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

53–122 PDF 2009

NEXTGEN: A REVIEW OF THE 

RTCA MID-TERM IMPLEMENTATION 

TASK FORCE REPORT 

(111–73) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

October 28, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Bolen, Ed, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association ........... 32 

Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 6 

Gilligan, Margaret, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................................. 6 

Hennig, Jens C., Vice President of Operations, General Aviation Manufacturers Association ...................................................................................................... 32 

Jenny, Margaret T., President, RTCA, Inc. ........................................................... 6 

Krakowski, Hank, Chief Operating Office, Air Traffic Organization, Federal 

Aviation Administration ...................................................................................... 6 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association ......................... 32 

Planzer, Neil, Vice President-Strategy, Boeing Air Traffic Management, on 

behalf of the Aerospace Industry Association .................................................... 32 

Scovel, III, Honorable Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 6 

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

Corporation, Center for Advanced Aviation System Development .................. 6 

Wright, Dale, Director of Safety and Technology, National Air Traffic Controllers Association ..................................................................................................... 32 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 53 

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee ............................................................................ 54 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 55 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E, of Arizona ........................................................................ 65 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 66 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 72 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bolen, Ed .................................................................................................................. 77 

Dillingham, Dr. Gerald ........................................................................................... 90 

Gilligan, Margaret ................................................................................................... 145 

Hennig, Jens C. ........................................................................................................ 135 

Jenny, Margaret T. .................................................................................................. 137 

Krakowski, Hank ..................................................................................................... 145 

May, James C. .......................................................................................................... 175 

Planzer, Neil ............................................................................................................ 181 

Scovel, III, Honorable Calvin L. ............................................................................. 195 

Sinha, Dr. Agam N. ................................................................................................. 209 

Wright, Dale ............................................................................................................. 217 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Boccieri, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, letter from the Ohio Delegation ................................................................ 25 

Bolen, Ed, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association, responses to questions for the Record from Rep. Costello, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Illinois ................................................................. 87 

Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, responses to questions for the Record from 

Rep. Costello, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ........... 110 

Page

VI 

Hennig, Jens C., Vice President of Operations, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, responses to questions for the Record from Rep. Costello, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ................................... 133 

Krakowski, Hank, Chief Operating Office, Air Traffic Organization, Federal 

Aviation Administration: .....................................................................................

Responses to questions for the Record from Rep. Costello, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois .............................................. 156 

Responses to questions for the Record from Rep. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............................. 170 

May, James C., President and CEO, Air Transport Association, responses 

to questions for the Record from Rep. Costello, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ............................................................................ 178 

Planzer, Neil, Vice President-Strategy, Boeing Air Traffic Management, on 

behalf of the Aerospace Industry Association, responses to questions for 

the Record from Rep. Costello, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois ..................................................................................................... 190 

Wright, Dale, Director of Safety and Technology, National Air Traffic Controllers Association: ....................................................................................................

Excerpts from GAO Report (GAO-05-11) .................................................... 43 

Response to question from Rep. Costello, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Illinois ........................................................................... 223 

Response to question from Rep. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ............................................................ 226 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Lorraine Howerton, Vice President 

of Legislative Affairs, letter ................................................................................. 229 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 53122.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 53122.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 53122.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 53122.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 53122.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 53122.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 53122.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 53122.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 53122.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 53122.010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 53122.011
xviii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 53122.012
(1) 

HEARING ON NEXTGEN: A REVIEW OF THE 

RTCA MID-TERM IMPLEMENTATION TASK 

FORCE REPORT 

Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room 

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

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Costello, Petri, Oberstar, Boccieri, 

Boozman, Boswell, Coble, Ehlers, Griffith, Graves, Guthrie, Lipinski, LoBiondo, Norton, Richardson, Schauer, and Schmidt. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

It’s good to see my former Chairman, Chairman Roe here, who 

when I saw him sitting in the chair, I thought maybe there was 

a coup when I was gone. 

The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will ask that all 

Members, staff and everyone turn electronic devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony regarding 

NextGen and to review the RTCA Mid-Term Implementation Task 

Force report. The Chair will give an opening statement, and then 

call on Mr. Petri, the Ranking Member, to give his remarks or his 

opening statement, and then call on other Members for brief remarks, and then go to our first panel of witnesses. 

I welcome everyone to today’s hearing. This is the third hearing 

that we have held on NextGen, that Ranking Member Petri and I 

have held this year to focus on near-mid-term Next Generation implementation. 

Over the last two years, and as a result of many meetings, 

roundtable discussions, and hearings, it became very clear, I think, 

to Mr. Petri and I and others that, one, the stakeholders, users of 

NextGen were left out of both their input and the implementation 

or design of NextGen, and frankly the FAA had a very difficult 

time defining and describing what NextGen really looked like or 

what they intended to accomplish with NextGen. 

So it became clear to us that the FAA had to change course, and 

that they had to look both at short-term steps without losing sight 

of the long-term goals. And they have done exactly that. They have 

brought the stakeholders in, the users, and to listen to them and 

involve them in the process. And as a result of the persistence on 

2 

the part of many people, some in this room today and others, as 

well as the persistence and the aggressive oversight of this Subcommittee, that is exactly what has happened. The RTCA was created, and we are, of course, examining their mid-term report today. 

First, I want to commend Hank Krakowski and Peggy Gilligan 

for commissioning the RTCA. They did exactly the right thing, 

what all of the stakeholders and what we wanted them to do, the 

RTCA, a private not-for-profit corporation that develops consensusbased recommendations to create a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force. 

Over 335 individuals from 141 organizations, which included 

users from the operating community such as the airlines, business 

aviation, general aviation and the military, as well as participation 

from the controllers, airports, avionics, manufacturers and others 

played an integral role in identifying the challenges and offering 

solutions for a way forward. 

The RTCA was instructed to work with the industry and 

prioritize which NextGen capabilities should be deployed first, and 

where they should be deployed to achieve the greatest benefits. The 

final report was delivered to the FAA in September. 

By bringing together representatives from all segments of the 

aviation industry, specific recommendations and action items were 

developed and a consensus on NextGen operational improvements 

for the near-to mid-term was forged. I commend the hard work and 

cooperation of all of the participants. I believe the RTCA Task 

Force report is a positive step forward and represents a significant 

breakthrough for the NextGen effort. 

Now, it is up to the FAA to determine how to modify its existing 

plans and programs in response to the Task Force recommendations. In the past, the FAA has struggled to define NextGen and 

to clearly articulate what benefits government and industry should 

reasonably expect from the system. The RTCA Task Force report 

provides, and I would quote Administrator Babbitt, ‘‘clear, actionable and achievable recommendations that will help guide us forward.’’ 

Moreover, the RTCA Task Force report is distinguished by the 

support and, more importantly, the commitments that it has received from industry. Each of the Task Force’s recommendations 

has operator commitments to make the critical investments to 

achieve benefits. I believe that the industry consensus embodied in 

this report represents an enormous opportunity for the Obama Administration to undertake NextGen implementation. 

While technologies will clearly play a major role in achieving the 

RTCA Task Force recommended capabilities, industry stakeholders 

have also stressed the importance of reforming the FAA culture, 

business practices, organizational structure and processes needed 

for successful implementation. I intend for this Subcommittee to 

provide consistent and rigorous oversight of NextGen near-term implementation, including many of the issues raised in the RTCA’s 

report, while also staying focused on NextGen’s long-term goals. 

For example, several different offices within the FAA, including 

the Aircraft Certification Service, the Flight Standards Service, and 

the Air Traffic Control Organization have responsibilities that relate to NextGen. However, the Government Accountability Office 

3 

will testify today that some of the stakeholders have raised concerns that the FAA does not have adequate coordination across the 

agency to efficiently integrate NextGen-related infrastructure and 

processes. 

On this topic, the RTCA Task Force reports that the FAA must 

commit to delivering benefits by assigning appropriate responsibility, accountability and authority and funding within the agency. 

Chairman Oberstar and I both expressed concerns at our NextGen 

hearing last March about whether the FAA’s current organizational 

structure adequately supports NextGen. I am still unclear whether 

there is a single point of responsibility, authority and accountability for NextGen activities, with the stature to leverage the 

interagency coordination that the NextGen will require. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Krakowski and others concerning that 

issue today. 

In addition, there are specific recommendations in the Task 

Force that the Subcommittee needs to examine more closely. For 

example, the report recommends streamlining the operational approval and certification processes for aircraft avionics. In addition, 

many of the witnesses also discussed in their testimony the importance of streamlining these processes. I am aware it takes several 

months for an operator to gain approval once the process is initiated, and it is complicated and expensive. Again, I would like to 

hear more from our witnesses concerning this issue. 

Further, the FAA may be confronted by a number of staffing and 

workforce challenges as it moves forward with the implementation 

of NextGen. In September of 2008, the National Academy of Public 

Administration issued a report that identified several areas, including software development, systems engineering, and contract administration, where the FAA currently lacks both the capacity and 

the capabilities to execute NextGen implementation. Congress and 

this Subcommittee stands ready to work with the FAA to ensure 

that the agency has the resources that it needs to meet its workforce challenges. 

Finally, I believe that post-Task Force engagement such as continued collaboration and joint decision-making among all members 

of the aviation community is a key component to ensure successful 

implementation of NextGen. I strongly encourage the FAA to continue a high level involvement and engagement with stakeholders, 

including operators and air traffic controllers, to ensure success. 

In addition, I agree that specific metrics to measure pre-and 

post-implementation operational performance is important data for 

the FAA to track. This Subcommittee has already requested that 

the Department of Transportation Inspector General monitor FAA’s 

process in responding to the Task Force recommendations and to 

determine if the FAA has a system in place to assess progress and 

measure benefits. 

Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, 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, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Petri, is recognized. 

4 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing leadership to 

have diligent oversight of the NextGen process. It is very important. 

When the RTCA NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force 

was chartered in January, Task Force members were asked to 

achieve industry consensus on what steps must be taken over the 

next several years to deliver NextGen benefits to users. The Task 

Force, comprised of over 300 members, released its report and recommendations in early September. 

The Task Force’s recommendations do not focus on which research and development activities will lay the groundwork for an 

end state NextGen architecture. Rather, the report’s recommendations focus on activities that can maximize the potential benefits on 

existing aircraft avionics and airport technologies in the near term. 

Well, some have reacted by saying, well, that is not really 

NextGen. The report does mark an important milestone in the long 

history of air traffic control modernization. Without user buy-in, 

the FAA’s NextGen efforts will fail. However, the direct involvement of stakeholders and financial officers in making these recommendations to FAA indicates a willingness on the part of industry to make the financial commitments needed to carry out the recommendations. 

Another valuable outcome of the Task Force is the clear call for 

collaboration across FAA lines of business. This will be critical to 

timely delivery of near-and long-term NextGen capabilities. For example, the delivery of key platforms such as ERAM, ADS-B, and 

SWIM are the necessary infrastructure for NextGen. But without 

procedures, standards and regulations, users will not be able to 

benefit from the technological improvements. 

Critical to maximizing benefits derived from technologies both 

old and new is the development of operational procedures overseen 

by the FAA’s Office of Aviation Safety. I am pleased that Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety, Mrs. Gilligan, is participating 

today. I am interested in hearing how the agency plans to streamline the development and implementation of operational and environmental approval processes. 

The Task Force report has been characterized as a confidencebuilding exercise between users and the FAA. Specifically, the Task 

Force stated that if the FAA can maximize benefits of past avionics 

investments, users will be more confident in making future avionic 

investments. I am interested in hearing how the FAA will take advantage of this opportunity to work with the industry in delivering 

improvements. 

While ADS-B is regarded as the backbone of NextGen, it was not 

the focus of the Task Force recommendations. Unfortunately, there 

still is no clarity from the FAA on the business case for ADS-B equipage. The Task Force has been praised for its work in developing 

industry consensus and what is specifically needed in the near 

term to deliver NextGen. I am interested in hearing from both panels what the best process is for answering the challenging questions surrounding the shape and size of ADS-B. 

Finally, while it is important to set near-term goals, FAA must 

also be held accountable for delivering the long-term vision in a 

timely fashion. I am interested in hearing how the FAA will alloVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
5 

cate its resources to strike the necessary balance between answering the users’ demand for operational improvements in the near 

term, while maintaining efforts on the ground necessary to achieve 

the NextGen vision. 

The last thing we want to do is meet again on this topic five 

years from now, having invested billions of dollars, and find ourselves nowhere near to a modernized air traffic control system. I 

am sure that the user community shares my dread for a NextGen 

Groundhog Day. 

Once again, I thank the Chairman for calling this hearing, and 

look forward to the discussion. 

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

would ask, are there Members who have opening statements or 

comments? 

If not, the Chair will recognize our first panel: Ms. Margaret 

Jenny, who is the President of RTCA, Incorporated; Mr. Hank 

Krakowski, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Control Organization with the FAA; Ms. Margaret Gilligan, who is the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety with the FAA; the Honorable Calvin 

Scovel, III, who is the Inspector General with the U.S. Department 

of Transportation; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, who is the Director, 

Physical Infrastructure Issues, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Dr. Agam Sinha, who is the Senior Vice President and General Manager at The MITRE Corporation, Center for 

Advanced Aviation Systems Development. 

Let me say before I call on Ms. Jenny for her testimony that, as 

I stated in my opening remarks, this Subcommittee urged the FAA 

to begin the process of including stakeholders when it was very obvious to us a few years ago that stakeholders were not being consulted. The very people who would operate and use the system 

were on the outside, as we saw it at that time, and needed to be 

included not only in order to make the system work, but also in 

order to take advantage of their expertise and the advice that they 

could lend to not only building NextGen, but in bringing the process forward. 

I am very pleased that Mr. Krakowski and Ms. Gilligan and you, 

Ms. Jenny, are here today on behalf of all of your Task Force members. I am very pleased with the work that you have done. I think 

it is a major breakthrough. It moves us forward and I want to commend you for the action that you have taken, and want you to 

know that we consider ourselves not only a Subcommittee that has 

responsibility for oversight for NextGen and the FAA, but also we 

want to be a partner in this process to make sure that it happens 

and happens in a reasonable period of time. 

So again, I commend those of you, all of you who were involved 

in this process. It is something that we look forward to seeing happen, and it has happened, and now what we need to do is, it falls 

on the FAA to figure out how they are going to look at their structure, their policies, to blend in the recommendations that have 

been made by the Task Force. 

With that, we have a five-minute rule normally with our witnesses. We would ask you to summarize your testimony in five 

minutes, which would allow time for questions, as we have a secVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
6 

ond panel that will follow you. And we want you to know that your 

full statement will be entered into the record. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes Ms. Jenny. 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET T. JENNY, PRESIDENT, RTCA, INC., 

HANK KRAKOWSKI, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICE, AIR TRAFFIC 

ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; 

MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; 

THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DR. GERALD 

DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND 

DR. AGAM N. SINHA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, THE MITRE CORPORATION, CENTER FOR 

ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. JENNY. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, 

Ranking Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing on NextGen. 

A few words about RTCA might help set the stage for my remarks. RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that is utilized 

by the FAA as a Federal advisory committee, providing a venue for 

stakeholders to forge consensus on aviation-related issues. RTCA 

provides two categories of recommendations: first, policy and investment priorities to facilitate the implementation of national airspace system improvements; and second, performance standards 

used by the FAA as a major input for certification of avionics. 

