Next Generation Air Transportation Collaborative Efforts with European Union Generally Mirror Effective Practices, but Near-Term Challenges Could Delay Implementation
Published: 2011-11-03T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is leading development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), which will transform the current radar-based air traffic control system into a satellite-based system. At the same time, the European Union (EU) is developing a similar transformation effort, known as the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme. Interoperable NextGen and SESAR systems and procedures will be important for aircraft to seamlessly transition from one system to the other.
As requested, this report discusses (1) the efforts that FAA has taken to ensure the interoperability of NextGen with SESAR and (2) how those efforts compare with effective interagency collaboration practices. To address these issues, GAO reviewed agreements between the U.S. and the EU concerning collaborative research on air traffic management and documents related to NextGen and SESAR; reviewed the literature on effective collaboration; and interviewed FAA and EU officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: FAA and the EU are working collaboratively toward ensuring interoperability as they modernize their air traffic control systems (NextGen and SESAR) and are generally using effective collaborative practices, but mitigating stakeholder skepticism about realizing NextGen/SESAR benefits will be a challenge.
FAA-EU collaborative efforts predate NextGen and SESAR and helped establish some of these systems central concepts.
In March 2011, FAA and the EU signed a new agreement that established a formal collaborative structure for NextGen and SESAR.
FAA is generally following collaborative practices that we have observed in successful interagency collaborations, but some U.S. and EU stakeholders expressed skepticism about whether NextGens and SESARs benefits will ever be realized.
FAA could reduce stakeholder skepticism by providing, in its public documents, details on the new structure for collaboration and governance with the EU.
FAA and the EU are working collaboratively toward Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) and Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) interoperability. In 2006, FAA and the European Commission established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that allowed reciprocal participation in meetings, which provided each with an awareness of the others plans. The MOU also continued a long-standing agreement that fostered collaborative research and helped develop some of the central concepts of NextGen and SESAR, such as data communications and satellite-based surveillance. Additionally, FAA and the EU conducted demonstrations of NextGen/SESAR procedures and technologies that produced useful results at the airports involved in the demonstrations. In March 2011, FAA and the EU signed a separate Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) that established a formal collaborative structure for NextGen and SESAR. Outside of formal agreements, U.S. and EU standards bodies have formed joint committees to develop common standards for NextGen and SESAR systems. Additionally, FAA and the EU are working with an international standards organization to facilitate global interoperability.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Every day, hundreds of flights either leave the United States bound for  destinations in the European Union (EU) or arrive at U.S. airports from  Europe. Current air traffic management procedures have changed little in  the last 50 years but have enabled airlines to seamlessly transition  between different airspaces using the same avionics equipment.  Recognizing that that these procedures cannot accommodate anticipated  increases in air traffic, aviation experts on both sides of the Atlantic are  developing new paradigms for managing that growth. In the United  States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) leads the development  of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to transform  the current radar-based air traffic control system into a satellite-based  system. At the same time, the EU is developing a similar transformation  effort, known as the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management  Research (SESAR) programme. As these modernization efforts proceed,  international collaboration will be critical to developing interoperable air  traffic management systems and procedures that allow aircraft to  continue to seamlessly transition between U.S. and European airspace.
As requested, this report discusses FAA and EU efforts to ensure that  NextGen’s systems and procedures interoperate with those of SESAR.  We address the following questions: (1) What efforts has FAA taken to  ensure the interoperability of NextGen with SESAR? and (2) How do  those efforts compare with effective interagency collaboration practices?
