will be some 

benefits essential to the operations of the NAS, which translates 

into their operational capabilities. When we did the business case 

for this, it identifies pretty deep benefit pools in certain areas, and 

some of them are really ADS-B Out only, which I can say is in the 

economic analysis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Essentially, the translation of air traffic control efficiency is a 

function of having more accurate information, higher update information, which translates into less deviations, which again is fuel 

savings. That is a pretty big thing, but it also translates into emissions as well. When you look at the concept of emissions, noise and 

fuel savings, we make a pretty good, robust case for just ADS-B 

Out. 

Certainly, in the en route environment, high altitude airspace 

and some in the terminal environment, and in the non-radar airspace is really where we get to see some of those benefits earlier, 

such as the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and Colorado. Those are primary areas where we could exploit this earlier on. 

Fundamentally, putting this building block in place allows us to 

have a stable baseline to build ADS-B In. That is the key to 

NextGen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. Is FAA then planning on proposing any specific set of incentives to enhance deployability of ADS-B In to get 

them all right here? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Yes, and the example I will use would be in 

Alaska. In our business case, we have outlined where you will have 

better access to certain airports. This is not just about ADS-B. We 

are also providing weather at the destination airport. 

In some cases in the Gulf of Mexico, we are putting in surveillance, communications and weather, so it is a full service provision 

to deliver to the Houston center. In that case, we are able to develop new routes. We are calling them performance routes. 

23

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. So what kind of discussions have you had 

with larger aircraft regarding the—sorry, I am getting distracted 

by that vote call. 

What specific conversations have you had with larger aircraft 

like the Boeings of the world about retrofitting as well as discussions about putting them in on the front end? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. We have had some very robust discussions with 

Boeing and Airbus. We have been involved with the manufacturers 

of the actual equipment like Rockwell Collins. 

Mr. LARSEN. Can you give us a flavor of the content of those discussions? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Sure. They are members of this ATMAC, Air 

Traffic Management Advisory Council, ADS-B Work Group. We, essentially, have been developing the strategy for execution for the 

last 16 months. In those discussions is the challenge of what is out 

there today and can you use what is out there today. 

As I indicated earlier, people have been deploying ADS-B to a 

lesser standard. The question is, in the time frame over the next 

10 years, are there things we can do with that to keep continue 

leveraging of the ADS-B, traction, if you want to call it that, but, 

essentially, also we were able to acquire those costs and embed 

them into the economic analysis both for the business case and the 

NPRM. 

We have worked closely with the industry to make sure that we 

have certainty around the numbers that you see, and so therefore 

you are looking at what I would say is a very strong business case 

in the sense that we believe the data that is in there. 

The return on investment time frame is a little scary when you 

look at it, but this is a building block. It is an infrastructure improvement, and those have long returns on investment. Essentially, 

we are not taking credit for all the future capabilities that are out 

there either, and that is really the place that we want to explore. 

Mr. LARSEN. I would enjoy exploring that with Mr. Scovel when 

I have another five minutes. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will announce that we have two votes on the floor. We 

have about 13 minutes left. 

At this time, I will recognize Mr. Duncan from Tennessee. After 

his questioning is over, then we will recess, go to the floor, vote and 

be back in approximately 30 minutes. So we would ask the witnesses to stay, if you would, and we have at least one other round 

of questions. 

Mr. Duncan is recognized. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe I 

am going to have enough time to really get into this, so maybe I 

can come back and do this, but I will start with this. 

Mr. Capezzuto, I don’t think there is anybody in the Congress, 

even the pilots, who have the details or maybe even the capability 

to really do the rigorous analysis of this deal that we have to hope 

that your team has done. So we have to rely on you. 

But, in the hopes that maybe I can understand it a little bit better, it says in one of our papers on this: The total value of the contract, which has a number of options extending through 2025, is 

24

$1.86 billion. Segment one is a $207 million cost plus incentive fee 

contract. 

Can you tell me, $207 million, is that the maximum cost of Segment one or will the incentives add a lot of money to that? I am 

not really clear from that sentence. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. That 207 represents a target fee of 8 percent 

that is included in that number. I just want to point out this is a 

cost plus incentive fee with a cost-share clause as well. So, if they 

overrun, not only does the fee go down, it can go as low as 4 percent, but they will also start paying for the cost overrun as well. 