My testimony today will describe the RTCA Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Initiative and the resulting recommendations. 

The Task Force was established in February in response to a request from Hank Krakowski and Peggy Gilligan. Over 335 individuals from 141 different organizations participated in the Task 

Force, bringing technical, operational and, for the first time, financial expertise. Forging a consensus was a challenge, but at the end 

of the day, the shared desire to improve the Nation’s air transportation system prevailed. On September 9, RTCA delivered a consensus-based set of recommendations to the FAA. 

First, the Task Force stressed the importance of implementing 

operational capabilities versus technologies, and deriving benefits 

from existing equipage. This approach will help relieve congestion 

in today’s system, but success will also increase the community’s 

confidence in the FAA’s ability to implement NextGen. 

Second, the Task Force recommended an airport-centric approach 

to NextGen, delivering capabilities at key airports and large metropolitan areas where the problems are most likely to ripple through 

the Country, causing unnecessary flight delays, misconnections, 

and cancellations. Many capabilities will require deploying an integrated suite of capabilities. This will require a new way of doing 

business. 

Third, for each capability recommended, the report identified the 

location, as well as the list of operators committed to making the 

investments. 

The Task Force made recommendations in seven key areas. First, 

improve the airport surface traffic situational awareness and dataVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
7 

sharing for enhanced safety and reduced delays. Establish a single 

point of accountability within the FAA to oversee the implementation of operational capabilities for the airports serviced. 

Second, increase throughput at airports and closely spaced parallels converging at intersecting runways. 

Third, increase metroplex capacity and efficiency by deconflecting the traffic to and from the airports in the metropolitan 

area. 

Fourth, increase the cruise efficiency through enhanced use of 

special activity airspace, increased use of aircraft metering and 

spacing at the bottlenecks, and increase the use of flexible RNAV 

routing. 

Fifth, enhance access to low-altitude non-radar airspace for general aviation traffic, and increase the availability of GPS approaches to more general aviation airports. 

Sixth, deploy air-ground data digital data communication applications to decrease gate departure delays and to enhance efficiency 

and safety of airborne traffic, especially when re-routing of multiple 

aircraft around weather is necessary. 

And seventh, improve the overall efficiency by enhancing the collaborative decision-making between the FAA and the users’ flight 

operations centers. 

The Task Force also made four critical overarching recommendations. The first is to achieve the existing three-and five-mile separation by eliminating buffers now applied. Second is to streamline 

operations approval process. Third is to incentivize equipage. 

Fourth is to utilize the RTCA mechanism, as well as joint government-industry implementation teams to facilitate the collaborative 

planning and implementation and tracking of NextGen. 

The report makes another critical point. Closing the business 

case for NextGen investments requires delivering benefits within a 

requisite payback period. Many of the NextGen investments have 

high costs, long payback period, and low confidence of payback, due 

in part on the dependence of outside forces such as the FAA. 

One way to close the business case for such investments is to 

achieve a faster return. For example, the Task Force analysis 

showed that while no individual DataComm capability would close 

the business case, when five capabilities were delivered for one investment, the business case closed for the airlines. The Task Force 

documented all known challenges to delivery and the benefits as 

well. 

Some have asked whether the FAA can afford to implement the 

Task Force recommendations, as well as the NextGen vision. The 

answer is that we cannot afford not to. The recommendations solve 

current problems, while laying the necessary groundwork for the 

longer term NextGen. The recommendations are in effect a risk 

mitigation program for NextGen. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. 

I would be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Ms. Jenny. And again, we 

thank you for your work on the Task Force. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Krakowski. 

8 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee. I will be making the 

opening statement for FAA today. 

I would like to start out by also thanking Margaret Jenny and 

Captain Steve Dixon from Delta Airlines, and the Task Force leads 

for leading what we think is a definitive jump start to actually implementing NextGen. 

The two major principles of the Task Force were: prioritize initiatives that have a near-term effect; and continued cooperation and 

involvement of the industry in the execution and the evolution of 

the plans. 

To prioritize the initiatives, we are reviewing the NextGen implementation plan, along with the Task Force recommendations in the 

guise of the Operational Evolution Partnership, which has now become the NextGen Management Board. It is the OEP which 

brought us three runways on time and under budget, as well as 

other improvements to the NAS. It also helped us achieve being removed from the GAO high risk list. 

To do the needed follow-up, the FAA is committing to work with 

our stakeholders through the ATMAC, which is a sub-group of the 

RTCA, and its work groups. The ATMAC’s work will complement 

the work of the NextGen Management Board, as I have described, 

as well as the Review Board which resides under it for detailed 

work. And through that process, we will bring all the relevant 

issues together to make the right strategic decisions. 

It is important to know that the NextGen Management Board is 

chaired by the Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and it is Randy 

Babbitt’s intention to make the Deputy Administrator the central 

point of focus for the over arching implementation issues through 

this process at FAA. 

In the meantime, we are pleased that the Task Force did reaffirm that we are on the right track. Airport surface improvements 

are a good place to start. It is where much of the congestion does 

exist. We have been deploying ASDE-X, as well as other technologies, on the surface. Now, we have an opportunity to use it 

more effectively. 

The metroplex. Instead of looking at this from singular airport 

perspectives, it is important to look at it as a system of airports 

and integrated airspace, so as we make decisions around improving 

the metroplex areas, you do have to consider all of the different aspects and interdependencies of what we are trying to achieve. 

Access to the NAS. This means approaches. This means our NAS 

procedures, places in particular for general aviation aircraft to gain 

access, which were prohibited by the lack of infrastructure in avionics in the past. 

Incentivizing equipage. This is probably going to be one of the 

more interesting conversations. We have to sort out what ‘‘BestEquipped, Best-Served’’ means; and how we possibly fund incentive 

of equipage. There are a lot of different conversations going on here 

in Washington about how to do that. 

And lastly, streamlining. Streamlining our process within the 

ATO, streamlining the processes within AVS and coming together 

to create a single performance-based navigation point of focus and 

office within the FAA is our intention. 

9 

As we move forward with examining the Task Force recommendations, we welcome Congress’ continued interest, and commit to moving NextGen forward to heighten safety and maximize 

efficiency throughout the national airspace system, and we intend 

to see this commitment through. 

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our prepared remarks, and we look forward to answering any questions. 

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

And now we will recognize Inspector General Scovel. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss 

the status of NextGen’s implementation. 

When fully implemented, the satellite-based system is expected 

to improve air traffic management and yield significant economic 

and environmental benefits. Yet our body of work on NextGen has 

shown that these benefits will remain elusive unless FAA addresses a number of operational and management issues now and into 

the future. 

Last month, an RTCA Task Force reported its findings on 

NextGen and made a number of recommendations on what FAA 

needs to achieve in the near-and mid-term, actions consistent with 

those we have recommended over the past five years. While FAA 

has concurred with our past recommendations and endorsed 

RTCA’s, FAA needs to take action now to transition from planning 

to implementation. 

Today, I will focus on five overarching near-and mid-term capabilities that we and the RTCA have determined FAA must address 

if it hopes to implement NextGen successfully. The first capability 

concerns the capacity of airspace in metropolitan areas with multiple airports, such as New York, Chicago, and Southern California. 

Of particular concern is FAA’s implementation of RNAV/RNP 

procedures. As we have previously reported, FAA needs to track 

data on the use of RNP procedures to determine which routes are 

not being used and why. We found that air carriers’ limited use of 

new RNAV/RNP procedures is due largely to FAA’s practice of 

overlaying RNP routes over existing ones, out of date traffic policies, and insufficient pilot and controller training. At Atlanta’s 

Hartsfield-Jackson Airport alone, controllers have yet to use any of 

the 10 RNP procedures FAA implemented two and a half years 

ago. 

The Task Force also emphasizes the need to shift from the quantity of RNAF/RNP procedures implemented to the quality of the 

routes. 

The second capability concerns runway access. A key transition 

issue for NextGen is determining whether throughput at already 

congested airports can be increased. This is particularly important 

for airports with complex runway configurations, such as converging or closely spaced runways. Updated safety assessments are 

also needed to ensure unanticipated hazards are not introduced, 

particularly during periods of low visibility. 

FAA must also address longstanding concerns with terminal 

modernization, the equipment controllers rely on to manage aircraft in the vicinity of airports. The Task Force parallels our work 

10 

on the need to address exactly how various technologies and procedures can unlock congested airports and improve arrival rates 

under all weather conditions. 

The third and fourth capabilities concern high-altitude cruise and 

access to the national airspace system. To improve high-altitude 

flights and service at smaller airports, FAA needs to increase the 

availability of real-time data on the status of airspace use. Our concern about the impact of mixed equipage on NextGen is relevant 

here. Understanding and mitigating the impacts of air carriers’ different capabilities and procedures are important for several midterm efforts, including RNAV/RNP, datalink communications for 

controllers and pilots, and satellite-based surveillance systems for 

tracking aircraft positions. 

In addition to these four capabilities, RTCA also calls for a major 

reevaluation of airport surface operations to enhance use of 

taxiways, gates and airport parking areas. These needed capabilities and RTCA’s recommendations highlight a number of NextGen 

policy questions. 

For example, RTCA discussed several sources of funding to implement its recommendations, such as providing financial incentives, possibly in the form of low interest loans, direct subsidies for 

equipment, or income tax credits. Whether such incentives should 

be used is a policy decision for Congress. If incentives are used, 

they must be properly designed and timed to achieve their objectives at minimal cost to taxpayers. 

A related policy concern focuses on the proposed best-equipped/ 

best-served concept as a way to advance NextGen. The concept, 

first mentioned in FAA’s January 2009 NextGen implementation 

plan, gives preferential treatment to airspace users equipped with 

new systems. Historically, however, FAA’s policy for providing air 

traffic control services has been first come, first served. A bestequipped/best-served policy would, therefore, represent a significant change in how traffic is managed. Key concerns include ensuring equity among users in implementing the policy at specific locations. 

To set realistic expectations for NextGen, FAA needs to take several actions now. First, implementing RTCA’s recommendations 

will require FAA to adjust budgets and plans. Accordingly, FAA 

must develop plans to initiate action and establish a five-year funding profile for the NextGen mid-term. 

Second, FAA must develop metrics for assessing progress, measuring benefits, and identifying problems in order to put timely corrective actions in place. 

Third, FAA must determine how a best-equipped/best-served policy could be implemented. 

And finally, FAA must develop and implement a strategy for 

linking near-and mid-term efforts with long-term plans for 

NextGen’s major transformational programs. 

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

to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Inspector General Scovel, 

and now recognizes Dr. Dillingham. 

11 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. 

The RTCA Task Force report and its recommendations can be 

viewed as a blueprint for the transition from the current air traffic 

control system to NextGen. This transition phase is often referred 

to as NowGen, as distinguished from the NextGen Program. 

My testimony today highlights some of the challenges that we believe FAA needs to consider as it develops its response to the Task 

Force recommendations. 

These challenges fall into three areas: first, allocating its resources for developing and certifying RNAV and RNP procedures 

and addressing the related environmental issues; second, managing 

FAA’s organizational culture and business practices to support a 

new way of operating; and third, deciding on cost-effective options 

for encouraging operators to equip their aircraft for new systems 

capabilities. 

The first group of challenges involves allocating resources to 

prioritize and expedite the development of procedures that allow 

more direct flight paths than existing RNAV and RNP procedures, 

and redesigning airspace in congested metropolitan areas. 

Our work suggests that FAA will have to prioritize its development of RNAV and RNP procedures because at the current pace, 

it will take decades to complete the thousands of procedures targeted for development. 

This challenge also includes finding ways to expedite environmental review processes and proactively addressing the environmental concerns of nearby communities. Both of these efforts have 

oftentimes contributed to very significant delays in implementing 

new procedures and redesigning airspace. 

The second group of challenges involves adjusting FAA’s organizational culture and business practices. Traditionally, FAA’s culture and business practices have supported the acquisition of individual air traffic control systems. Implementing NowGen will require FAA to increase its emphasis on integration, coordination 

and measurable outcomes. Specifically, FAA will have to work with 

a greater number and variety of external stakeholders, as well as 

across multiple internal lines of business, and may have to reprioritize some of its current NextGen implementation plans and 

programs. 

At the same time, FAA must ensure that its near-term plans 

align with its longer term NextGen vision. Additionally, with 

NowGen, FAA must ensure that standards, procedures, training 

protocols, and other necessary requirements to operate in the NAS 

are developed and certified in a sequence that supports the timely 

implementation of capabilities. Furthermore, streamlining these 

processes is critical. 

The last group of challenges involves ensuring that operators are 

equipped for NowGen and NextGen. Although the Task Force assumed that for the most part, Federal funds would not be required 

to implement its recommendations, our work has shown that for a 

variety of reasons, from establishing the credibility of FAA’s longterm commitment, to the financial condition of the industry, the 

Federal Government may be asked to provide financial assistance 

incentives for NextGen aircraft equipage. If Federal resources are 

12 

used, we believe that it is important that key considerations include a focus on what would be in the national interest, rather 

than the best interest of any one or more stakeholder groups, and 

that the Federal assistance will not displace private investment. 

Mr. Chairman, we agree with the Task Force conclusions that its 

report should be seen as a beginning, and not an end. I would add 

that successful next steps for NowGen will require the same kind 

of cooperation, collaboration and transparency among stakeholders 

that was shown in the work of the RTCA Task Force, as well as 

the continued oversight that has been provided by this Subcommittee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Sinha. 

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

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

me to participate in today’s hearing on NextGen: A Review of the 

RTCA Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report, commonly 

known as Task Force 5. 

My testimony today will address the RTCA Task Force 5 recommendations, their feasibility and challenges, and post-task force 

priorities. 

It is important to begin by acknowledging that the way the Task 

Force was conducted constitutes a transformational process for how 

government and industry should forge consensus. I would like to 

highlight three unique aspects that led to the success of this activity and that should be viewed as best practices for future collaborative efforts. 

First, the recommendations and conclusions of Task Force 5 are 

rooted in data and analysis that was collected and made available 

to all participants. This transparent data-driven approach provides 

traceability for the decision-making process and allows new information to be incorporated as it becomes available. 

Second, participation by stakeholders finance representatives is 

unprecedented and was a key success factor for this Task Force. In 

the past, representation from stakeholders’ operational and technical personnel left out key considerations that are required to successfully drive the users’ investment decision-making. 

Finally, commitments by operators were focused on implementation at specific locations based on expected benefits. Capabilities 

were identified that provide benefits for each operator group, including general aviation, business aviation, commercial and military. 

The Task Force did a commendable job in reaching consensus 

amongst the diverse set of participants. However, there is much 

work to yet to be done to successfully achieve the operational improvements and associated benefits. 

Tier one recommendations for the near term are based on mature 

technologies and procedures already under development and are 

targeted to benefit all operator groups. One example is optimizing 

RNAV and RNP procedures. The operational capability description 

includes selected, high-benefit locations and recommends instituting joint government-industry ‘‘tiger teams’’ to focus on the qualVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
13 

ity of the RNAV procedures as they are implemented, and to identify and resolve issues early in the implementation process. 