To obtain an understanding of the collaborative efforts taken toward  interoperability, we reviewed agreements between the United States and  the EU concerning collaborative research on air traffic management and  documents related to NextGen and SESAR, including key planning  documents, research action plans, and status reports. We also  interviewed FAA and EU officials, as well as stakeholder associations  representing airlines, airports, and airframe and equipment manufacturers  in the United States and Europe to obtain their perspectives on the  collaborative effort. We surveyed the literature on effective collaborative  practices and compared FAA’s efforts with practices that our past work  has shown can lead to effective collaboration. (See app. I for additional  information on our scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from January to November 2011 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: NextGen and SESAR Procedures Will Differ Significantly from Current Air Traffic Control Procedures
paragraphs: NextGen and SESAR, when fully implemented, will represent a significant  departure from current air traffic control procedures, in which aircraft fly  over fixed, ground-based navigational aids, and pilots respond to voice  commands from air traffic controllers. NextGen and SESAR envision an  airspace system in which network-based information and automation  optimize an aircraft’s operation in all phases of flight—-from flight  planning at the start to landing and taxiing to the gate at the end—to  reduce delays and maximize airspace capacity, while reducing  environmental impact and fuel consumption. See figure 1 for an  illustration of how NextGen is envisioned to work.
NextGen and SESAR envision trajectory-based operations, which would  use technological advances in communications, navigation, and  surveillance, some of which are still under development.    Communications between aircraft and air traffic control would change  from primarily voice mode between pilots and air traffic controllers to  data communications, known as Data Comm. Prescripted e-mail-like  messages would replace routine voice communications between air  traffic controllers and pilots. Data communications would also enable  ground systems to communicate directly with the aircraft’s flight  management system.   Navigation procedures used will be based on the performance  capabilities of the aircraft, meaning that appropriately equipped  aircraft and flight crews will be able to select their own flight paths,  within limits, and use satellites rather than existing ground-based aids  for navigation. The aircraft’s navigation system would alert the crew to  deviations from the planned route. Each airplane will transmit and   receive precise information about its position and the position of other  nearby aircraft, as well as the time at which it and others will cross key  points along their paths.   Surveillance would change with ground-based radars augmented, and  gradually replaced, by a satellite-based system known as Automatic  Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). According to FAA, this  will allow the agency to retire, over time, up to 50 percent of  secondary radar and reduce associated maintenance costs. ADS-B  provides more accurate information than radar. It reports data about  the location of aircraft every second, compared with up to every 12  seconds for radar, and FAA anticipates that ADS-B’s more frequent  reporting, as well as the improved accuracy, integrity, and reliability of  satellite signals, compared with radar, would enable controllers to  safely reduce the mandatory separation between aircraft. This will  increase capacity in the nation’s skies. ADS-B incorporates an  aircraft-mounted transmitter and receiving units on the ground, about  the size of a minirefrigerator, which can be placed nearly anywhere,  such as on cell phone towers or on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico,  where radar coverage does not reach. ADS-B uses satellite signals  along with aircraft avionics to transmit the aircraft’s location to ground  receivers. The ground receivers then transmit that information to  controller screens and aircraft cockpit displays on aircraft equipped  with ADS-B avionics.
The System Wide Information Management (SWIM) infrastructure would  connect various networks and manage aviation-related information so  that all aviation users—pilots, air traffic controllers, and aircraft  dispatchers—have the same information. Collectively, these systems, in  combination with others, will transform air traffic control to air traffic  management.
section_title: A Variety of Organizations Have Roles Supporting NextGen and SESAR
paragraphs: FAA has the primary responsibility for developing, and managing the  transition to, and implementing NextGen, while the SESAR Joint  Undertaking (SJU) currently manages SESAR. However, several  organizations support NextGen and SESAR. See table 1.
Within FAA, various departments share responsibility for international  collaboration. FAA’s International Office conducts government-to- government interface with the EU and signs formal collaboration  agreements. FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) International Office  collaborates with SJU on technical issues. FAA’s Joint Planning and  Development Office (JPDO) performs the long-term planning for NextGen  and partners with other federal agencies. JPDO’s Global Harmonization  Work Group focuses on ensuring the global interoperability of NextGen.  FAA officials in the ATO International Office told us that although all three  offices have different roles, relevant information is distributed among the  offices. For example, the results of JPDO’s Global Harmonization Work  Group are shared with ATO. Likewise, ATO has provided JPDO with  information such as SESAR developments, including SESAR’s work  structure and progress.
section_title: United States and the EU Differ in Aviation Governance and NextGen/SESAR Management Structure
paragraphs: The United States and EU differ in aviation governance and  NextGen/SESAR management and organization. See table 2.