Mr. DUNCAN. In your team’s analysis of this, how much markup 

or how much profit do you think is in there for this? 

I have never seen a team quite this elaborate, involving this 

many big companies and so forth, anyway. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. That fee translates to $15 million out of $207 

million. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Fifteen million. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is that pretty consistent through the remaining 

$1.86 billion, would you say? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. No. We broke this up into like a hybrid set of 

contracts. What you have for the first one is a cost plus incentive 

fee with a cost-share because it is a development contract. So there 

is some risk there, and we want to make sure we design in the 

safety and security we mentioned earlier. We participate in that. 

All the other deliverables are firm fixed price, and they are prenegotiated, and they are in the contract now. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Then I am also curious. It says the total value of 

the contract is $1.86 billion, yet we are talking about a contract 

that extends to 2025. 

Now in the STARS program and some of these programs in the 

past, we have had huge cost overruns. How did you analyze it because we don’t really know where we are going to be in 2020, financially? 

I mean we don’t know what inflation is going to happen or going 

to have occurred in all that time. What has gone into that? How 

did you arrive at that $1.86 billion? 

Maybe I just better come back for this. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We have a little over nine minutes left, so if you 

want to take that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay, well, go ahead. You see what I am getting 

at, I think. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. I do. Essentially, what we do is we negotiate 

with the vendor, and we look at their outlay versus what we had 

done in our independent Government cost estimate. We negotiate 

those prices. 

We set up option break points. So the subscription charges they 

would be applying to us are on an annual basis. Essentially, what 

we do is we would be paying them on an annual basis once we 

prove the design works. 

Just to point out, the FAA would own the paper design of this 

system. At the end of the day, the configuration of that system is 

ours. We manage it. 

25

As we move forward, we essentially would be turning on service 

volume. We are buying this like you buy cable TV or a cell phone. 

You are turning on service volumes, and once you turn them on, 

you pay annual prices on it. 

What we do is we have break points. At 2016, is a decision point 

on whether or not we continue paying those subscriptions for all 

the service volumes because they should all be turned on, and then 

another break point at 2021. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How confident are you that by the year 2025, we have spent no more than $1.86 billion on this contract? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Well, the reason we have a lot of confidence in 

this is we built in penalties as well. So it is a function of them delivering the service as we measure. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask one more quick question. We read all 

the time that in these defense contractors, they hire all the retired 

admirals and generals, and then, boy, they get just exorbitant, 

whopping profits in almost all these big defense contracts. 

Mr. Scovel, have you looked into how many former FAA employees or would you look into that sometime and see how many are 

working for these companies that are involved in these contracts? 

I think it would be something interesting for you to look at sometime. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

At this time, the Subcommittee will stand in recess for 30 minutes. We would ask the witnesses to be back at the table. 

We do have three votes now. It was two votes a minute ago. Now 

it is three. So it is about 30 minutes. 

The Subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

It looks like we have a few Members that are coming back. We 

will start on a second round of questions. 

Vinny, let me ask you why the rulemaking is at 2020 as opposed 

to 2019 or 2021. How did you arrive at the year 2020? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Essentially, we took a look at the amount of aircraft that would have to be retrofitted. If you look at the GA community with 200,000 aircraft, even with 10 years, that is 20,000 

aircraft a year that would have to be retrofitted. So that is a fairly 

aggressive schedule actually. That was pretty much one of the drivers. 

The other component was we wanted to work with industry and 

demonstrate that we were going to make this investment and not 

pull away. This has been brought to our attention as something 

that they were concerned with. So we did the best we could to lay 

out an aggressive schedule to put that ground infrastructure in 

place, and the best we came up with was 2013. 

Technically, you would equip. You would want to see that ground 

infrastructure in place as well, so the capabilities are there starting 

in 2010. We will be putting in the ground infrastructure—this is 

the uplink capability—but by 2013, it will be completed. So, really, 

you are looking at seven years of using the service nationwide. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I am going to ask you a couple of questions about 

how Mr. Scovel complimented the FAA for the contract and said it 

26

is a robust contract, and I want to talk a little bit about that in 

a second. 