Some capabilities will require FAA to accelerate or redefine the 

current plans. An example is expediting implementation of data 

communications. The recommendation calls for deployment of the 

initial data link capability to deliver revised departure clearances 

and en-route clearances to the pilot, thereby providing early benefits. 

Some tier one near-and mid-term capabilities, though well defined, still require further work in areas including safety, certification, human factors and potentially some policy changes. For example, expanded parallel runway operations need additional 

human-in-the-loop simulations and blunder analysis to support enhancements to closely spaced parallel runway operations. 

Another key challenge that was identified across many of the 

proposed operational changes was the need to accelerate processes 

related to avionics certification and operational approval. 

The tier two and three recommendations identified by the Task 

Force were deemed to have lower benefits and/or higher risks. The 

community should continue its R&D activities to better define and 

integrate evolutionary capabilities to build on those in tier one. 

Integrated human-in-the-loop experiments, fast-time modelings 

and simulation, data analysis capabilities, and operational demonstrations and evaluations at selected sites will provide necessary 

verification and validation or needed modifications of concepts, 

technologies and procedures. 

Availability and use of these resources will be a critical factor to 

support further refinement of the recommendations in all tiers, and 

to ensure their successful implementation. 

Now, looking to post-Task Force engagement, the complexity and 

challenges of moving forward will require continued collaboration 

and joint decision-making among all members of the aviation community. Specific metrics should be agreed upon to measure pre-and 

post-implementation operational performance, and determine if expected benefits are materializing. 

Stakeholders will need to collaborate to address complex policy 

issues related to airspace design, congested airspace access, data 

security and environmental considerations. Further, definition of 

best-equipped/best-served policies and procedures in a mixed equipage environment will need to be addressed as each operational capability is agreed to and corresponding locations are prioritized. 

The Task Force report calls for responsibility, accountability and 

authority and funding stability as necessary components of the 

stakeholders’ commitment. The FAA should capitalize and build on 

past examples of successful stakeholders’ engagement and project 

execution. 

For example, both the Free Flight Program and Operational Evolution Plan have demonstrated the ability to deliver on promised 

benefits. Both FAA and the operators need to engage their 

workforces to develop procedures and training for pilots, controllers, system implementors, and maintainers. This will ensure that 

they will be ready at the same time and place, so that available 

avionics can be used as intended to deliver improved operations 

and benefits. 

14 

Finally, although key NextGen foundational programs such as 

ERAM and ADS-B are not included in the Task Force recommendations, progress and assessment of these programs must proceed 

and also be transparent to all the stakeholders. 

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

answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Dr. Sinha. 

Ms. Jenny, in your testimony you talk about the importance of 

a single point of accountability within the FAA. You know of the 

FAA’s plans to name a yet to be named Deputy Administrator to 

put that person in charge of NextGen. I am not sure how that relationship between the Deputy Administrator and JPDO will work, 

but if you will elaborate a little bit about what the RTCA found or 

addressed in their concerns about single point of accountability and 

why that is necessary. 

Ms. JENNY. Yes, I would be happy to, speaking for the Task 

Force. 

It should be noted that the Task Force limited its recommendations to the FAA on what needed to be implemented between now 

and 2018, and not how. Having said that, the Task Force participants felt fairly strongly because once we stepped back and looked 

at the set of capabilities that we recommended, so many of them 

require an integrated suite of capabilities to be deployed at specific 

locations, as opposed to doing things, investments in infrastructure 

across the Country, that it was felt that there needed to be some 

higher level accountability that would require, that would force 

that kind of integration across the FAA. 

So I think that most of the Task Force participants would be 

pleased for that to be something that would be a responsibility of 

the Deputy. 

Mr. COSTELLO. What was the Task Force recommendation for follow-up after the report now has been delivered to the FAA? Did 

you make any recommendations as to what follow-up should be 

done between the Task Force and the FAA? 

Ms. JENNY. Yes, we did, Mr. Chairman. There were three parts 

to that recommendation. The first was to establish the group of 

leadership of the Task Force. That is about 18 or 20 people who 

led the different sub-groups of the Task Force, and have key understanding of its recommendations. The idea was that that sub-group 

would be stood up as an RTCA sub-group under our advisory committee, and would work collaboratively with the FAA to provide 

more input into what the recommendations meant, and to understand from the FAA how they are integrating them into their plan. 

At the end of that would be new NextGen implementation plan, 

and that group would probably stand down, and we would move 

into a use of the RTCA sub-groups under ATMAC to monitor the 

implementation of the recommendations and the implementation of 

NextGen, both the milestones, how they are being achieved, and 

how the performance is improving. We are agreeing to stand up 

specifically the finance sub-group that will have all the finance people from carriers to stay as a standing group to help us with the 

kinds of things that Dr. Sinha referred to in terms of updating all 

that data that we have supporting the costs and the benefits needs 

more work. 

15 

And the third part was to establish government and industry 

joint implementation teams for those things that we agree we are 

going to implement at specific locations, and have all the stakeholders working together to synchronize their investments and 

their activities. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Krakowski, again I mentioned we commend you and the 

FAA for doing what we and others have asked you to do in seeking 

the input of the stakeholders. Now that you have their input 

through the RTCA Task Force, let me ask you. There were 29 recommendations, if my memory serves me correctly, that the Task 

Force specifically made. How many of those 29 recommendations do 

you agree with and intend to move forward with? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Well, they are kind of bucketed in about seven 

different buckets. The key issue in my mind is, as was stated earlier, this is just a beginning because we now need to sort out with 

the RTCA and the Task Force and the members what the real priority needs to be, and in some cases, what are we going to stop 

doing or delay so we can get to a more near-term focus on some 

of the capabilities. 

Tomorrow will be the first ATMAC meeting that we will have 

since the recommendations came out. And tomorrow, in our view, 

starts that very process. Now that FAA has had six weeks to take 

a look at the recommendations, reference them against what we 

are currently doing with the NextGen implementation plan and 

other activities going on, and identify what are the gaps. 

And then tomorrow, we expect to enter into a discussion on how 

we are going to work through reprioritizing it so we can satisfy our 

commitment to make the Task Force recommendations become 

real. And that is going to, I think, be an iterative process for a few 

months here, leading up to a NextGen implementation near-term 

plan to be published in January, which is what we always we do, 

with the intention of having as much of this defined in that document as we can. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And it is my experience, at least in the past in 

dealing with the FAA, as well as other agencies, that if we do not 

set goals and time lines, that things can drag on forever. So my 

question to you is, is there a time line that you have within the 

agency to analyze these recommendations, as you are beginning to 

do now with the Task Force, and you have been looking at them 

for the last six weeks internally. Is there a time line where you are 

going to pull the trigger and say, by this date, we are going not 

only to identify the priorities, but by a date, we are going to make 

a decision as to which we are going to accept and act on, and which 

we disagree with? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. We don’t have any solid time lines quite yet. I 

think we are, quite frankly, a little early in the process. But the 

intention is to have as much of this framed out for that January 

NextGen Implementation Plan publication, so from that point we 

can actually then be talking about realistic time lines. Because 

what is different about this is this isn’t just about FAA making 

commitments to make this happen. The industry has to agree to it 

with some specificity. That is going to take some work. 

16 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the industry will say, I am sure, in the second panel that their willingness to commit financially and otherwise will depend on the action taken by the FAA and the benefits 

that you can demonstrate that they will receive. So I understand 

where you are coming from. I would encourage you to try and look 

at some time lines and also to continue to communicate on a regular basis with Ms. Jenny. 

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

Petri. 

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

As I indicated in my opening remarks, this is another in a several years series of hearings we have had, and I just wanted to say 

that I am actually kind of encouraged because we are seeing the 

problem being broken down and brought more immediate, and trying to get different players to focus on solutions, and getting things 

moving forward, rather than some huge project that is not going 

to really be implemented, when suddenly in 25 years we will have 

this wonderful new world. 

I mean, that can be a long-term framework, but within that 

framework, how do we get from here to there? And how can we 

start collaborating? So I am very, very encouraged by the Task 

Force report and your response to it, and look forward to the next 

panel’s discussion about how to work the collaboration so we don’t 

get into a chicken and egg problem, but can try to figure out how 

to actually move forward profitably for the airlines and efficiently 

and safely for the traveling public, because there are a lot of benefits for our Country and the public in this process. 

One thing, if you could, both Ms. Jenny and Mr. Krakowski, discuss a little bit the airport-centric approach, how you envisage that 

reducing delays in the national airport system. And I think for Mr. 

Krakowski, how you would expedite the implementation of RNP/ 

RNAV routes for operators that are so equipped? And is there room 

for streamlining the procedure approval for that process, both in 

safety certification and in environmental approval? 

We know the political side of environmental approvals particularly, and it is a no-win situation, but we need to move forward and 

airplanes are quieter than they were. And so the real-world consequences of doing this are probably a little less than they might 

have been some time ago. Could each of you comment? 

Ms. JENNY. Thank you. One of the things that we did in the Task 

Force was we started with a large, a fairly longer list of operational 

capabilities. And then we looked at each one and defined its benefits and its costs, and we brought in as many studies as we can 

find. And then we looked at ranking them. 

And when we did that, it became very clear that the highest benefit, the biggest bang for the buck we would get out of all of the 

recommendations were those things revolving around large metropolitan areas with many airports. So we had actual data to look at. 

And it is pretty clear when you look at the data that if you can 

solve the delay problem in the New York area or the Chicago area, 

those delays ripple through the whole system. So if you can solve 

those, you solve a large percentage of the problems in the whole 

transportation system. 

17 

So those sort of naturally made their way to the top because of 

the process that we used and the process we hope to continue to 

use moving forward. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Clearly, we concur with what Ms. Jenny said. 

Relative to the streamlining of RNAV and RNP procedures, there 

is a lot of opportunity here. We are taking certain specific steps. 

For example, within ATO, there are three organizations under two 

different Vice Presidents who have been processing RNAV/RNP 

procedures from the air traffic point of view. We don’t think that 

that is a successful model for implementing the Task Force recommendations, so we are consolidating that into a single performance-based navigation office under our Senior Vice President for 

Operations, Rick Day. And it also links up with service areas 

where a lot of the customers have direct contact with our people 

who are doing these procedures and creating them in their regions 

and at their local airports. So we think that will go a long way in 

helping streamline our ability to deliver procedures that are approved. 

Now, Ms. Gilligan has the other side of the house with the approvals from a flight standards point of view. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. And we agree that we can streamline the 

approval process for the procedures. I think we, and industry, had 

a lot to learn as we started down this road because obviously we 

want to implement these procedures, but we don’t want to introduce any unintended safety hazard or safety consequence. 

We have learned a lot. We have worked with the manufacturers 

and with the operators to better understand who needs to bring 

what data to the table, so that we can streamline the process. The 

Task Force recommends that we establish a standard process. Up 

until now, individual applicants have come in and they have wanted to do what may have worked well for them in their individual 

airline or at their individual operation. We are going to standardize 

that, and that will help to reduce the time as well. 

It took a long time at the start, but I think each of the new applicants would agree that it has gotten better and easier as we have 

gone along, and we are going to focus on enhancing that even more. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished 

Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for staying close on the hide of all these participants in 

NextGen. You have been doing a terrific job, and I thank Mr. Petri 

for partnering in this initiative. 

I have a good deal more confidence about the future of modernization of the air traffic control system with the steps that have 

been taken. 

Mr. Scovel and Dr. Dillingham, I have one question. Based on 

your review of FAA’s management of NextGen, and of the numerous technologies—airport operations, runway access, metroplex airspace, high altitude cruise, continuous glide-path in and so on— 

give us your evaluation of FAA’s ability to manage multi-billion 

dollar contracts. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I will take a shot at it first. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have been there before, Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

18 

Mr. OBERSTAR. With us, together. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, yes. In fact, we have been monitoring FAA 

for 15 years with regard to air traffic control modernization. I 

haven’t been here the whole 15 years, but a lot of it. 

FAA has definitely shown progress in its ability to monitor those 

large contracts. Part of that, we attribute to the Congress mandating the stand-up of the ATO and subsequently the business 

practices that, and operational practices that the ATO brought into 

being. As the COO just talked about earlier, we did remove them 

from our high-risk list after 12 years because they were able to do 

that. 

What we are saying now is that should provide a foundation for 

what needs to be done with NowGen and NextGen, though they 

will have to shift from sort of concentrating on acquiring one system and deploying it nationwide, to this more integrated, cooperative, regional kind of orientation. 

But we are definitely guardedly optimistic that FAA can make 

this happen, but it is indeed a complicated undertaking. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You remember, and this was before General 

Scovel’s tenure, you remember the period in which FAA was mired 

in the advanced automation system, and the contract for that was 

supposed to be $500 million, and went up to well over $1 billion 

in a day when $1 billion was a lot of money. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And you remember my calling the Vice President 

of IBM in this hearing room and telling him, I am going to nail 

your shoes to the floor. He said, why? I said, because you keep 

moving around. You can’t stay with one system until you have it 

completed. And the other thing is, you need to stay in one place 

and manage more than one system at a time. 

Do you think they are able to do that? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. I think, you know, we see things like 

when that system, when the IBM system was being developed, 

FAA used the concept of what we used to call the ‘‘big bang’’ theory. Let’s, you know, all of this at once. And they since have moved 

to build a little, test a little. And that has proven to be a useful 

way to approach things. 

So you learn as you go, and I think that, you know, they have 

a good chance. It is going to take that collaboration and cooperation 

that we saw with the RTCA Task Force, with industry being a part 

of it. But also it is going to require that this Subcommittee and the 

full Committee maintain that oversight that they have been doing 

for the last two decades. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, a good deal of all those things you mentioned 

happened because of this Committee’s, Subcommittee’s oversight 

under various management. But you remember when Administrator Hinson, after we had quite some consultations, and with 

Linda Daschle, who was Acting Administrator, brought in Navy 

auditors to review FAA’s contract management, and found there 

were just—it was deplorable, just deplorable. And Navy made a 

number of very pertinent and insightful recommendations, which 

then we took and translated into legislative language, and Mr. 

Hinson implemented. 

19 

Well, FAA has been able to do a number of major projects, but 

I still, with a question also: Is there an arm’s length relationship 

with the contractors? 

Mr. Scovel? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Tall question, sir. In the context of NextGen, we will 

be looking at that very carefully when we look at how FAA undertakes its implementation of the RTCA’s Task Force. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Remember Coast Guard, remember the IBM 

Days. You couldn’t tell where FAA left off and IBM began and vice 

versa. Now, there is a contractual relationship. There has to be inclusiveness within FAA, with bringing the controllers in at the 

early design and engineering stages, and FAA can’t be, as the 

Coast Guard was doing, telling contractors: you do it and certify to 

us that you are doing a good job. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, sir. I understand your cautionary comments 

along those lines, and I well recall in the context of aviation safety 

hearings that we have had in this hearing room where I have been 

privileged to appear before you, sir. And one of the lessons for all 

of us was the, in your words, sir, a cozy relationship between FAA 

and carriers. 

Back to your earlier question, sir, about multi-billion dollar contracts. We can point to some successes on FAA’s part. ERAM is certainly one of them. My staff’s work has led us to conclude that stable requirements are an absolute key if FAA is to successfully carry 

off a contract of that nature. 