The differences in characteristics between the United States and the EU  contribute to differences in how they manage their respective  modernization programs. Whereas the United States manages aviation at  the federal level, the EU, with its 27 sovereign member states, and their  individual regulators and service providers, must consider interoperability  among its member states, as well as with NextGen. These different  governing structures contribute to differing management structures for  NextGen and SESAR. NextGen’s management is government-centric,  meaning that FAA has the lead responsibility for NextGen development  and implementation but collaborates with industry on demonstrations and  garners expert advice through industry participation on advisory  committees. FAA has divided NextGen into three time frames. (See table  2.) In the near and midterm, FAA is focusing on making the most of  technologies and procedures that are already available and introducing  innovations such as ADS-B. NextGen’s far-term objective is to fulfill the  NextGen vision, including gate-to-gate trajectory based management.
The EU has divided SESAR into three phases, but in contrast to FAA’s  government-centric approach to NextGen, it has provided a participatory  role for the private sector. EUROCONTROL managed the definition  phase through a contract with a 30-member consortium of airlines, air  navigation service providers, airports, manufacturers, and others. The  definition phase ran from 2006 through 2008 and produced the European  Air Traffic Management Master Plan. SJU, made up of EUROCONTROL,  the European Commission, and 15 member organizations—including  airport operators, air navigation service providers, manufacturers of  ground and aerospace equipment, and aircraft manufacturers—is  managing the development phase and following the master plan. SJU has  contracts with its member organizations and issues task statements for  the work to be done. U.S. companies are participating in SESAR’s  development phase, either as a member organization or as an associate  partner. During the development phase, scheduled to continue through  2016, new technologies and operational procedures will be developed  and validated. During the deployment phase, the results of the  development phase will be implemented. How the deployment phase will  be managed has not been determined, according to SJU officials.
section_title: FAA and the European Commission Are Working Collaboratively on Components Common to NextGen and SESAR
subsections: section_title: FAA and the European Commission Agreed to Collaborate on NextGen and SESAR and to Continue Existing Collaborative Research
paragraphs: In 2006, FAA and the European Commission signed a Memorandum of  Understanding (MOU) to ensure coordination between the aviation  modernization programs in the United States and the EU. According to  FAA officials in ATO’s International Office, the primary purpose of the  MOU was to allow joint participation on committees. FAA was allowed to  participate as an observer at bimonthly meetings of the EU’s Industry  Consultation Body. FAA attends these meetings to hear the discussion  taking place with industry regarding the Single European Sky and to  remain up-to-date. The EU participated as an observer in RTCA’s Air  Traffic Management Advisory Committee and now participates on the  NextGen Advisory Committee. Cross-participation in these meetings  makes both parties aware of each other’s direction, operational plans,  and solutions. Such awareness is one of the most significant enablers to  developing interoperable systems, according to FAA officials. The MOU  was updated in 2009 to take into account SJU’s role in the technical  cooperation with FAA under the authority of the European Commission  and to identify specific subjects of common interest to SESAR and  NextGen.