Just for the record and so the Subcommittee Members know, in 

putting the contract together as far as ITT’s responsibilities and 

what needs to be accomplished and time lines and targets, who else 

was consulted in the process? 

PASS is represented here, Mr. Brantley at the table. He has 

11,000 members that he represented. The air traffic controllers are 

an integral part of operating this system once it is up and running. 

I wonder if you would tell how much input the agencies and stakeholders here were involved? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Sure. As I mentioned earlier, when we set up 

the program office for implementation which was approximately 

January 2006, one of the first things we did was develop a governance structure. 

In that governance structure, we have stakeholders which essentially are internal to the FAA both on the regulatory side and the 

Air Traffic Organization. So you have people from airports involved. We have our safety oversight organization, the people that 

put together the economic analysis, our policy people for the NPRM 

and, on the ATO side, essentially, all the vice presidents for the Air 

Traffic Organization. Once a month, we meet. We, essentially, 

bring the program issues to the table and we discuss things and 

consolidate on an answer. 

The other piece of that governance structure is also the ATMAC 

which started in February 2006. The Air Traffic Management Advisory Council, essentially the steering group, established us as a 

work group and then that is where we meet once a month over at 

RTCA. 

Typically, what we are doing is we develop the strategy. Those 

strategies are basically the interdependencies of the program, and 

the things that were in the contract basically are peeled out from 

that. 

Additionally, what we did is by June 2006, we had gone for our 

first investment analysis, which really was a strong signal that we 

were funded to move forward with ADS-B. Starting at that point 

in June, 2006, we had our first industry day, and we had three of 

those industry days where we worked with the manufacturers, the 

people that came to the industry days and solicited information. 

We presented and had dialogue and all this kind of merged together to create the product as you see in the contract. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Brantley, we would like to hear from you as 

well. Were either you, personally, or your organization or your 

members consulted? 

Mr. BRANTLEY. No, Mr. Chairman, we weren’t. With respect to 

modernization efforts, we would very much like to be involved. I 

think our members have a lot to offer the Agency, but beginning 

about four years ago the Agency informed us that our participation 

was no longer welcome or needed and we have not been involved 

since. Prior to that, we were involved in the ADS-B program. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But somewhere around three or four years ago, 

you were told that you were no longer welcome. 

Mr. BRANTLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I wonder if you would respond to that. 

27

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Sure, I would like to actually. Prior to the implementation phase, moving forward, so September 2005, was a key 

decision point for the FAA to select ADS-B as the technology and 

move forward. Prior to that was the test and demonstration work 

that occurred up in Alaska. In fact, what we developed there is certified by PASS. 

Our employees were involved with the development of certification process and procedures for those particular elements that 

validated the requirements. That is what basically gave the confidence in moving forward in selecting ADS-B over radar and over 

multilateration at that point in time. Those were the three alternatives. 

At the conclusion of that investment decision, we moved forward, 

and basically they moved into implementation and set up a program office. So we have been in, I would say, a planning state since 

January 2006, up until this point. We have gone through three additional joint resource councils, which are investment decisions, 

that acquired the funding for the full program to award the contract. 

So, all the requirements that we are talking about were validated in the test and demonstration phase with the use of the employees of the FAA. 

Mr. COSTELLO. It is troubling to me, personally, and I think to 

other Members of this Committee. We have held hearings on the 

flight service station contract with Lockheed Martin. We have held 

hearings on the issue of safety in the workplace and air traffic control towers and other FAA facilities. 

It has been apparent in the past that when the Administration 

is making decisions that they are not consulting with all of the 

stakeholders, and I think that was noted by both the GAO and I 

think maybe even Mr. Scovel’s predecessor and maybe even Mr. 

Scovel. I don’t want to speak for you. 

There is a disconnect, and I just had that discussion with a few 

Members of this Subcommittee earlier today. You are not the person that can correct that problem, but certainly we need to take 

that up with the Acting Administrator. It is troubling, and it is not 

in the best interest of what we want as the final product in improving, in this case, the air traffic control system. 