On the other hand, you referred to WAAS, sir, and we are all familiar with STARS as well. As we look at NextGen implementation 

for the mid-term, terminal modernization, with its history of being 

virtually a trail of tears, has the possibility of being almost a showstopper for anything that can be accomplished in the near-to midterm. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let’s all keep in mind, and all of us on this Committee do, I know, it is not the airlines. It is the air travelers who 

are paying for this system through their ticket tax. It is that excise 

tax that goes into the AIP account and to the F&E account and 80 

percent of the operations account. And so we are very directly responsible to the air travelers for the investment they are making, 

and they are counting on us to make sure that this works. 

And they are also counting on us not to over-promise and underdeliver. And I need you two watch-dogs to stay on top of it, as we 

will, this Committee as well, I assure you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Chairman Oberstar. 

And let me mention to General Scovel, we are aware of the aggressive review that you are doing with ADS-B, and we take our 

responsibility as oversight of the agency and others involved in the 

system, and we appreciate the work that you are doing with ADSB and the work that you do in general. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have the panelists with us today. 

Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out earlier, much has been said 

about NextGen, and I am not sure that I am capable of intelVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
20 

ligently defining it. So I am going to be very elementary. I am 

going to have two questions. I am going to put the first question 

to Mr. Krakowski, and my second question to Mr. Scovel. 

My first question, Mr. Krakowski, is: What is NextGen? 

And my question to Mr. Scovel is: Who is in charge of NextGen? 

And I hope I am not being too elementary, but I need to know 

the answers. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. It is a frequent question in the last two years 

that has been asked. NextGen is an evolution, and as I think about 

NextGen, it is not a big-bang theory. It is not something you turn 

a light-switch on. It is a methodical modernization of how we run 

air traffic, not only here in the United States, but globally as well 

because our airplanes fly overseas, overseas aircraft fly here. 

So we have to have a common approach with common technologies and procedures to be able to fly airplanes closer together, 

on more efficient routes, and the current technologies do not permit 

that. 

One of the current problems with our system is it is somewhat 

like a hard-wired house with the old telephone system. It is not 

scalable. It is not flexible. It is not movable. If you look at the 

promise of satellite-based navigation, data communication, and all 

of the pieces that layer in, you are creating a system that has much 

more flexibility and scalability when traffic flows change, or when 

thunderstorms impact the system, so we can do it better than the 

current system allows right now. 

So in my mind, it is a march toward a system that just keeps 

improving over time. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Scovel, who is the boss? Who is in charge? 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is a very tough question, sir. In fact, you may 

recall from my testimony back in March and at a roundtable last 

year where the question of FAA’s organization for NextGen implementation was raised. I expressed skepticism on the part of my office as to how leadership is to be exercised within FAA. 

It has been mentioned today that the incoming Deputy Administrator for the agency will have overall accountability for NextGen, 

and that is certainly true. But I would draw a distinction between 

political accountability, which of course rests with the Administrator and his Deputy. They are responsible for everything that 

happens or fails to happen in the agency, including NextGen, and 

day-to-day operational decision-making authority, which right now 

we see as being very diffused and fragmented. 

There is a Senior Vice President within the Air Traffic Organization whose title is NextGen Implementation and Operations Planning. However, that official does not have either personnel or budgetary authority over many of the key programs that will be necessary for NextGen, not even those within the ATO, much less 

those that are on the outside of that organization. Perhaps they are 

over in Aviation Safety or even elsewhere in the organization. 

In our view, for one of the key missions of the agency, if one of 

the key missions is to operate the NAS today safely, efficiently, effectively; another key mission, prepare to operate the NAS in the 

future safely, efficiently and effectively; FAA today is not properly 

organized to carry out that key second mission. 

21 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I thank you, sir. 

Mr. Krakowski, back to you. Will implementing the recommendations of the RTCA Task Force require delays in the implementation 

of NextGen, A? And B, is FAA still aiming for a 2025 target window? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I actually think you accelerate and start moving 

us to NextGen faster by adopting the RTCA recommendations. One 

of the most important elements of NextGen is aircraft being 

equipped with high-fidelity GPS systems in the aircraft. And much 

of the Task Force recommendations point to an increased usage of 

that so we can get better safety and efficiency on the surface of airports, more efficient routes in the system. 

So the more that we can provide near-term benefits closer in, 

moving the dial to the left, so that the airlines can be encouraged 

to equip with the higher-fidelity equipment, you start moving it toward a kind of a faster trajectory, and you actually make the system healthier as you are doing it. 

Now, there is a distinction. The Task Force recommendations 

don’t speak to the longer NextGen vision of ADS-B, some of the 

larger programs like System-Wide Information Management, but 

those are moving along. Those are going to continue to move 

through our NextGen plan that has been defined by the JPDO and 

then by the NextGen organization within ATO as well. 

Mr. COBLE. So 2025 is still the target window? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. We are not sure what we are going to end up 

with at 2025 at this point. I mean, it is an interesting target for 

some things to be in place, but the fact that the whole world is 

going to NextGen by 2025, I don’t think we are there anymore. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more quick question? 

The red light, I see, is illuminated. 

Ms. Jenny, let me put a question to you. It has been suggested 

that since the RTCA report focuses on maximizing capabilities from 

existing equipage, the recommendations really are not about 

NextGen. Is that a fair criticism? 

Ms. JENNY. Thank you. I don’t think that is a fair criticism. I 

think I would agree somewhat with what Mr. Krakowski just said. 

The recommendations really are sort of a risk mitigation for moving toward the more sophisticated technologies. If we are going to 

develop and implement ADS-B and DataComm, to get the full benefit, if you just put the infrastructure out, nothing changes and you 

don’t get a benefit. What you need to do to get the benefit is implement new procedures, train controllers and pilots, possibly change 

the way airspace is designed. 

What the NextGen Task Force says is let’s do some of those 

things for the existing capabilities, for things like multilateration 

for RNAV and RNP. We will make all of those changes so that 

when we can go to ADS-B, all of that work is done. That increases 

the confidence of the community that we can do it, and it is much 

more likely that we will close the business case and move to 

NextGen faster. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman. 

22 

And now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. 

I won’t address this to this panel, but I will just say this to you. 

Two weeks ago, I was all set to start all over again. I couldn’t find 

you that day to talk about passengers’ rights as I tried to travel 

across the skies of this Country, but I have calmed down since 

then, so I am good, but it is a concern. 

On this issue here, it was interesting to hear Mr. Coble. It seems 

to me like we are moving awfully slow. You have heard that before. 

It is a big, big thing. And I have just observed, as a user, that it 

seems like general aviation has adapted quicker and maybe it is 

much more complicated for the airlines and corporations and so on. 

I don’t know. 

And then I get to thinking about the international side of it, and 

it is. So I think about the time you are getting ready to make a 

step forward, you find out Collins Radio or somebody has come up 

with a better idea to do it. The technology is moving so fast, so I 

don’t know. Maybe Mr. Chairman, we just need to set a deadline 

and see what we could put together at that time, we do it. Otherwise, it seems like it stays open-ended, and that is something we 

might want to think about. 

It has kind of changed a little bit here. Ms. Gilligan, would you 

explain the role that FAA’s AVS plays in the NextGen and what 

are some of the specific processes that your office handles as it pertains to NextGen implementation? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I would be glad to. 

There are two parts to the system, there always have been, the 

ground-provided infrastructure and the airplane. For many years, 

they were relatively separate. The ground provided service for separating air traffic and the airplane did things that assured that it 

was operating safely. 

But now, they actually can share those responsibilities. The airplane actually has a tremendous amount of capability, technology 

that it can contribute to separating airplanes, as well as to operating safely. To do that, operators and manufacturers need to have 

approvals, and those approvals go through the Aviation Safety Organization. And as someone commented, we want to make sure as 

we are making—as we are introducing those new processes and 

procedures that we are understanding whatever risk we may be introducing and that we are eliminating that or managing that or 

mitigating it as we go along. 

All of that is work that is done with our safety inspectors, with 

their operators, and with the manufacturers to understand the capability of the aircraft, to be sure the company, the operator develops processes and procedures, that they have training for their pilots and other staff members, and that that all comes together before we issue the approval to actually take advantage of what can 

be done in the system. 

So that is the role that we play. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I appreciate that. 

Now, in my previous statement, and I mentioned Collins, for example. That was a compliment. 

23 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I have been to their site and their laboratory, if 

you will, and it is amazing what they are putting into this and 

what we can expect even day by day. It is a compliment to them. 

They are really, really good. 

I would like to move on to Dr. Dillingham for a minute. In your 

testimony, you mentioned the need for FAA to change its culture 

to give NowGen and NextGen a better chance for success. What do 

you mean by culture change in this case? And how could this 

change be facilitated? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Boswell. I was referring to the 

tradition that FAA has with focusing on implementing or developing one system at a time and deploying it nationwide. The new 

paradigm has to be an integration and cooperation and multiple 

system deployment for the NextGen-kind of situation that we are 

in now. 

And if I could just go back to your first comment about how technology is passing and time is getting ahead of us. I think part of 

the answer to your concern is a part of what we are talking about 

now, and it is instead of focusing on 2025 and what may or may 

not be possible to do by that time, the focus now has shifted back 

to technologies that we know and procedures that we know that 

will end up making a difference now. 

So that I think that is why, you know, what RTCA and FAA has 

done is very, very important just because of the idea that you suggested, is that technology is moving awfully fast. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. 

To our panel, thank you all for being here and for doing what 

you do. 

Mr. Krakowski, I have a couple of questions, but first I want to 

say a very special thank you for all of your help and assistance in 

the recent groundbreaking that we have had for the Next Generation Aviation Research and Development Park at the FAA Tech 

Center which is in New Jersey’s Second Congressional District. I 

really believe that this park will be a force enhancer for the Tech 

Center, that it will be a force multiplier and will assist in many 

ways. So I thank you. 

Two pretty quick questions. First, Mr. Krakowski, as you know, 

in response to the recommendation of the GAO and others, this 

Committee included language in the FAA authorization bill to 

move the Joint Planning and Development Office out of the ATO 

and place it directly under the Administrator. My question to you 

is whether you think this is an appropriate organizational structure to ensure the success of NextGen? Or if you believe significant 

progress can be made under the current alignment? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I actually believe that the JPDO is less of an 

issue for the purposes of this Task Force because the Task Force 

recommendations are near term. The JPDO was never set up as an 

implementing organization. It really was set up for planning and 

collaborating across other agencies for kind of the long-term plan, 

24 

where are we going, what are the technologies that are going to get 

us here. 

It is the FAA. It is our responsibility and it is our mission to implement that which is going to make the system better, and it is 

the people that run the system every day through the current 

structure of the NextGen Management Board, which exists under 

the leadership of the Deputy Administrator, and has been for quite 

some time. A new Deputy Administrator coming in ties it all together between the Aviation Safety organization, people that run 

airports, people that run government affairs, and the ATO as well 

at the highest level toward the Administrator. 

So since we are more into an implementation role now versus 

planning and kind of long-term strategy, I think the current structure that I have described serves better, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. Thank you. 

And the second one, I think we can all agree that to design and 

implement the NextGen system, the FAA will need to hire more 

staff, especially if it were successful in accelerating the program. I 

know that the RTCA has raised concerns with staffing levels and 

certification offices, and I would like to see the engineering capacity at the Tech Center grow. 

But do you have a NextGen workforce plan for the coming years 

that you can share with the Committee? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Yes, I would be happy to sit down with you and 

give you some detail on that. But we do agree that if we do not 

attract and hire the right kinds of talent, the right type of people, 

with the quality that we need, the program will suffer. This is high 

on our radar scope. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I would just like to recognize 

that who we affectionately call in New Jersey ‘‘Mr. Transportation 

and Infrastructure,’’ Mr. Bob Roe. Thank you for joining us today, 

the former Chairman. 

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

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the panel. 

I have a question for Mr. Krakowski. Earlier this year, our Ohio 

delegation sent a letter to you asking that the FAA’s plan to consolidate several air traffic control facilities in our State be postponed until Congress has completed its work reauthorizing the 

FAA. 

[Information follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 13 here 53122.013
26 


Insert offset folio 14 here 53122.014
27 

This Committee passed a bill that includes a process for aviation 

stakeholders to review and evaluate those consolidation proposals. 

The full House passed that bill. The Senate Commerce Committee 

has now passed the bill and we are waiting for the full Senate’s action. Having these consolidations reviewed is important to me, and 

to the Ohio delegation and to the flying public in my State. 

I would like you to tell me today if you can take these consolidations off the table until they can be properly vetted by the bill’s review process. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Without actually thinking about that and having the document in front of me, it is difficult to answer it specifically. I would like to be able to do that with you at some other 

point. 

However, I will say this. One of the key issues around consolidation has been the sensitivity of our relationship with the controllers 

union and our ability to work together to find out whether or not 

the consolidations overall make sense. Just in the past few weeks, 

there is new leadership at NATCA, and we do have the contract 

behind us. Mr. Rinaldi, the new president of NATCA, and I, are 

talking about that very subject. In fact, we will be meeting next 

week, actually, to start talking about what that looks like. 

Until we get through that and until we understand what that 

looks like, we don’t have any direct plans right now to continue 

marching toward consolidations in your area. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Just to be clear, sir, you are saying that consolidations are not going to be on the table until you have had a chance 

to vet them and clearly refine that process? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I would say we are putting them in abeyance 

right now until we get that process understood. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. It will be in abeyance. I am a military pilot in that 

area, and we have flown, you know, quite frankly, many low-level 

missions training and what-not. And I can speak first-hand that 

they have saved our neck quite a few times. And to consolidate 

those to a point where I think would jeopardize the safety of that 

region—you know, we are in between two of the most busy airspaces in America, class B airspaces with respect to Cleveland and 

Pittsburgh, and there is a lot of air traffic, single engine and multiengine aircraft, doing, you know, just recreational flying, as well as 

military training in that area. So it would be detrimental to have 

that happen, in my opinion. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. If I may, just one quick comment on that. In the 

longer term as we get away from radars and the radar-based navigation system, we are going to have to look at what the right structure is going forward under ADS-B, but that is many years downstream. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Great, great. We are going to get you a copy of 

this letter and maybe if I could have a moment of your time after 

the Committee to follow up with this. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Very good. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

28 

And before I get to any questions, I would like to respond to my 

colleague, Mr. Coble, who asked what the meaning was of 

NextGen. And all I can say is, you know, the media likes to lump 

things in generations, generation acts and so forth. But I am pretty 

well convinced, Mr. Coble, that you and I and probably Mr. Boswell 

are members of what could best be called BestGen. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EHLERS. I offer that in all humility. 

At any rate—he is not going to touch that one. I understand why. 

I have a question, a very broad question here. And I have head 

a lot of discussion about NextGen and I have had a lot of reassurances, but I haven’t heard any mention today of how seriously you 

are working at incorporating general aviation into the whole process. That is a very important part of this. It is not the big money 

part, but a lot of small businesses depend on that. A lot of people 

depend on it. Air ambulances depend on it. 

What is the involvement of general aviation in this? And how are 

you meeting their specific needs? 

Ms. Jenny? 

Ms. JENNY. Yes, I would be happy to take a run at that. 

The Task Force had pretty major involvement from general aviation, both the business aviation and general aviation involved in all 

of the deliberations, and were part of the consensus at the end. 