FAA and SJU officials also highlighted the Atlantic Interoperability  Initiative to Reduce Emissions as an example of international  collaboration. In 2007, the European Commission and FAA began  collaborating to demonstrate how using NextGen/SESAR air traffic  management techniques can lead to emissions and fuel savings. For  example, demonstrations of the Optimized Profile Descent—a procedure  whereby an aircraft descends as smoothly as possible, considering local  limitations, rather than descending and leveling off in steps as is  commonly done today—at Miami and Atlanta International airports saved  between 40 and 60 gallons of fuel per flight and between 800 and 1,090  pounds of carbon dioxide (CO) per flight. Tests at Honolulu and  Anchorage International Airports showed that use of Optimal Profile  Descent could save a total exceeding 8 million gallons of fuel and 167  million pounds of COplan, FAA and EUROCONTROL focused on trajectory predictors—an  automated decision-support tool that predicts the anticipated future path  of an aircraft. According to FAA officials, trajectory prediction is a  fundamental underpinning of how NextGen and SESAR plan to manage  air traffic. They said that the concept and techniques for exchanging  information were first diagrammed under this action plan. In 2003, the  action plan team identified similarities among the many disparate  trajectory predictors in use and developed a structure for a generic  version. Other action plans focused on developing technologies such as  data communications and ADS-B—also prerequisites for trajectory-based  operations. These action plan teams typically developed annual work  plans that described ongoing activities’ progress and status, as well as  planned research activities for the coming year. According to progress  reports, these action plan teams evaluated new technologies, proposed  actions, compared strategies and plans, and commented on white  papers. The teams also sought input from the air traffic management  community, including airlines, aircraft and avionics manufacturers, and  standards bodies and stakeholder organizations, and emphasized the  need for collaboration with European research bodies.
Many of the action plans continued beyond 2006, after the MOU was  signed, and formed the core of the efforts to ensure interoperability of the  systems and components that would make up NextGen and SESAR. For  example, the action plan on ADS-B continued, with the result that ADS-B  applications gained international recognition as a means to improve future  air traffic management operations. Another action plan on safety  research, started in 2003, continued with its objective to enhance safety  assurance in air traffic management. According to the action plan’s  documents, safety culture is one of the main threads of the action plan  work program, and this focus facilitates alignment among  EUROCONTROL, FAA, and the Civil Air Navigation Services  Organization, which represents the interests of air navigation service  providers worldwide. With the signing of a new MOC in 2011 (see  following section), work under the action plans was redirected to near- term, procedural issues, while work under the MOC will focus on long- term air traffic management development.
section_title: FAA and the European Commission Have Established a Structure and Governance Process for Collaboration
paragraphs: In March 2011, FAA and the European Commission signed a new MOC  that replaced the 2006 MOU (updated in 2009) and provides more  specific direction on collaboration and governance as NextGen and  SESAR move forward. The 2011 MOC establishes the main principles of  cooperation and governance for NextGen and SESAR that were not  specifically identified in the 2006 MOU and establishes a Joint Committee  that is responsible for the MOC’s effective functioning and for evaluating  its implementation. Additionally, the 2011 MOC provides for participation  by each party’s governmental and industrial entities—FAA’s NextGen  Advisory Committee and the EU’s Industry Consultation Body.
Annex I of the 2011 MOC, titled SESAR-NextGen Cooperation for Global  Interoperability, lays out a structure and governance process for ensuring  interoperability of NextGen and SESAR’s systems and procedures (see  fig. 2). According to FAA officials and SESAR documents, this structure  sets the framework to ensure collaboration and provides a process by  which people with decision-making authority might resolve any questions  or issues that arise. The annex provides for a High Level Committee, co- chaired by the European Commission and FAA, which will meet at least  once a year to oversee and assess the results of the work conducted  under the appendixes of the annex, among other things.
Annex I also provides for a Coordination Committee that is co-chaired by  SJU and FAA’s ATO. According to the annex, the Coordination  Committee will meet at least twice a year to monitor the progress of  ongoing joint projects and activities under Annex I’s five appendixes, and  will prepare reports for, and consider proposals for new work to be  provided to the High Level Committee, among other things. The  Coordination Committee held its first formal meeting in May 2011, where  it approved the FAA/SJU “Cooperation for Global Interoperability  Management Document,” known informally as the “governance  document,” which further defines roles and responsibilities under the  2011 MOC.
The five appendixes in Annex I are further subdivided into 27 specific  research topics, each with its own working group and coordination plan  prepared by the plan leaders (see table 3). The list of research topics was  developed during 2 years of meetings among FAA, SJU,  EUROCONTROL, and the European Commission. Work on some of the  topics had begun under the 2006 MOU and is continuing under the new  structure. According to FAA officials, many of the experts who have  worked on these topics in past collaborative efforts will continue their  work under the MOC. The topics vary in complexity and priority, and more  topics may be added over time. The working groups meet as necessary,  comply with instructions given by the Coordination Committee, and report  regularly to the Coordination Committee. As of July 2011, FAA and SJU  had approved and signed the five appendixes. FAA and SJU had also  assigned priorities and drafted the scope of work for all of the  coordination plans and were working together to develop the specific  work tasks for each of the higher-priority coordination plans.