Let me ask Mr. Scovel a final question. In your testimony, you 

indicate that ITT will have a monopoly over providing ADS-B services for the next 18 years. I wonder if you might talk a little bit 

about your concerns regarding competition and consumer issues as 

a result of one contractor that will be in charge and have, I think 

in your words, a monopoly over the ADS-B services for the next 18 

years. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, ITT will have virtually a monopoly over the service, the information that is generated through 

the ADS-B system. 

FAA owns the data, but through the contract, FAA has consented 

to ITT being able to market, to package, to sell that data to users 

who might be interested. They might include air carriers. Our information is that UPS indicated they would certainly be interested, 

airports as well. Then they would find a multitude of uses, and we 

know that ITT is certainly looking on that prospect favorably. 

28

As a policy decision, the FAA and the Administration are certainly free to enter into a contract with these terms. We do have 

concerns about the nature of the data that is being transmitted, 

that is being permitted to be used in this fashion, perhaps marketing concerns as well with competition factors. We would urge 

FAA to examine and carefully regulate, if appropriate, this use of 

data generated by the contract as it goes forward. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. 

I am not sure if more than one member of the panel may want 

to address this subject, but we are all pretty familiar with the 

radar-based system and all of the NORAD and all the different 

things that we have in place to try to provide security in our airspace. How will this new system work? Is there a separate system. 

Has this been scrutinized? Are there ways this will enhance our 

security or help us to deal with unauthorized entrance into our airspace more effectively and this kind of thing? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. As part of the governance structure I mentioned 

earlier, DoD participates at the stakeholders’ meeting that we discussed, and our involvement with them is looking at ways that we 

could exploit the technology. 

Specific applications that have been coming up are right here in 

the ADIZ, the Air Defense Identification Zone, where if you are 

ADS-B equipped, it is obvious who you are. You have your identification, and therefore you can exploit that as knowing they are 

friendly as opposed to worrying if they are foe, the same thing in 

their special use airspace or the military operations area. So there 

are ways of exploiting the capability of identification coming off the 

aircraft now and being able to take advantage of it. 

Mr. PETRI. Staff tells me they are worrying about people pretending to be someone else or spoofing, I guess. I guess we don’t 

want to go into what you do, but do you have ways of dealing with 

spoofers? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Correct. In the specification, it is called out that 

you have to have a means for independent validation of the actual 

aircraft that we are surveilling. So that means they have to have 

another method that is independent of using ADS-B. 

The concern with spoofing deals with the power level of the signal that comes down from the satellite, which is very low, and you 

can perturb it and you can make it to look like something else. So 

it is vulnerable from that angle. 

What we have requested in the specification is that we have 

independent validation of those targets. To point out, they can do 

that with their own means, the contractor can, but we also have 

our radars in place. When you combine all that information, you 

are able to validate that that target truly is who they are. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. I will pass. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized, and 

we will just give him his time and not yours, Mr. Hayes. How is 

that? 

Mr. Ehlers is recognized? 

29

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I apologize for the late arrival, but I was at another Committee meeting where I am the 

Ranking Member, and I had to be there. Fortunately, they gave up 

when votes came, so I dashed over here. 

Mr. Hayes, I understand has already played his usual role as a 

staunch defender of general aviation, but there is one specific question I wanted to ask to see if you have any guidance on. 

There are a great many older general aviation planes around, 

Cessnas 152, 172, 182, some older and some more recent. I think 

ADS-B is a great thing and, as a student pilot, I would love to have 

it because it is very hard today to operate the aircraft and be 

aware of all the airplanes around you. 

But I am concerned about the cost. If you have a airplane that 

is worth only twenty to forty thousand dollars, you think twice 

about adding to much to it. Plus, many of these planes are owned 

by individuals who don’t have high incomes. If they had higher incomes, they would buy better airplanes. Can you give me a ballpark figure of what the cost is going to be for someone trying to 

put an ADS-B unit in an older airplane like that? 

I know that it will be easy to make the transition, but I still 

worry about the cost. Can you give me any figures on that? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. I understand your concerns on that. In fact, 

Alaska probably provides us with the best image of what that was 

because there were over 400 aircraft that got retrofitted, and some 

of these were the type that it wasn’t just about putting in a new 

piece of equipment. You had to make major modifications to the 

panel, wiring, antennas. So all that provided us with rich information to get a good feel for it. 