Of our seven categories of recommendations, one full category addresses general aviation needs, and that is the ability to fly in the 

low-altitude, non-radar airspace, and have more GPS approaches to 

the general aviation airports. It is one of the few recommendations 

that actually requires ADS-B. That was part of our report that 

went out. 

So I think from their perspective, I would say they felt fairly well 

represented by these recommendations for the mid-term. 

Mr. EHLERS. Any other comments from any of you, particularly—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. If I could answer? In addition, we are working 

closely with GA community already in trying to approve their access. We have over 700 approvals, for example, for RNAV procedures. There are only about 90 airlines. So we are working with a 

lot of the general aviation and business community to make sure 

that they are able to participate in the system as well. Gulfstream, 

for example, is one of the leading manufacturers in helping provide 

the data we need to be able to approve operations for those people 

who fly Gulfstream aircraft. 

So we think actually we are learning a lot working with the GA 

community that will help us streamline our approval processes for 

everybody who operates in the system. 

Mr. EHLERS. And Mr. Scovel and Dr. Dillingham, do you, in your 

work there, have you noticed good involvement of GA in all the 

various stages? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sir, from our perspective, it seems that GA has been 

somewhat left on the sidelines in the overall discussion of NextGen 

long term. It is greatly encouraging to us that the RTCA Task 

Force has taken a step to bring general aviation to the table at 

least when it is talking about access to the NAS by improving service at smaller airports. 

29 

At this Committee’s request, my office will be following up to observe and report on the actions of FAA in pursuing the RTCA Task 

Force recommendation in that specific area, sir. 

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Dillingham, do you have any—— 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I don’t have anything to add to that, Dr. 

Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. All right. Let me also make a comment. I have no 

further burning questions at this point. But we are dealing with an 

immensely complicated issue here. And I am not afraid of complications. In fact, I rather enjoy it. But I am feeling lost again. Every 

once in a while, I have to be in touch with reality. 

And Mr. Krakowski, maybe you are the best one to address this 

to. I think it is time again for some product demonstration, just 

something that we can see hands-on and see how it works. And I 

don’t know if you are at the point of taking us up in planes and 

seeing how that operates, but at least look at it from the airport 

perspective, perhaps a visit to National again or bringing in equipment here, as you have done a few times. I think it would be very 

beneficial for the Committee and I encourage you to think about 

putting that on again. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. We would be delighted to do that. 

I would like to report that the other day, I flew my first LPV approach, which is localizer performance with vertical guidance, and 

I had never seen that technology before until I flew it the other day 

in one of the FAA airplanes. 

I was overwhelmed at the precision and the ease of flying that 

approach. And those are becoming more and more available in the 

system for general aviation every day. 

Mr. EHLERS. Good. I am glad to hear that. 

Thank you very much and I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Having an opportunity for folks listening to say that we have 

talked about this for decades, I can agree, because I have been here 

for two years and it seems like many of the hearings I have been 

to, it has already been several times. So I look forward to us getting to the end point. 

My first question is for Ms. Jenny. Ms. Jenny, I don’t know if you 

have had an opportunity to read the statement of Mr. Krakowski, 

but on page three, he talks about all the involvement of the board 

and the vice presidents and the chief operating officer. And yet in 

your testimony, you said that it really lacks the leadership and the 

focus. 

Can you explain to us based upon what system they say that 

they have in place, why you feel that that is not sufficient? 

Ms. JENNY. First, I should say that I can speak for the Task 

Force, and the recommendations in the Task Force, which again, 

as I said before, really did stop short of trying to tell the FAA how 

to go about implementing the recommendations. 

But there was a concern that because the capabilities are so integrated and so location specific, that it is different from the way 

things have been implemented in the past. And to be able to make 

sure that all the pieces come together, both across the FAA and in 

30 

collaboration with the operators who also have to invest, that it 

takes a really key focus and a single point of accountability and responsibility to do that. 

So I think the jury is out at this point. I understand the FAA 

is taking all these recommendations in and looking at these. So we 

did not address specifically what is in Mr. Krakowski’s testimony. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Krakowski, would you agree with the 

Board’s recommendation of needing a single point focus? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. We believe we have that through the assignment of the Deputy Administrator. This is very different, what we 

are proposing here with these Task Force recommendations, than 

some of what was talked about with Dr. Dillingham and Mr. 

Scovel. These are not big programs being thrown out there. This 

Task Force is establishing a new way of doing business between 

FAA and the user community because they have to invest concurrently with us to make this happen. This is not just us modernizing 

our system and helping them with their current aircraft work in 

it better. They actually have to be part of this. So we have to look 

at each other almost every day going forward to make this happen. 

So this is going to be very different for all of us. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Krakowski, in the Board’s recommendations, which I think there were 27 or 29—Mr. Scovel had several 

and Mr. Dillingham had several as well—could you please supply 

to the Committee the answers to whether you are either incorporating those or whether you intend not to and why. I notice in 

your testimony you covered a few of them but you certainly did not 

cover all of the recommendations that were provided. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Yes. There is a lot of detail. First of all, I absolutely commit to giving you those answers. I would anticipate having those maturely available some time in January after we have 

gone through some of the processes I talked about earlier at this 

hearing, working with the RTCA committee to start prioritizing. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I would just say January or sooner if this Committee meets prior to that about NextGen. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Okay. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

Then finally, this is the last question, Mr. Krakowski. How do 

you see that you are going to prioritize how the airports will actually receive and begin utilizing NextGen? 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Again, the NextGen Management Board, which 

is going to be the governing body of FAA to pull it all together, has 

the Airports Associate Administrator on it. It has all of the key 

functionalities of FAA. Then, working with the RTCA Task Force, 

the ATMAC, and the Subcommittees going forward, all of that is 

represented there as well, too. 

I think your point is well taken that at times as we have tried 

to modernize the system we have done it without sufficient recognition of the contribution of the airport and how it operates in the 

system. When you think of Kennedy Airport and some of the airports, a lot of the issues which were appropriately identified in the 

Task Force reports are about surface management. How do we taxi 

aircraft in and out of the gate areas? How do we avoid clogging up 

a taxiway because it is not being managed effectively? 

31 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Also in Los Angeles, we also had a recent incident. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Yes. Runway incursions—although we have got 

good news here, they are way down—that is always going to be—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I understand that we still had another one this 

week. 

Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentle lady. 

We thank this panel for testifying here today. We appreciate 

your testimony. 

I would note for the Subcommittee Members that the Subcommittee has asked General Scovel to monitor the implementation 

of the recommendations of the Task Force. I might ask General 

Scovel when the Subcommittee might expect its first report from 

you on the Task Force recommendations? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sir, we would like a chance to look at FAA’s promised January plan. We may have something to you six months 

thereafter. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. 

Mr. Krakowski, I would just continue to encourage you to work 

with Ms. Jenny in implementing the recommendations that they 

have made. The Subcommittee certainly intends to monitor the implementation and to continue to hold hearings concerning NextGen 

so that we can be certain that progress is being made and that we 

can move forward. 

Again, we thank you for being here today and offering your testimony. 

The Chair would now ask the second panel of witnesses to come 

forward please. I want to introduce our second panel: Mr. James 

C. May, the President and CEO of the Air Transport Association; 

Mr. Jens C. Hennig, Vice President of Operations, General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association; Mr. Dale Wright, the Director of Safety 

and Technology, National Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. 

Neil Planzer, Vice President, Strategy at Boeing Air Traffic Management, on behalf of the Aerospace Industry Association; and Mr. 

Ed Bolen, who is the President and CEO of the National Business 

Aviation Association. 

Again, we would say to the witnesses on this panel that your full 

statement will be entered into the record. We would ask you to 

summarize your statement. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. May. 

32 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR 

TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION; JENS C. HENNIG, VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; DALE WRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY 

AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS 

ASSOCIATION; NEIL PLANZER, VICE PRESIDENT-STRATEGY, 

BOEING AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION; AND ED BOLEN, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Members of 

the Committee. The NextGen Task Force, which I think was admirably led by Captain Steve Dixon of Delta Airlines, did an outstanding job of setting a course to transition to NextGen. As important as that accomplishment is, there is a larger lesson to be 

learned, however, which is the urgency of benefitting from NextGen 

as soon as possible. 

The case for modernization is so compelling and so widely accepted and the need is so great that the introduction of what we all 

agree is readily available technology and the procedures to fully leverage it must become a national priority. To make that priority 

a reality, we think the Federal Government at the highest levels 

must provide decisive leadership and a substantial financial commitment. 

We know what NextGen can do. The technology is proven. We 

know we need NextGen. We know that stakeholders uniformly 

want its benefits. We know what has to be done operationally and 

financially. We know what we now need is the Federal Government 

to assume the mantle of leadership to make NextGen an early reality. 

The Federal role is indispensable if we are to have an airport 

and airway system that can responsively meet the air transportation needs of our Nation. The system does not do that today. The 

burden of this failure is about $41 billion annually on airlines and 

passengers. 

Modernization of the ATC system, however, must be based on a 

positive business case. Without that justification, we will not see 

the level and pace of investment that will produce the operational 

and environmental benefits that are so achievable from NextGen. 

Such foregone opportunities are truly intolerable. We have already 

witnessed that, for instance, in the failure to have RNP/RNAV procedures available when SeaTac’s $1 billion third runway opened 

last December or an RNP/RNAV procedure engineered in Palm 

Springs, California that has never been used because it is inefficient. 

The Federal Government holds the keys to making NextGen a reality sooner rather than later. It must become, as I said, a national 

priority to which all necessary resources should be devoted. 

Leadership and full funding can make it happen in several years, 

not in the third decade of this century as is assumed today. Accepting anything less ambitious will needlessly shortchange our Country. Leadership, I point out, includes exhibiting the wherewithal to 

overcome the political differences that an undertaking of this magnitude will inevitably create. We need to be candid and acknowlVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
33 

edge the state of affairs. For example, this means we cannot continue to dither over implementation of FAA’s New York airspace 

redesign plan. NextGen will not work in New York, or anywhere, 

if individual interests frustrate the airspace improvements that 

will indisputably benefit us all. 

Leadership also includes accountability. Clear metrics must be 

established to measure the progress of the Government as it quickly introduces NextGen. At the same time, we need clear performance metrics to be established. 

Finally, leadership means a serious commitment to infrastructure investment. That is something we are all familiar with on the 

ground. It needs to be applied to equipping aircraft to take advantage of NextGen technology. Given the cost of equipage and the 

length of time it could take for an individual user to see a payback, 

such funding is crucial. This is infrastructure investment that can 

pay off in the next few years, and that payoff is within our reach. 

To place this into perspective, if Congress and the Administration 

were to provide a level of funding comparable, just comparable to 

the funding for high speed rail projects in this year’s stimulus legislation, NextGen would be an early reality. 

Without this leadership and funding, implementation of NextGen 

will drag on and our Nation will suffer even more from airport and 

airway congestion. This Task Force has ably prepared our flight 

plan. We need to speed up our arrival at our final destination. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. May, and now recognizes Mr. Hennig. 

Mr. HENNIG. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jens Hennig 

and I am the Vice President of Operations for the General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association. 

This hearing and other Subcommittee hearings earlier this year 

have contributed greatly to a better understanding about the 

NextGen program, where it stands today, and where it needs to go 

tomorrow to achieve the safety, economic capacity, and environmental benefits we all want to achieve. 

The general aviation industry, like others, is struggling in today’s 

economic environment. GAMA member companies by themselves 

have experienced more than 19,000 layoffs since September of last 

year, which is almost 14 percent of our workforce. Despite these 

tough times, our member companies continue our history of investing in new products to help stimulate economic growth and future 

employment in general aviation. I was in Orlando just last week 

at a convention and down there our member companies continued 

this tradition by announcing new availabilities of NextGen capabilities such as ADS-B OUT, RNP, and data applications. 

From GAMA’s perspective, there are two overarching points to be 

made about the Task Force. The first point is that we have reached 

a time where more focus needs to be placed on delivery rather than 

planning. The Task Force worked under the framework that ‘‘it is 

about implementation’’. Success in implementation now will mean 

more user confidence as we implement other transformational 

parts of the NextGen program. 

The second point is industry’s involvement in air traffic control 

modernization. When we look beyond the horizon of the Task Force 

34 

to the implementation of the full concept of operations for NextGen, 

the role of industry in its planning, research, and development remains essential. The Administration must continue to provide effective mechanisms for industry to continue to participate. 

I will now highlight some of the key recommendations of the 

Task Force from a GAMA perspective. 

The traditional process of modernizing our airspace was centered 

on ground equipment infrastructure. For NextGen, the term ‘‘aircraft-centric’’ is often used. It attempts to communicate this paradigm shift of moving part of the air traffic control infrastructure 

onto the aircraft. Greater reliance on aircraft avionics, however, 

makes an efficient process for avionic certification and FAA operational approvals even more important. 

When we look at streamlining of avionics certification, we note 

that significant work has been done over the past several decades 

to streamline these processes. However, more needs to be done for 

these improvements to be fully realized. We are pleased to hear Associate Administrator Peggy Gilligan already is in the process of 

moving forward with improvements in this area. 

As the RTCA report stresses, better coordination, clearly defined 

roles, and accountability between the Aviation Safety Organizations’ different offices is needed. 

The Task Force also takes an important step forward by identifying opportunities to streamline the operational approval process 

and focus the FAA resources on essential safety functions. In this 

area the Task Force makes some practical recommendations, including that approval requests be combined into a single, comprehensive application package and that a clear path be created for 

aircraft manufacturers for the aircraft portion of the approval. Both 

will achieve better efficiencies. These improvements also enhance 

manufacturers’ ability to put new products and capabilities into operation, which directly ties to our ability to sell equipment, create 

and maintain jobs, and compete in the global marketplace. 

GAMA has also long advocated for appropriate levels of FAA resources for certification. We have welcomed the attention of this 

Committee about this issue in the past. As we go forward with 

NextGen, ensuring that the FAA has adequate levels of engineering staffing resources to support ever-increasing levels of certification activity and the process improvements I have already described will become essential. 

I would like to close by discussing the RTCA Task Force endorsement of financial incentives for aircraft equipage as one of its overarching recommendations. These incentives become important 

when benefits reside not with the individual operator but with the 

overall system, another operator, or with the U.S. Government. We 

believe Government support for equipage is appropriate as the ATC 

infrastructure of the past is increasingly moving to the aircraft. We 

must all consider whether it matters in terms of Government funding if the infrastructure that is funded is built on the ground or 

in the air. GAMA stands ready to work with Congress, the Administration, and other industry stakeholders to further NextGen 

through financial incentives for equipage. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on 

this issue and for inviting GAMA to testify before the SubVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
35 

committee. We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to ensure the safety, economic, and environmental opportunities of NextGen are realized. 

Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

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

Wright. 

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

Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dale Wright. 

I am the Director of Safety and Technology for the National Air 

Traffic Controllers Association and was a professional air traffic 

controller for more than 32 years. 

NATCA has been deeply involved with RTCA in its work on 

NextGen. I personally have served on several work groups including Task Force 5, whose recommendations we are discussing this 

afternoon. 

The RTCA’s NextGen Task Force is truly a collaborative environment. RTCA members from all aspects of the aviation community 

were given an opportunity to share their perspectives and expertise. RTCA recognizes the value of NATCA’s knowledge of day-today air traffic control operation, the needs of the system, and the 

real world implementation of the proposals being considered. The 

collaborative nature of the Task Force helped RTCA to develop recommendations that were thorough and well-considered. I have a 

high level of confidence in the recommendations. 