RTCA and EUROCAE have formed jointly led and staffed special  committees to develop standards for the new technology that NextGen  and SESAR will employ and help ensure interoperability in technologies  that may differ in some ways between the two systems. For example,  Special Committee 214 was formed in March 2007 to develop guidance  material to define the safety, performance, and interoperability  requirements for air traffic services supported by data communications.  Similar joint special committees are addressing topics such as terrain and  airport databases and enhanced flight vision and synthetic vision  systems. These standards will allow equipment manufacturers to offer  solutions that meet both NextGen and SESAR requirements, increasing  the size of their markets and driving down costs. According to FAA  officials, the most significant work to help ensure interoperability occurs in  these special committees.
FAA and SJU are working with ICAO to facilitate interoperability with  other countries beyond the United States and the EU. ICAO is developing  a Global Aviation Block Upgrade initiative that would identify common  capabilities and operational improvements in NextGen and SESAR, as  well as in a similar program in Japan known as Collaborative Actions for  Renovation of Air Traffic Systems (CARATS). ICAO has led a team,  composed of FAA, SJU, Japanese, and industry stakeholders to group  these improvements into a series of aviation system block upgrades to  guide the international aviation community in modernizing their air traffic  management systems in a coordinated manner and, in turn, facilitate  global interoperability. In September 2011, ICAO unveiled a first draft of  the block upgrade initiative and obtained feedback at its Global Air  Navigation Industry Symposium. ICAO plans to make revisions based on  the feedback and, at its 12th Air Navigation Conference in November  2012, incorporate the block upgrades in the Global Air Navigation Plan,  which all ICAO member countries use to develop their aviation systems.
FAA officials in the ATO’s International Office, as well as those  responsible for NextGen planning and integration and for Data Comm  program management, told us that because many other countries do not  have the resources to develop their own systems or procedures, they will  readily adopt the operational improvements and procedures resulting  from this effort. An SJU official told us that the ICAO Block Upgrade  initiative has helped strengthen the linkage between NextGen and  SESAR, as the United States and EU have worked together to feed the  block upgrade process. Additionally, the tight deadlines imposed by this  initiative provided the impetus for continued U.S.-EU interaction in the  working groups, on an informal basis, before the formal collaborative  procedures were established by the 2011 MOC.
section_title: FAA’s Efforts Generally Mirror Several Effective Collaborative Practices, but Mitigating Stakeholder Skepticism Is a Challenge
subsections: section_title: FAA’s Efforts Generally Mirror Several Effective Collaborative Practices
subsections: section_title: Several Key Practices Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration
paragraphs: Effective collaboration increases the likelihood that organizations can  communicate substantive information, reach joint agreements, and  implement those agreements. Organizations can use their strategic and  annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration with other  agencies and partners and establish complementary goals and strategies  for achieving results. In our past work, we identified key practices that can  help enhance and sustain collaborative efforts among U.S. agencies.  Based on our review of the academic literature about effective  collaborative practices, we have determined that the following practices  also apply to international collaboration:    defining and articulating a common outcome;    establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the  outcome and establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other  means to operate across agency boundaries;   agreeing upon respective roles and responsibilities;  identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources;   developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of  reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts through  agency performance management systems; and reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through  agency plans and reports.