You hear us using numbers that are like 10K to 18K, and when 

we say the 18K, you are really pushing that. That is the ones that 

were more invasive to the actual aircraft. 

Also, I would suggest that as we start this off, the early adopters 

are going to end up probably paying a little bit more, but over time 

I think the market forces will lower those prices. We are speculating somewhere on the order of 30 percent reduction. 

Mr. EHLERS. Are you saying that about 10K would put the basic 

unit in the average plane? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. For the general aviation type aircraft. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, right. Okay, so the 30 percent off that would 

get it down to roughly $7,000. Okay. Thank you very much. That 

is helpful. 

I will be happy to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ehlers. 

Vinny, you are working for the Government. We don’t want any 

more $600 hammers now. 

Six thousand dollars you can get the box six months ago. It has 

gone down since then. We don’t want to mislead people. 

Vinny, what I want you to talk about is the level of equipage. 

You can equip so that you can transmit. You don’t have to have an 

extensive multifunction display to receive. There is a lot of angst 

among the aviation community because of what the FAA has done 

to them in the past. We better not do it to them again here. 

30

So talk about the levels of equipage, if you are going to be a 

transmitting ADS-B guy, transmit and receive and on up, if you 

would talk about that a little bit. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. You have heard the terms earlier called ADS-B 

Out and ADS-B In. ADS-B Out is you can just have the pure function of transmitting your information. The new services that can be 

provided are basically expanding our service volume. 

So today radars have floors, and they don’t see below the floors. 

In places like Alaska, we learned that you can’t see below the 

radar. You are basically doing procedural separation. 

With ADS-B and the way we deploy the infrastructure, ADS-B 

Out can now feed the air traffic controllers where they can provide 

air traffic control separation services. So that is an example of just 

utilizing ADS-B Out. 

Other examples of applications for ADS-B Out would be search 

and rescue. There is definitely improvement in that case. In 

Embry-Riddle, they could use it just strictly for collecting the data 

on the ground and then replaying it for looking at how their student pilots are doing and use it for training purposes. 

Now you bring it to the next level, ADS-B In is, if I am transmitting out information, that is an enabler for other aircraft to receive 

it and display it. That is where you get that increased situational 

awareness. So not only can you see traffic, but now we have the 

opportunity to upload weather to the cockpit, and so you are talking about the ADS-B components essentially providing more information into the cockpit to increase the situational awareness, 

which translates into safety. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I carry on? 

Vinny, you are talking over our heads again. What I am looking for is a handheld unit for $1,295, out and in. It is certainly possible. 

This is a BlackBerry, sitting out there on the ground at National 

Airport, looking at the weather over at Montebello, knowing exactly 

what is going on despite what the guy in the front is telling us. 

This kind of technology, given competition, is absolutely in my 

opinion, if handled properly, again because people want it and because Mr. Kefaliotis and other manufacturers have a 220,000 customers base that they want to sell to. That is what I am anticipating that we want to do. Again, the various ways that we can 

incentivize folks to equip, AOPA was talking during our break period about ways that we can use the system more effectively. 

My question for you and Mr. Kefaliotis is under the contract, it 

doesn’t speak directly to the fact that if you want another unit in 

Grand Rapids, a ground station, and they don’t have one, what 

would be the process and does the contract allow for that increased 

coverage using the same ADS and AWARS and all that routine? 

Hey, we need it. FAA, can you help us? How would you deal with 

that under the contract? 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. The contract was set up in a very flexible manner. Two things that occurred this year: 

In some of the reauthorization language, there was discussion 

about using airport improvement funds for airports to acquire the 

ground infrastructure. What that does is provide the expansion of 

our ground infrastructure beyond our baseline. It also would acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Feb 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38514 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
31

commodate possibilities of acquiring the radios that you would use 

in vehicles such as your fire trucks and safety vehicles. 

Then the contract has in it what we call generic service volumes. 

So we would be able to use funds from other sources to essentially 

purchase this capability, and then we have multiple ways of taking 

airport improvement funds and funneling it through this contract 

vehicle so that you can open new service volumes. 

Mr. HAYES. So 220,000 customers just went almost into infinity. 