In general, RTCA’s recommendations encourage improving and 

expanding the use of current technology. NATCA supports these 

initiatives which include deploying ASDE-X beyond the OEP 35 

and expanding the use of precision runway monitoring and converging runway display aids. Each of these promotes improved situational awareness for both pilots and controllers, enabling the 

more efficient use of taxiways, runways, and air space. 

It must be understood, however, that the RTCA recommendations are only guidelines. The technological and procedural details 

and implementation decisions remain to be determined by the FAA. 

The FAA would be well advised to learn a lesson from RTCA and 

collaborate with NATCA as they continue to develop their NextGen 

plans. Former collaboration between the FAA and NATCA has 

been a critical component of success for modernization projects in 

the past. We believe it will be equally vital to the successful development of NextGen. 

We applaud the efforts by Administrator Babbitt to foster a partnership between NATCA and the FAA. But despite the clauses in 

the new contract that encourage collaboration through the efforts 

of the Administrator, the FAA’s willingness to reach out to or work 

with NATCA has been inconsistent at best. 

Last month, Representative Eddie Kragh spoke before this Subcommittee about his participation in the New York VFR Airspace 

Task Force, which was formed in response to the accident over the 

Hudson River. NATCA applauds the FAA for including NATCA in 

response to this tragedy. Unfortunately, the FAA has not taken 

this approach on other projects equally critical to aviation safety. 

The union has been rebuffed in our attempts to be meaningfully involved in airspace redesign efforts and ERAM. Just last week we 

36 

were even refused a formal briefing on ADS-B despite the centrality of each of these programs to the FAA’s NextGen plans. 

While NACTA is pleased to have the opportunity to participate 

in the RTCA Task Force, it is a privilege that we pay a membership fee for and is not a substitute for direct collaboration with the 

FAA. 

Meaningful collaboration with NATCA will prove critical in addressing certain outstanding concerns. For example, the RTCA report dealt extensively with the best equipped, best served plan for 

incentivizing equipage. In order for any such plan to be workable, 

a controller must be able to determine at a glance the extent to 

which each aircraft is NextGen equipped. This information is not 

currently displayed on the radar scopes and most terminal controllers do not have access to flight progress strips that contain this 

information. In order for any best equipped, best served plan to be 

successful, this information must be displayed on each controller’s 

scope. 

The FAA must not forget that it is ultimately the people and not 

the technology that keeps the national airspace system operating 

safely and efficiently. This means that every new technology and 

procedure must be considered for its human factor implications. 

The FAA must also ensure that the human infrastructure is adequate to support the current and future traffic levels and the 

changes that NextGen will bring. 

In April of 2009, the Inspector General reported that the FAA 

faces an increasing risk of not having enough certified controllers 

in its workforce. The air traffic controller workforce has an understandably high ratio of training and has suffered a troubling loss 

of experienced controllers over the past three years. As we prepare 

to transition into NextGen, training and experience are of paramount importance. Glitches in the implementation are unavoidable 

so it is critical to have controllers who are easily able to adapt and 

maintain safety during testing and early implementation. 

The FAA must also ensure that any significant changes to technology or procedures be accompanied by comprehensive training for 

both pilot and controllers. NATCA is concerned by the recent precedent set by the FAA with regard to training. Often changes in operational procedures are implemented without any kind of meaningful controller training. Instead, a binder is placed in the operational areas containing memos announcing the change. Controllers are instructed to read and initial these announcements. By 

doing so, the controller assumes the responsibility for having 

learned the new rules. This is unacceptable. 

Controllers must be fully briefed on all changes in technology 

and procedure and must have the opportunity to ask questions. If 

changes are significant, they must have the opportunity to participate in simulator training. 

NATCA remains dedicated to ensuring that the national airspace 

system is safe, efficient, and accessible for all members of the flying 

public. We look forward to working with the FAA to improve the 

national airspace system and to being a meaningful part of finding 

solutions to the issues facing NextGen. 

Thank you very much. 

37 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you. I might mention that 

NATCA and other stakeholders will, in fact, be at the table when 

the reauthorization bill passes and ends up on the President’s desk. 

There is language both in the House bill and the Senate bill that 

mandates that NATCA and other stakeholders be at the table. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Planzer. 

Mr. PLANZER. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri, thank 

you for the opportunity to represent the Aerospace Industries Association today. Marion Blakey sends her regrets for not being able 

to be here today. 

The Aerospace Industries Association, of which my company Boeing is a key member, represents 637,000 high wage, high skill positions in the United States. The Aerospace Industries Association’s 

300 members provide a trade surplus in excess of $57 billion. The 

future of the Aerospace Industries Association and its civilian 

members critically need NextGen’s success. It is our intent to grow 

our employment, grow our surplus, and to continue to apply to 

America those economic strengths that this industry provides and 

has provided over the years. 

RTCA did a very difficult task for this Government. At the request of this Committee the FAA, they did a review of what could 

be done in the short and near term. They should be credited for 

doing that. When we look at it, it is imperative to understand that 

what they did is not an end, but must be integrated and woven into 

the tapestry that is the integrated work plan for NextGen. When 

you take out of that context a couple of pieces, you realize that this 

is a difficult task. 

When you look at RNP, Required Navigational Performance—a 

number of people have mentioned it today—you realize that we are 

measuring our success by activity. In order for NextGen to be successful, in order for the FAA to be successful, in order for us to proceed the way this Committee wants us to go, we need to start to 

measure outcome, not activity. A thousand new RNP procedures 

that do not reduce flight time, do not increase the safety of the system, do not reduce environmental emissions, and do not have citypaired times decreasing are really of very little value. I could say 

the same thing about ADS-B and other pieces. So we understand 

that the outcome that is necessary is what we are looking for, not 

the activity. 

Let me take a moment to share with you a personal story. In 

1957, as a very young child, my parents gave me the opportunity 

to visit my sister in Boston. I lived in New York. I remember it vividly because it was the first time I traveled by myself and my first 

time on an airplane. My dad drove me out to Idlewild Airport, 

which is now John F. Kennedy Airport, and they put me on a Capital Airlines DC-3. That airplane cruised at 160 miles per hour and 

that blessed trip that I remember so well took an hour and ten 

minutes from New York to Boston. We do that same trip today in 

a Boeing 737-800. It cruises at 595 miles an hour, yet the time between those cities has gone from an hour and ten minutes to an 

hour and forty-five minutes, almost 50 percent more. The last time 

I looked, those cities had not moved. So we know that the system 

has created a problem. 

38 

We need to measure our outcomes and that will drive the Agency 

and the industry to give this Committee what it wants. City-pair 

times need to be reduced. Safety needs to be increased. Runways 

need to be built where they are needed. Runway occupancy times 

are critical to understand how this system will expand capacity. 

If all we do is efficiency, then we will not have the increased the 

capacity that my company and the Aerospace Industries Association is trying to foster in order to create what this Nation needs 

in value positions, high income, and high salaried jobs for this 

country. We are one of the few areas left that generates the kind 

of trade surplus that we do. I think it is critical that those metrics 

move in as part of the measurement of our success. 

Everybody is talking about the great job that we have done. If 

we had done this two years ago, and you did, we would have heard 

a lot of the same answers. So the question for us moving forward 

is how do we need to change things so that we are not here in two, 

three, four, or five years. I would like to offer up on behalf of our 

constituency that metrics are the key point to that. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity. I will enjoy any questions you may ask us. 

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

Bolen. 

Mr. BOLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you, 

Ranking Member Petri, and this entire Subcommittee for holding 

this hearing today. For decades the United States has been able to 

say that it has the largest, the safest, the most efficient, and the 

most diverse air transportation system in the world. NextGen is 

about being able to say that same thing for decades to come. 

General aviation has always been at the forefront of trying to 

promote system modernization. General aviation was among the 

first early adopters of GPS, which we all know will be the basic 

navigation technology in NextGen. We have been early and strong 

proponents of ADS-B, which we recognize will be the surveillance 

technology of NextGen. In fact, general aviation pushed to have 

ADS-B test programs in Alaska and at the Atlanta Olympics. We 

have pushed system capacity by supporting reduced vertical separation minima within the United States within this decade. And 

general aviation was on the commission that actually recommended 

what we are now calling NextGen. 

As Jens Hennig pointed out, these are tough times for the general aviation industry. This past year has been among the worst we 

have ever endured. Nevertheless, we remain totally committed to 

NextGen. I believe that RTCA’s Task Force 5 is a significant step 

toward making NextGen a reality. Among other things, RTCA’s 

Task Force 5 has strategies for accelerating the timeframe for 

NextGen and strategies for incentivizing equipage. It brings home 

the fact that in order for us to receive real benefits from NextGen, 

we will need a critical mass of airplanes to be equipped. And it 

points out, significantly, that equipage not only means what the 

Government needs to do but what operators need to do as well. 

Another significant point from Task Force 5 is it truly brought 

the industry to the table. Mr. Chairman, in your opening comments 

you talked about the fact that general aviation, the airlines, the 

controllers, the airport community, we were all there. And as Dr. 

39 

Sinha mentioned, it was not just the operational people or the technical people. Financial people were there as well. 

Significantly, Task Force 5 does not rely on breakthrough technologies or breakthrough research. It builds on technologies that 

we already understand. We know how to get this done. I think it 

is also important that the timeframes that have been put forward 

by RTCA are very aggressive. They push us all beyond our comfort 

zone, but they are all achievable. They are within reason. 

Now, at NBAA, we have a working definition of NextGen. We say 

that NextGen is the procedures, the policies, and the technologies 

necessary to expand system capacity, to reduce delays, to enhance 

safety, and to reduce our environmental footprint by improving situational awareness, allowing more direct routing, and having precise spacing. 

We believe that to date the Joint Planning and Development Office has set the magnetic North for NextGen. We believe that the 

RTCA Task Force 5 recommendations give us those immediate 

steps to get us on our way. We support the recommendations. We 

are wanting to work with you on a close, collaborative basis to 

make NextGen a reality. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We thank you, Mr. Bolen. 

Mr. May, since you and I have discussed this more than once in 

person and in your testimony you say that we know what NextGen 

can do and the that technology is proven, for the record do you 

want to elaborate on that? 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the definition 

of NextGen that Mr. Bolen just delivered would be one shared by 

everyone at this table and certainly by ATA. It is the ability to 

have the processes and procedures to deploy the digital satellite 

technology that we need to begin to safely space our planes more 

closely together, to fly more efficient routes, and to save fuel. 

I have a couple of counter examples to that. One of our carriers, Southwest Airlines, has invested over $175 million in RNAV/RNP 

procedures. They fly to 68 airports. There are roughly 68 or 69 

RNP procedures at those airports with 410 runway ends. Of those, 

maybe six are actually efficient. The rest of it is wasted work on 

behalf of those that are engineering those procedures. I talked 

about the runway in Seattle—a $1 billion investment, but it did not 

have RNP/RNAV procedures for Alaska Airlines and all the rest 

that want to be able to use that. 

So what you have heard here consistently and from almost every 

witness is that technology is available. Deploy it. The procedures, 

however, need to be worthwhile. We need to have them save fuel, 

have more direct routings, and have more efficient landings and 

take-offs. We need all of those things to be performance metrics, as 

Neil Planzer just talked about, to work into the system. That is 

what is going to be critical to us. Otherwise, all this investment is 

not going to be worth much of anything. 

Finally, we need leadership at the very highest levels of this 

Government to determine that this is the Eisenhower era National 

Highway Reform project of our era. Air traffic control needs to be 

that kind of a priority. We cannot let politics stand in the way 

whatever we do. 

40 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Mr. Bolen, you indicated that you 

support the recommendations of the Task Force. You state in your 

testimony that utilizing existing equipment on aircraft today has 

produced little or no return on investment. I think I know what 

you mean by that statement. But for the record, would you elaborate? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, this gets to some of the GPS technologies 

which are available today and I think were illustrated in a compelling manner by Mr. Planzer as he talked. We, in fact, have a generation of airplanes in some cases that are being retired with the 

equipment onboard that has never really been utilized. We want to 

have an opportunity to use all of the available technologies we have 

today to create as much system capacity and as much efficiency as 

possible. Doing that is simply a matter of having policies and procedures that facilitate that. 

That is why NextGen is not a big bang. It was talked earlier 

about how it is a build a little, test a little. It is a collection of policies, procedures, and technologies all working together. That is why 

there is so much we can do. It is not flipping a switch on something 

new. It is about making lots of little steps that collectively are 

going to be transformative in nature. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. I just have limited time. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Planzer to expand a little bit on talking 

about benchmarks and trying to work in a more collaborative way. 

Start with how we can break the problem down and start moving 

forward. You talked about trying to not measure or benchmark inputs but to look at outputs. 

I can remember as a kid riding the old 400. It was called the 400 

in the midwest because it went 400 miles in 400 minutes. The high 

speed rail we are talking about today is not going to achieve that 

goal either. So partly, I guess, it is more congestion and a variety 

of factors. 

But in any event, one other aspect to this, there is a whole parallel rollout of NextGen in military aircraft. They have 13,000 

planes. When we talk about collaborative efforts, I am sure there 

are some things we could learn if we could get the Task Force 

working with the—you work with the Pentagon. Boeing makes 

planes for military as well as civilian use. A lot of the equipment 

overlaps. Some problems are different but there are certain things 

that we could learn from ourselves, in effect, in benchmarking or 

in moving this modernization process forward. Could you in any 

way explain how we could help to measure and encourage step-bystep progress in this area, knowing that airlines have to make 

money and so if we do a benchmark we would want to do it in a 

way that encourages, does not just tell them, but encourages them 

and makes it in their interest to move that part of it forward. 

Mr. PLANZER. Congressman Petri, I will try to do that. I would 

like to say that I served for six years as a senior executive at the 

Department of Defense managing air traffic control, and also 

served in the Air Force as a much younger man. So I do have some 

understanding of it. I would offer you a couple of things. 

41 

Number one is, NextGen is not part of a civilian modernization. 

It is the modernization of a Federal air traffic control system. The 

reason we say it is Federal is because it serves both the civil and 

the military. Defenders and first responders are critically important to the growth of NextGen. And NextGen must show the value 

of a transformed system to those organizations. The function of the 

JPDO that should continue would be an integrated management of 

good Government integration for those two pieces. The outcomes, 

it is not even outputs, it is outcomes that you want to measure, are 

those things that are consequential to both. We know that the Air 

Force, the Air Mobility Command that operates the tankers and 

the lifters for our defense are critically operated very similar to the 

members that Mr. May represents. It is a Government use of airplanes on a schedule and has some ability to move forward. The 

outcome that they will want to measure is no different. The equipage that they have to put onboard is no different. The difference 

is it is a direct funding from the taxpayer in order for us to do that. 

So when we look at outcomes, we want to measure those outcomes to what the industry, civil, the military, and first responders 

have to do. The FAA had a program called Network Enabled Operations that was demonstrating how to integrate those. One of the 

key functions, we have spent a lot of treasury developing a systemwide information management system that is the backbone of the 

DOD’s defense structure. We are not fully utilizing that in the civilian world. And when I look at the SWIM process, system-wide information management that the civil side is doing, I am concerned 

that we are not pulling in all that expertise that the DOD owns 

and we have paid for over the past several decades. 