As noted previously, FAA and EUROCONTROL have collaborated many  times in the past to achieve common outcomes under action plans. In  2011, FAA and the EU reaffirmed their agreement that interoperability is  essential by establishing the MOC. Both parties recognize that it is in their  mutual interest that aircraft be able to operate seamlessly as they fly from  one system to the other. Without interoperability, airlines might have to  install a second suite of equipment on their aircraft to operate in NextGen  and SESAR airspaces. Furthermore, having different procedures would  require pilots to learn two different operating procedures, which could  degrade safety. Additionally, if FAA or SJU did not implement certain  aspects of NextGen or SESAR, they would not receive the associated  benefits, such as fuel savings that could result from more efficient air  traffic management procedures. As we have previously reported, having a  clear and compelling rationale to work together—such as that described  above—is a key factor in successful collaborations. Agencies can  overcome significant differences when such a rationale and commitment  exist. Our prior work also found that agencies that articulate their  agreements in formal documents, such as memoranda of cooperation,  can strengthen their commitment to working collaboratively. FAA and SJU  officials we interviewed, as well as industry stakeholders representing  organized labor, airlines, and airframe and aerospace equipment  manufacturing companies, generally agreed that the 2011 MOC is a  positive development toward ensuring the interoperability of NextGen and  SESAR, and it shows how the two sides are going to work together to  achieve that common outcome.
Annex I to the 2011 MOC represents the overall joint strategy under  which FAA and SJU will work together to ensure the interoperability of  NextGen and SESAR and establishes a means for FAA and SJU to  operate across agency boundaries. It builds off the cooperation  framework established in earlier agreements and FAA’s long-standing  cooperative relationship with EUROCONTROL. The 2011 MOC defines  the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation and sets forth the  procedures by which FAA and SJU can establish cooperative research  and development activities in any civil aviation issue. It also contains a  larger list of areas of cooperation between NextGen and SESAR than the  MOU that it replaced. As mentioned previously, FAA and SJU have  identified the specific areas for coordination and are in the process of  developing the coordination plans that will serve as the joint strategies for  how both sides will collaborate on research and development for those  areas. FAA and SJU have assigned priorities such as “immediate” or “on  hold,” to these coordination plans. Those areas that do not have an  immediate need for harmonization are deferred in favor of those with a  more urgent need, such as data communications. The annex also  establishes other means for FAA officials to work with their European  counterparts such as allowing each side to participate in the other’s  consultative bodies and allowing industry stakeholders to contribute to  each other’s work programs and access information on, and results of,  equivalent research and development programs and projects. Joint  strategies are also evident in the RTCA/EUROCAE special committees’  terms of reference, which govern how the two standards organizations  will work together, and include the scope, deliverables and their  envisioned use, and due dates.
Joint strategies, such as those mentioned above, can help agencies align  their activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish their  common outcome. Work in the RTCA/EUROCAE special committees has  already helped align FAA’s and SJU’s activities. For instance, the two  sides have resolved a difference in midterm plans that could have  jeopardized the interoperability of NextGen and SESAR’s Data Comm  systems. FAA’s plans called for implementing an interim communications  system as a step toward this future system. EUROCAE working group  members, airframe manufacturers, and SJU did not support this interim  step for several reasons. For instance, Boeing stated that such a step  was not promoting harmonization because requiring multiple steps would  make implementation more costly, and higher costs could jeopardize the  implementation of the final harmonized system. After both sides  discussed the issue in RTCA/EUROCAE special committee meetings,  FAA decided to drop this interim step and instead move toward the same  future system as the EU. Our work has shown that addressing the  compatibility of standards, policies, and procedures that will be used in  the collaborative effort can facilitate collaboration.
However, although FAA and SJU worked out technical differences in their  data communications implementation plans, their timelines for  implementing Data Comm still differ. SJU officials told us that moving  forward on Data Comm is SESAR’s biggest challenge because the United  States and Europe have differing time frames for implementation. SJU  would like to see Data Comm implemented by 2018, while a senior FAA  official responsible for communications believes that it will take until 2023  at the earliest. SJU officials hope that a compromise will be reached and  noted that discussions between the two sides are continuing. As  mentioned above, FAA and SJU have made Data Comm a high-priority  area for collaboration and are developing a cooperation plan for this area.  While the implications of the timeline difference are unclear, officials from  FAA’s Data Comm office and SJU emphasized the importance of  continuing communications to resolve this issue. As we have previously  reported, frequent communication among collaborating agencies can  enable a cohesive working relationship that can lead to the mutual trust  required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort, can facilitate  working across agency boundaries, and can prevent misunderstandings  between the two sides.