I mean basically in terms of users. Of course, for a ground vehicle, 

you wouldn’t have the same requirements as a multifunction display. 

I was giving Mr. Petri a hard time about high definition TV. I 

don’t have one of those. I don’t know how to work it. 

I do know you don’t need a multifunction display in your pickup 

truck that is on the airport, but if you want it, you could put it 

there. So folks that are sport pilots and things like that, they 

should be able to transmit for a very inexpensive figure. Everybody 

agree with that? 

Again, Mr. Brantley, we have not forgotten you. The Chairman 

was absolutely correct. We got to have everybody onboard if the 

general public, and that is who is involved here, is going to benefit 

to the maximum amount. 

I don’t know whether the clock is going up or down. I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

Just a final question for Mr. Scovel and I guess too, Mr. 

Capezzuto, maybe you can comment as well. 

Mr. Scovel, in your written testimony, you have a chart in here, 

Table 1 ADS-B Key Milestones. Of course, you have project completion date of October, 2007 for the NPRM issued and second is February of 2008, critical design review for the ground system. Then 

August of 2008, the key site initial operating capacity of broadcast 

service at Fort Myers. 

From your standpoint, when is the next major project or the next 

major step in the completion of ADS-B that the FAA needs to be 

watching carefully and this Subcommittee needs to be watching 

carefully to see if, in fact, the contractor is performing as the contract calls for. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, I would pick the very first item that 

you mentioned off the list that appears in the chart in our written 

testimony. The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued a short 

while ago. The comments to that rule are due from industry in 

early January. Those comments should give us a pretty good indication of how industry views the long term prospects for this program. 

We know and FAA itself has identified for us, in its view, its primary risk being user acceptance and aircraft equipage. If those 

comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking come 

back and really hit that point hard and pound it home, then we 

will know that FAA has an uphill job in properly executing the contract. 

We are confident that industry recognizes the potential, but it is 

rather the timetable, the mandate and the articulation of the user 

benefits, long term, which really will result from ADS-B In. We 

32

should see some of those indications in their comments to the proposed rule. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In the legislation that we passed out of the 

House, H.R. 2881, in that legislation, we asked the IG’s Office to 

submit an annual report to the Congress concerning ADS-B. I am 

wondering when is the next scheduled report that you are to submit to the Congress on ADS-B? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I will need to check with my staff, sir, and get back 

with you on that. I don’t have it readily available. We are certainly 

prepared and look forward to meeting the Committee’s requests. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you. 

Mr. Hayes, if you have further questions, I would be happy to 

allow you more time. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it would be very instructive for those of us who remain 

for this video to be shown. It graphically demonstrates the space 

and the time savings involved in ADS-B, so if you wouldn’t mind. 

The other thing is when I was in Alaska the last time, is it Dan 

Hill in Alaska, Vinny, that is supervisor at Anchorage, or Jim Hill? 

Jim Hill, he took me through and met with the controllers and 

supervisors and the FAA. It was fascinating because the test area 

initially is in Bethel, Alaska. If you will put up a map of Alaska 

in your mind, it is a huge area in the Yukon and Kuskokwim delta 

area, a tremendous amount of fishing, a lot of airplanes, fish spotting. 

One of the controllers’ brother works there in an airplane. So the 

combination of the controller seeing it from the inside and the 

brother with the airplane and the difference in time with the airplane that is equipped in being able to land under low visibility 

conditions was dramatic. These are real world examples. 

Again, where we are in uncontrolled airspace like Mr. Salazar 

was talking about in Colorado, it gives you a shot in the arm, not 

a NASCAR shot, just a shot in the arm. I think this would be very 

helpful. 

Could you run that for us, Vinny, and tell us what you are showing us? 

[Referenced video played.] 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Okay, what you are looking at is basically the 

airspace that is considered oceanic. As you look at that light 

shaded, blue area, that is about 100,000 square miles of what we 

call oceanic airspace. 

And so, as you see aircraft leaving either out of Mexico, what you 

are seeing is that is radar coverage up to the light blue area. Once 

they go into that light blue area, what we do is we sanitize the airspace around the aircraft because we really don’t have any surveillance capability. 