A weak system-wide information management system that does 

not connect to the military or to DHS but only works on a limited 

basis within the civilian market is, in my opinion, speaking for myself, a mistake. So system-wide information management is a key 

component of NextGen that is siloed out and is not currently being 

developed. We should lean on the military and DHS and bring 

them in closer, and they have to trust the civilian world will meet 

their needs as well as those of the civilian enterprise. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

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

recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think 

we all agree that everybody at this table is extremely important as 

we move this along. I just cannot imagine that anybody would not 

want everyone there. And sometimes over the last couple of years 

I have heard the discussions going on regarding, well, maybe not 

the controllers. I do not buy into that at all. I just think it is extremely important, at least when I am pushing the throttle, that 

those people who are monitoring, watching, working the mechanism, talking to me and everybody else of the 80,000 flights per 

day, or whatever it is, are extremely important. So I would just like 

to address this question to you, Mr. Wright, if I could. Do you 

feel—let me put it this way. The GAO has found that literally millions of dollars could be saved by getting stockholders involved. 

Will the new contract signed by the FAA and the air traffic controlVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
42 

lers help foster the collaborative cooperation necessary to help 

build a better air traffic control system? Are you involved? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Boswell. I do believe that the new 

contract will foster that relationship. As you know, I am sure the 

Committee remembers back, the GAO did report in 2004 having experts and technical people on their light controllers to save like 

$500 million in STARS. As a matter of fact, I would like to submit 

two excerpts from that report from 2004 as part of my testimony. 

ANACA wants to be involved. We really appreciate the opportunity 

of the RTCA to be involved. We stand ready to be involved with 

the FAA. Our new contract has two articles for that, one specifically for NextGen, Article ll4, and we hope that things will change 

and we will be invited to be participating at the front end. 

[The referenced material follows:] 

43 


Insert offset folio 15 here 53122.015
44 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just think we must 

insist this happens. I would be glad to work with you in any way 

I can, because I talk to a lot of people who are the drivers, the suppliers, the pilots, and you do, too, and I cannot imagine doing this 

safely without having the controllers involved in the discussion, in 

the hands-on of what they have to do, calling upon their expertise 

and experience that they have accumulated. Pretty much like Mr. 

Planzer was talking about. It is extremely valuable. It would be absolutely unacceptable not to include that in every step of the way. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel. 

It has been a very good panel. You have stated your positions very 

clearly. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I think we have all 

benefitted from the testimony we have heard from these gentlemen. The only suggestion I could make is that we should have a 

few gentle ladies on the panel, too. But I want to thank everyone 

for being here. It has been very helpful. I yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you and we will take that up 

with staff. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from 

California, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. May, could you 

give us any real world examples of your carriers’ experience with 

NextGen technologies, like RNAV or RNP? 

Mr. MAY. RNAV/RNP. I actually just gave an example. I think 

you were out of the room attending to other business. But a very 

quick example is Palm Springs, California, not far from your area 

of California, where they put in a RNAV/RNP procedure but it was 

longer and more cumbersome than the traditional ILS procedures 

going into that airport. So they spent all the money to develop the 

engineering and it is not being used. That is just one quick example. There are many others. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Has that information been shared with Mr. 

Krakowski? 

Mr. MAY. It has been. Believe me, many times. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And what was the response, or have you gotten 

a response? 

Mr. MAY. I think they are in the process, as he testified and I 

sat here and listened to him this morning, of coming up with new 

plans to redirect RNAV/RNP. But I think another classic example 

is the airport in Seattle. A brand new runway, nobody put in a 

RNAV/RNP procedure. And it can’t be just an overlay of an existing ILS procedure. It has to be more efficient or it is not worth 

doing. It has to save us fuel, it has to allow us to fly more direct 

routes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Are you at the table with these discussions? 

Are you included and one of the stakeholders of some of this review? 

Mr. MAY. I co-chair the IMC, which is part of the industry advisory group for the JPDO. We have active involvement. One of our 

key management pilots led Task Force 5, or co-led Task Force 5. 

45 

So we have some very significant involvement and we hope to have 

even more. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Could you supply to this Committee if 

for any reason you are not satisfied with the response from Mr. 

Krakowski. 

Mr. MAY. No. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Could you supply to this Committee—— 

Mr. MAY. I will be happy to reply to the Committee but I think 

Mr. Krakowski—this was done prior to his being onboard. So I 

think the direction he is headed is a much more productive and 

positive one. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Well, let us know if that changes. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Also Mr. May, in your testimony on page two 

you said that leadership also includes accountability and that clear 

metrics must be established to measure progress of the Government as it quickly introduces NextGen. Do you feel that is happening? 

Mr. MAY. I think it needs to happen. I think the Chairman 

talked to Inspector General Scovel about making sure there were 

metrics involved and they were being adhered to. I think those are 

performance metrics that the FAA has to live up to. The other performance metrics are the ones that my good friend Mr. Planzer 

talked about, which is if you put these procedures in place, if you 

spend the money to invest in new technology, is it going to be better technology, more productive technology, are we going to cut 

down on our carbon footprint, are we going to burn less fuel, are 

we going to cut minutes from our travel schedules. And if you do 

not have those kind of performance metrics, then a lot of this is 

wasted effort. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. If there are any others other than what 

you just stated that is on the record, feel free to supply them to 

the Committee. And I would say again, if you feel you are not being 

heard or responses being taken into consideration, please let us 

know before they come back, which I think Mr. Scovel was saying 

could be as late as June of next year. 

Mr. MAY. We are not shy. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you, sir. And then finally, I have 

a minute, Mr. Wright, like my colleague Mr. Boswell, I am a little 

concerned that it seems to me the last time we had this particular 

evaluation of NextGen there was the talk of the involvement of the 

Air Traffic Controllers. So am I understanding you correctly that 

there has been no better progress of the involvement? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We still do not have any what we would call project 

representatives for NextGen. Myself and the other person that 

work in safety and technology attend most of the meetings in town 

with RTCA and industry. At the FAA, we have met with Ms. Cox, 

the Senior Vice President, a couple of times. We have discussed 

what reps are needed but there has been no progress made toward 

actually selecting representatives. So we are still not involved with 

the representatives at that level. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Then I would like to concur with my colleague, Mr. Chairman. If you would consider, maybe we could do 

46 

a letter or something urging their involvement once and for all. I 

yield back. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentle lady. Let me mention that NATCA was involved with the Task Force but has not 

been with the working group, has not been consulted. And that is 

addressed in the reauthorization bill. We actually direct the FAA 

that it is mandatory to have the stakeholders, including NATCA, 

at the table in all of the discussions, not only in the design but in 

the implementation of NextGen. 

And let me mention as well to another one of your points, it has 

been one of the problems with NextGen, in my judgement, that in 

the past the FAA has not gone out and consulted with or gotten 

commitments from stakeholders. And this is the first time to my 

knowledge where we have through this Task Force, because of the 

demands of many in the industry and this Subcommittee, the hearings that we have held and the roundtables and the meetings that 

we have had with the FAA, this is the first time that it has been 

done in a comprehensive way through this Task Force. 

And now that the recommendations are made, it is up to the 

FAA to figure out how they are going to implement these recommendations, and it will be up to us and the Inspector General, 

as the Subcommittee has asked him to monitor the implementation 

of these recommendations and to report to us, and we will be holding further hearings on NextGen where we will bring the FAA back 

to the table as well as the Inspector General to monitor the implementation and also to make certain that the stakeholders involved 

are in fact being heard. So the Chair thanks the gentle lady. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, and thank you very much 

for this important hearing, Mr. Chairman. This question can be answered perhaps by any of you but particularly Mr. Hennig and Mr. 

Wright might want to respond. It has to do with related work in 

which I am involved on the Homeland Security Committee. I am 

interested in what you are doing in relationship to technology of 

course, which is one of the driving forces here as far as the Government is concerned. I worked on the part of a bill that passed that 

Committee that establishes a working group to try to conform the 

large aircraft protocols to fit general aviation. 

I am also very much aware particularly in the case of general 

aviation, who we are talking about We are talking about small operators, small businesses. Certainly you, Mr. Hennig, are aware 

that we have virtually destroyed general aviation in the Nation’s 

Capital. It is almost inconceivable that there would be any capital 

even of some tiny country that did not feel it could defend itself 

well enough to let aircraft carrying business people and dignitaries 

come in. Indeed, within days general aviation was up in New York 

City. That is where 9/11 occurred. That is where most of the chatter is about, not the Nation’s Capital. That is where they have skyscrapers which are easy targets. They are up. And you can call us 

up but, of course, we are no such thing. 

I am interested in whether you think the technology with which 

you are working provides adequate security for general aviation instead of what we have today? An operator has to have an armed 

47 

marshal. There are very few of them. This is not their day job. So 

you cannot even get one. If you want a small plane that has four 

seats, well there goes one of them to this armed guard. And then 

you still cannot come in here. You have to go to some gateway airport. And if you are willing to do all of that, you have got to make 

sure you have done paperwork by the ton to get into Washington, 

D.C. Do we have the technology to get rid of that and to resurrect 

or to let general aviation become a part of doing business with the 

Nation’s Capital today? 

Mr. HENNIG. Thank you Congresswoman Norton. Let me start by 

saying thank you for your support related to the Large Aircraft Security Program. We have seen great progress with the TSA over 

the past six months since May. They have sat down with industry 

in various settings and tried to work towards a practical solution. 

We are being told we are going to see a new version, a new proposal coming out of the agency towards the end of this year or the 

beginning of the new year that incorporates this feedback that we 

have been able to provide back to the TSA through the type of 

work group that you identified. 

When it comes to the District of Columbia, obviously there is still 

a lot more work that needs to be done. Anybody that flies here in 

the airspace knows about the issues that exist. TSA and the other 

agencies involved, Secret Service and others, sees the District as a 

very unique set of airspace. When we work with TSA the one technology solution that we have really come to identify as a long term 

solution is that the agency is really interested in knowing more 

about the aircraft that are up there flying. There are some immediate solutions that are already out there. We have a system called 

ACARS that we are working loosely to try to test. It is a partnership actually between my colleague Ed Bolen and the TSA to look 

at the opportunities to just provide information back to the TSA on 

a security perspective on what is going on in the cockpit. That is 

one solution. 

Near term, I think a lot of the solutions we have for security are, 

unfortunately, procedure oriented. There are people managing 

those procedures. It is the controllers playing an important role. 

So. 

Mr. BOLEN. If I could follow up on that. You are exactly right 

that we say Reagan National is open for business, but it is not. 

Prior to 9/ll we would have 30,000 operations per year at Reagan 

National Airport. Today we have about 300. Which means that we 

have effectively eliminated 99 percent of the general aviation operations at Reagan National Airport with these restrictions. I think 

we are having some progress being made with the TSA along those 

lines. 

With regard to NextGen technologies, I will say that the backbone of the NextGen surveillance technology is ADS-B. ADS-B will 

allow us to know more about the identity and the intent of all airplanes. So in that respect, there is a NextGen component that 

could be enormously helpful at promoting operations. Because at 

some point we have got to move beyond these restrictions that are 

in place. They are effectively killing general aviation. 

Mr. WRIGHT. And as to the controller perspective, we have the 

equipment now. It is just the rules that prevent the general aviaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:57 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\53122 JASON
48 

tion. As a pilot, I would much rather fly my plane to D.C. than 

drive it about every week. It would save me a ton of time if they 

could do that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I think these comments are 

very important and the feedback that you give us about how TSA 

may be looking more closely at, if I may say so, this Gen but certainly NextGen to try to get us back in the real 21st century world 

of general aviation. I thank you for your work. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentle lady and now recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman 

Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. May, you have some very thoughtful comments, questions in your written testimony, unfortunately I was 

not able to hear your oral delivery. I had some other Committee 

work. You say the technology is proven. But there are many parts. 

NextGen is not one technology, it is many parts. Which parts are 

proven? 

Mr. MAY. I think RNAV/RNP is proven. I think a lot of the elements of data com are proven. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. To the satisfaction of your carriers, is that what 

you are saying? 

Mr. MAY. Yes, sir. And it is not the technology of RNAV/RNP. 

That was developed, as you better than anyone else knows, during 

the Capstone project in Alaska by Alaska Airlines and others. So 

the technology is there but it does not do any good to have that 

technology if it is not correctly applied, number one. If it is simply 

overlaid over ILS procedures, it is not going to be efficient. It has 

to give us meaningful, measurable results that cut down on our 

carbon footprint, that save us fuel, that save us time. 

That is what makes the business case and it does not exist right 

now. We have to have a full collaborative coordination with Dale 

and the rest of the folks at NATCA so that we know that if you 

are going to institute fan departures out of Philadelphia or JFK in 

New York, some of the most complicated airspace in the world, that 

the controllers are actually onboard with the policies and the procedures set by FAA. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is what I am getting at. There are pieces of 

NextGen that are tested, proven, some operable. What are those 

parts that are going to be, what are those aspects of NextGen that 

are going to be the most valuable to commercial aviation? Continuous glide path, for example, climb out procedures, not having to 

do the step down, and are there pieces that will have time and fuel 

saving benefits for air carriers that can be implemented independently without sequencing them into the whole structure that FAA 

has laid out? 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that they can. I think 

that it is a function of not just the pure nature of the technology 

of ADS-B, for instance, or RNAV/RNP, but the use of that technology, the procedures that are involved, the pilot training, the controller training, how they are deployed. 

So if we are going to have real positive benefits in New York, for 

instance, it is going to start with New York airspace redesign and 

then it is going to have to have NextGen deployed in New York. 

49 

It is one of the recommendations of Task Force 5 that it be in a 

metroplex like New York. 

We think they have identified the technologies. I think they have 

also identified the hurdles that we have to get over, which is we 

have got to have FAA give us performance metrics and we have to 

have reliability that we have a fully functioning system that involves the air traffic controllers, our pilots, others to make it work. 

ATA’s position has been from the get-go, and we shared this, at 

his request, with Dr. Larry Summers in the NEC and the Administration, that I think the best way to jump start this process is to 

fund the equipage for all aircraft, GA as well as military as well 

as civilian, so that we do not force the controllers to deal with 

mixed equipage as we go into a lot of these places. But at the end 

of the day, it is a three-or four-legged stool that involves controllers, it involves policies and procedures, and it also involves having 

performance metrics. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am glad you had that encounter, let us say, 

with Dr. Summers. But do not hold your breath. I do not. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. This is a $40 billion program, $20 billion is going 

to have to be born by industry itself. 

Mr. MAY. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Your response was very important that you cannot just break out pieces that are the most beneficial; there is some 

sort of sequencing that has to happen as FAA has laid it out in 

order for industry to get these real world benefits that we all want 

and are hoping for. But when you say redesign, not yet again, the 

New York airspace. 

Mr. MAY. Sir, it has not been redesigned yet. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is the point. There have been at least five 

redesigns that I am aware of, that I have lived through that have 

never been implemented. 

Mr. MAY. Right. But it is one of the many precursors to deploying NextGen technology in the New York metropolitan market. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Wright, are you controllers being included in 

the early phase of design and engineering? You have probably answered this. I know Mr. Costello is very keen on this issue, as I 

am, have been. But do you see your members being included in the 

earliest design and engineering phases of these various elements of 

NextGen? 

Mr. WRIGHT. No, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. No? 

Mr. WRIGHT. No. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. They have not learned? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We have asked to be involved. A lot of the airspace 

redesign things were back when we were involved and now they 

are sort of cherry picking what they want. But like Mr. May said, 

you cannot take part of it. It all has to go together. And we have 

not been involved in that, no, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It cost several hundred million dollars to redo 

pieces of STARS because when the FAA directed Raytheon, the 

contractor, to make certain changes, they went and made the 

changes. And then they brought in the controllers after and they 

50 

said oh, no, these are the wrong changes, these are wrong things 

to do, and they had to go back and do it all over again. 

Now, it is not the contractor doing this. It is the FAA not engaging controllers who are the point of contact in the very earliest 

stages of design and engineering of these very complex systems. I 

am disappointed to hear you, not disappointed you are saying it, 

disappointed they are not doing it. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. We asked for a formal briefing on the implementation of ADS-B, what is really the cornerstone of NextGen, 

and they—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Maybe you could ask Mr. Planzer why they are 

not doing it. He was there at FAA when a lot of this was happening. You probably do not want to ask him, but I can. 

Neil, what is happening over there? Have they not learned anything? 

Mr. PLANZER. This Committee over the past decade has offered 

up gifts to the Executive Branch at the FAA to proceed with implementation. And it seems to me the cycle in the organization is several years before that gift that is offered up is understood and accepted. So I would offer to you, sir, when I was in charge of requirements at the FAA 15 years ago, we had liaisons from NATCA 

in every part and parcel. There are lots of reasons they do not have 

them today. But the reality is, I would argue on this issue with 

Dale, that you need to have that integration woven through the 

fabric. It is not there. The reason I push metrics, the metrics forces 

you to understand that it will achieve those outcomes by how you 

are going to have to operate. You cannot legislate good management. You can legislate good metrics. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You can legislate good structure of organization. 

What do you mean by metrics? That is a rather loosely used term 

to cover a wide variety of things that people suspect someone else 

understands what they are saying when they say metrics. 

Mr. PLANZER. The example I used, sir, was require navigational 

performance, RNP, where we have put out thousands of overlays 

and the metrics that was used to measure it was how many of 

these have we put out. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You mean the measurement unit? 

Mr. PLANZER. That is the measurement. It is the wrong measurement. The measurement should be has the procedures reduced the 

use of fuel, has it reduced emission, has it reduced city-pair time, 

has it improved safety. Those are the types of outcomes you want 

to measure. 

Another measure that seems to be controversial that I will represent from my own point of view is does it reduce the unit cost 

of operations for the FAA. If you look at those metrics, they will 

force you as an employee—I get metrics measurements every day 

and I can look at them and know how I am going to be evaluated, 

and I operate the organizational structure to meet those outcomes, 

not the activity. 

For us at this table, activity is not success, only the positive outcome. That is what I mean by the right measurements. So if I 

know, you used the Raytheon example which I am familiar with, 

I would offer to you that if my outcome was on time deployment, 

with agreement from the employees to utilize this equipment and 

51 

a comfort level and I did not do it the way you described, then I 

would be in trouble. So it forces me to have as that metric a relationship with the union. I am not going to argue whether what 

they want is not right, I am not going to argue whether the contractor is not right, but it forces me to have a compromise and also 

forces Dale to understand that that metric is there. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very much appreciated candid answer. 

Mr. Bolen, do you think general aviation is going to benefit? 

Mr. BOLEN. I do think general aviation will benefit and a couple 

of reasons—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You did not have very many hopeful signs in your 

testimony about this, the costs but not a whole lot of benefits for 

general aviation, including not being able to operate out of National Airport. What did you say, 300 flights? 

Mr. BOLEN. Three hundred flights, yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Maybe if we changed the name of the airport you 

would be able to get in more frequently. 

Mr. BOLEN. I will leave that to you, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Very wise answer. 

Mr. BOLEN. The thought behind moving toward NextGen is that 

it will increase system capacity. That is very important to general 

aviation because what we have seen is that anytime there is congestion at airports or in airspace we effectively get squeezed out. 

If you go back and look at Midway Airport, it was an outstanding 

general aviation airport. It no longer is. We have seen the same 

thing in San Jose. We have seen the same thing in Manchester. We 

have seen it at Fort Lauderdale. We end up at secondary airports, 

tertiary airports getting pushed further and further out. 

Our hope is that if we expand system capacity we will be able 

to participate in that capacity and we will be able to have access 

to airports and air space. The way it is today, we are effectively 

4 percent of the traffic at the 10 busiest airports. We would like 

an opportunity to have greater access. We also see clearly that 

there is an opportunity to have safety improved throughout the 

system, precision access at a number of general aviation airports 

where we do not have it today, and we see fuel system savings 

across the board. So we are supportive of the move to NextGen. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, all of you can be very helpful by walking 

200 meters across the front of the Capitol and telling the Senate 

to move the aviation bill. We passed it twice through the House 

and it sits over there just like the dead letter office. It is just frustrating to me beyond expression of my exasperation. If we do not 

get that bill passed and the authorization in place for the funding 

increases that you need to make these investments, then we are 

not going to achieve all these benefits that you are talking about. 

Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, keep up the heat on them. Mr. Petri, keep up the 

heat on them. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Chairman Oberstar, thank you. And just for the 

record, I call the other body the black hole. Everything that goes 

over there disappears and never comes back. 

52 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is right. And no light even comes out of the 

galactic black hole, not even light. We are not even getting that out 

of the other body. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, as a physicist, I guess I object to 

denigrating that as a black hole. With a black hole you get energy 

out. In this case we get nothing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Ehlers, thank you. With your scientific mind 

you can help us. You are right, we should not denigrate black holes 

by likening them to the Senate. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Maybe we should start calling it the Bermuda 

Triangle. 

Any other Members have questions for this panel? If not, gentlemen, let me thank you for offering your testimony here today. It 

has been very helpful. Let me assure you, as I did the first panel, 

that we will continue to monitor the progress of NextGen and will 

make certain, as he always does, that General Scovel will be reporting to our Subcommittee. We will keep the heat on the FAA to 

try and move this process forward and do it in a responsible manner. And I would reiterate what Chairman Oberstar said, to please 

pick up the telephone or walk across the Capitol to the other body 

and encourage them to pass the reauthorization bill. We have been 

told several times how close they are to taking the bill up in Committee and reporting it to the floor. But we have not seen any 

progress or action as of this date. Again, we thank you for your testimony. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

53 


Insert offset folio 16 here 53122.016
54 


Insert offset folio 17 here 53122.017
55 


Insert offset folio 18 here 53122.018
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 53122.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 53122.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 53122.021
59 


Insert offset folio 22 here 53122.022
60 


Insert offset folio 23 here 53122.023
61 


Insert offset folio 24 here 53122.024
62 


Insert offset folio 25 here 53122.025
63 


Insert offset folio 26 here 53122.026
64 


Insert offset folio 27 here 53122.027
65 


Insert offset folio 28 here 53122.028
66 


Insert offset folio 29 here 53122.029
67 


Insert offset folio 30 here 53122.030
68 


Insert offset folio 31 here 53122.031
69 


Insert offset folio 32 here 53122.032
70 


Insert offset folio 33 here 53122.033
71 


Insert offset folio 34 here 53122.034
72 


Insert offset folio 35 here 53122.035
73 


Insert offset folio 36 here 53122.036
74 


Insert offset folio 37 here 53122.037
75 


Insert offset folio 38 here 53122.038
76 


Insert offset folio 39 here 53122.039
77 


Insert offset folio 40 here 53122.040
78 


Insert offset folio 41 here 53122.041
79 


Insert offset folio 42 here 53122.042
80 


Insert offset folio 43 here 53122.043
81 


Insert offset folio 44 here 53122.044
82 


Insert offset folio 45 here 53122.045
83 


Insert offset folio 46 here 53122.046
84 


Insert offset folio 47 here 53122.047
85 


Insert offset folio 48 here 53122.048
86 


Insert offset folio 49 here 53122.049
87 


Insert offset folio 50 here 53122.050
88 


Insert offset folio 51 here 53122.051
89 


Insert offset folio 52 here 53122.052
90 


Insert offset folio 53 here 53122.053
91 


Insert offset folio 54 here 53122.054
92 


Insert offset folio 55 here 53122.055
93 


Insert offset folio 56 here 53122.056
94 


Insert offset folio 57 here 53122.057
95 


Insert offset folio 58 here 53122.058
96 


Insert offset folio 59 here 53122.059
97 


Insert offset folio 60 here 53122.060
98 


Insert offset folio 61 here 53122.061
99 


Insert offset folio 62 here 53122.062
100 


Insert offset folio 63 here 53122.063
101 


Insert offset folio 64 here 53122.064
102 


Insert offset folio 65 here 53122.065
103 


Insert offset folio 66 here 53122.066
104 


Insert offset folio 67 here 53122.067
105 


Insert offset folio 68 here 53122.068
106 


Insert offset folio 69 here 53122.069
107 


Insert offset folio 70 here 53122.070
108 


Insert offset folio 71 here 53122.071
109 


Insert offset folio 72 here 53122.072
110 


Insert offset folio 73 here 53122.073
111 


Insert offset folio 74 here 53122.074
112 


Insert offset folio 75 here 53122.075
113 


Insert offset folio 76 here 53122.076
114 


Insert offset folio 77 here 53122.077
115 


Insert offset folio 78 here 53122.078
116 


Insert offset folio 79 here 53122.079
117 


Insert offset folio 80 here 53122.080
118 


Insert offset folio 81 here 53122.081
119 


Insert offset folio 82 here 53122.082
120 


Insert offset folio 83 here 53122.083
121 


Insert offset folio 84 here 53122.084
122 


Insert offset folio 85 here 53122.085
123 


Insert offset folio 86 here 53122.086
124 


Insert offset folio 87 here 53122.087
125 


Insert offset folio 88 here 53122.088
126 


Insert offset folio 89 here 53122.089
127 


Insert offset folio 90 here 53122.090
128 


Insert offset folio 91 here 53122.091
129 


Insert offset folio 92 here 53122.092
130 


Insert offset folio 93 here 53122.093
131 


Insert offset folio 94 here 53122.094
132 


Insert offset folio 95 here 53122.095
133 


Insert offset folio 96 here 53122.096
134 


Insert offset folio 97 here 53122.097
135 


Insert offset folio 98 here 53122.098
136 


Insert offset folio 99 here 53122.099
137 


Insert offset folio 100 here 53122.100
138 


Insert offset folio 101 here 53122.101
139 


Insert offset folio 102 here 53122.102
140 


Insert offset folio 103 here 53122.103
141 


Insert offset folio 104 here 53122.104
142 


Insert offset folio 105 here 53122.105
143 


Insert offset folio 106 here 53122.106
144 


Insert offset folio 107 here 53122.107
145 


Insert offset folio 108 here 53122.108
146 


Insert offset folio 109 here 53122.109
147 


Insert offset folio 110 here 53122.110
148 


Insert offset folio 111 here 53122.111
149 


Insert offset folio 112 here 53122.112
150 


Insert offset folio 113 here 53122.113
151 


Insert offset folio 114 here 53122.114
152 


Insert offset folio 115 here 53122.115
153 


Insert offset folio 116 here 53122.116
154 


Insert offset folio 117 here 53122.117
155 


Insert offset folio 118 here 53122.118
156 


Insert offset folio 119 here 53122.119
157 


Insert offset folio 120 here 53122.120
158 


Insert offset folio 121 here 53122.121
159 


Insert offset folio 122 here 53122.122
160 


Insert offset folio 123 here 53122.123
161 


Insert offset folio 124 here 53122.124
162 


Insert offset folio 125 here 53122.125
163 


Insert offset folio 126 here 53122.126
164 


Insert offset folio 127 here 53122.127
165 


Insert offset folio 128 here 53122.128
166 


Insert offset folio 129 here 53122.129
167 


Insert offset folio 130 here 53122.130
168 


Insert offset folio 131 here 53122.131
169 


Insert offset folio 132 here 53122.132
170 


Insert offset folio 133 here 53122.133
171 


Insert offset folio 134 here 53122.134
172 


Insert offset folio 135 here 53122.135
173 


Insert offset folio 136 here 53122.136
174 


Insert offset folio 137 here 53122.137
175 


Insert offset folio 152 here 53122.152
176 


Insert offset folio 153 here 53122.153
177 


Insert offset folio 154 here 53122.154
178 


Insert offset folio 155 here 53122.155
179 


Insert offset folio 156 here 53122.156
180 


Insert offset folio 157 here 53122.157
181 


Insert offset folio 158 here 53122.158
182 


Insert offset folio 159 here 53122.159
183 


Insert offset folio 160 here 53122.160
184 


Insert offset folio 161 here 53122.161
185 


Insert offset folio 162 here 53122.162
186 


Insert offset folio 163 here 53122.163
187 


Insert offset folio 164 here 53122.164
188 


Insert offset folio 165 here 53122.165
189 


Insert offset folio 166 here 53122.166
190 


Insert offset folio 167 here 53122.167
191 


Insert offset folio 168 here 53122.168
192 


Insert offset folio 169 here 53122.169
193 


Insert offset folio 170 here 53122.170
194 


Insert offset folio 171 here 53122.171
195 


Insert offset folio 172 here 53122.172
196 


Insert offset folio 173 here 53122.173
197 


Insert offset folio 174 here 53122.174
198 


Insert offset folio 175 here 53122.175
199 


Insert offset folio 176 here 53122.176
200 


Insert offset folio 177 here 53122.177
201 


Insert offset folio 178 here 53122.178
202 


Insert offset folio 179 here 53122.179
203 


Insert offset folio 180 here 53122.180
204 


Insert offset folio 181 here 53122.181
205 


Insert offset folio 182 here 53122.182
206 


Insert offset folio 183 here 53122.183
207 


Insert offset folio 184 here 53122.184
208 


Insert offset folio 185 here 53122.185
209 


Insert offset folio 186 here 53122.186
210 


Insert offset folio 187 here 53122.187
211 


Insert offset folio 188 here 53122.188
212 


Insert offset folio 189 here 53122.189
213 


Insert offset folio 190 here 53122.190
214 


Insert offset folio 191 here 53122.191
215 


Insert offset folio 192 here 53122.192
216 


Insert offset folio 193 here 53122.193
217 


Insert offset folio 194 here 53122.194
218 


Insert offset folio 195 here 53122.195
219 


Insert offset folio 196 here 53122.196
220 


Insert offset folio 197 here 53122.197
221 


Insert offset folio 198 here 53122.198
222 


Insert offset folio 199 here 53122.199
223 


Insert offset folio 200 here 53122.200
224 


Insert offset folio 201 here 53122.201
225 


Insert offset folio 202 here 53122.202
226 


Insert offset folio 203 here 53122.203
227 


Insert offset folio 204 here 53122.204
228 


Insert offset folio 205 here 53122.205
229 


Insert offset folio 206 here 53122.206
230 


Insert offset folio 207 here 53122.207
231 


Insert offset folio 208 here 53122.208
232 


Insert offset folio 209 here 53122.209
233 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 210 here 53122.210