That is about 120 miles behind an aircraft and then 50 miles on 

either side of it. So that is a fairly large volume of airspace that 

is considered sanitized. From a safety perspective, that is great, 

but we could make better use of that airspace. 

As they approach on the United States coast, you will also notice 

that we pick them up in radar coverage. This gives you an example 

of the capacity constrained by our separation standards as a function of keeping safe separation between the aircraft. 

33

Then to point out, there is also a whole lot of low altitude activity going on, and it goes pretty far out as well because they are 

doing deep oil exploration. There are a lot of platforms on the base 

underneath this, and we would like to exploit those platforms and 

deploy our ADS-B infrastructure. Again, that is something we 

could not accomplish with radars. 

We have these nice, tight, small units that can be deployed on 

the oil platforms, providing services now that you can see that we 

can clearly put five mile separation. So you have increased capacity. You have reduced ground delays. You provide surveillance not 

only for the high altitude but you are also providing it for the low 

altitude. 

Now we can provide or extend our surveillance capabilities offshore, 200 miles out and provide the helicopter operators with surveillance. As I mentioned, this was kind of a win-win situation. We 

worked closely with the Helicopter Association International to get 

access to those platforms. In kind contributions from them are providing the transportation, the electricity, the telecommunications 

and the space, and that is probably some of the most highly priced 

real estate in the world plus getting access on those platforms. 

It worked out to be a pretty good deal where they gave us access. 

We were able to deploy our infrastructure or will be able to deploy 

our infrastructure. It will give us high altitude capability and low 

altitude capability. 

Mr. HAYES. You can do that in other places where you don’t have 

radar as well. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. That is correct. 

Mr. HAYES. Pacific, Atlantic, Colorado, Alaska. 

Mr. CAPEZZUTO. Absolutely. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. Mr. Ehlers, any other comment or 

question? 

Mr. EHLERS. As soon as they get down to 500 bucks, I will be 

first in line to buy one, but I first have to buy the airplane too. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank all of you for being here to testify and 

to answer our questions. This is an issue that we will be following 

very closely as I know the Inspector General and the FAA will. We, 

of course, all have the same goal in mind, and that is to get the 

system up and running, implement it and get the maximum use of 

it as early as we possibly can. 

The FAA, quite frankly, not only this Administration but previous administrations, they do not have the best track record in following through on contracts and monitoring them. We hope that 

will not be the case with ITT and with ADS-B. 

It will be the responsibility of the FAA to monitor it, to make 

sure that ITT is performing. It will be our responsibility in this 

Subcommittee to provide aggressive oversight to make certain that 

the contract is being followed and implemented as it is spelled out 

and to make certain that the FAA is providing the right oversight 

as well. 

With that, we thank the witnesses, and the Subcommittee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

34


38514.008
35


38514.009
36


38514.010
37


38514.011
38


38514.012
39


38514.013
40


38514.014
41


38514.015
42


38514.016
43


38514.017
44


38514.018
45


38514.019
46


38514.020
47


38514.021
48


38514.022
49


38514.023
50


38514.024
51


38514.025
52


38514.026
53


38514.027
54


38514.028
55


38514.029
56


38514.030
57


38514.031
58


38514.032
59


38514.033
60


38514.034
61


38514.035
62


38514.036
63


38514.037
64


38514.038
65


38514.039
66


38514.040
67


38514.041
68


38514.042
69


38514.043
70


38514.044
71


38514.045
72


38514.046
73


38514.047
74


38514.048
75


38514.049
76


38514.050
77


38514.051
78


38514.052
79


38514.053
80


38514.054
81


38514.055
82


38514.056
83


38514.057
84


38514.058
85


38514.059
86


38514.060
87


38514.061
88


38514.062
89


38514.063
90


38514.064
91


38514.065
92


38514.066
93


38514.067
94


38514.068
95


38514.069
96


38514.070
97


38514.071
98


38514.072
99


38514.073
100


38514.074
101


38514.075
102


38514.076
103


38514.077
104


38514.078
105


38514.079
106


38514.080
107


38514.081
108


38514.082
109


38514.083
110


38514.084
111


38514.085
112


38514.086
113


38514.087
114


38514.088
115


38514.089
116

Æ


38514.090