Through the 2011 MOC and related documents, FAA and SJU have  defined their roles and responsibilities for NextGen and SESAR  collaboration, including how the collaborative effort will be led. For  instance, the MOC describes the governance and management  responsibilities of the High-Level and Coordination Committees and the  working groups. The management document further defines roles and  responsibilities for FAA and SJU, the committees, working group leaders,  and coordination plan leaders. Coordination plans describe the scope,  objectives, timescale, and processes for resolving issues of specific  collaboration areas and formalize coordination between the parties under  the framework of the MOC. A U.S. avionics manufacturer official, who is  familiar with the MOC, commented that it is an improvement over past  agreements that provided for periodic meetings but did not specify any  outcomes. In contrast, this official said the 2011 MOC is more oriented  toward projects and outcomes, provides motivation for decisions at the  project level, and drives development toward demonstrations. SJU  officials with whom we spoke noted that the 2011 MOC’s structure for  meetings has helped the SJU organize and set priorities for its work.  According to our prior work, collaborating agencies that work together to  define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities, as FAA,  the EU, and SJU have done through the 2011 MOC and related  documents, can clarify who will do what, organize their joint and individual  efforts, and facilitate decision making.
The 2011 MOC lays out a structure of jointly led and staffed coordination  plans through which each side can leverage the resources of the other.  Such a structure mirrors an effective collaboration practice that, as we  have previously reported, can help collaborating agencies access  resources that would not be available if the two were working separately.  According to FAA officials, a central purpose of both the 2011 MOC, and  the older MOC with EUROCONTROL, is to leverage the resources of  aviation experts in the United States and EU. By conducting joint  research that leverages the expertise of FAA’s EU counterparts, FAA  hopes to reduce the resources that each organization would otherwise  require if it were to develop a solution in isolation. FAA officials noted that  U.S. and EU experts have prior experience leveraging each other’s  research so that the work goes further. For example, one action plan  states that its primary purpose is to minimize duplication of effort, so as to  reduce costs and time to deployment. These same officials also pointed  to saving resources when U.S. and EU experts worked together on a  highly technical task under an action plan.
The joint RTCA/EUROCAE special committees also leverage the  knowledge of officials representing NextGen, SESAR, and industry  interests. For instance, representatives from FAA and EUROCONTROL,  avionics manufacturers, U.S. Department of Transportation, and  organized labor, such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association,  participate in the joint RTCA/EUROCAE special committee on Data  Comm. European officials involved in developing standards, and U.S. and  European officials involved in manufacturing aerospace equipment and  airframes, noted that companies that traditionally compete for sales, such  as Boeing and Airbus, or Raytheon and Thales (avionics manufacturers),  work together in these joint committees to develop standards for air traffic  management systems. These U.S. and EU companies want to operate in  each other’s markets and believe that they can save resources if the  standards are harmonized. U.S. stakeholders representing aerospace  industries noted that the aviation industry, in general, is becoming much  more internationalized than in the past, and nation-based solutions are  becoming less important.
In our prior work, we found that agencies that create a means to monitor,  evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts can better identify  areas for improvement. Annex I of the 2011 MOC mirrors this practice in  that it establishes the framework for how the United States and SJU will  oversee NextGen/SESAR coordination efforts. Progress and issues are  reported upward from the coordination-plan leaders to the working group  leaders. Working group leaders are responsible for maintaining a regular  dialogue with their coordination plan leaders in order to address potential  issues and risks of misunderstanding. Issues not resolved at this level are  referred to the Coordination Committee. Based on their experience with  the similarly structured MOC with EUROCONTROL, FAA officials we  interviewed anticipate that the working groups will resolve most technical  issues, and the Coordination Committee will address any significant items  that cannot be resolved in the working groups. As these officials noted,  most of the monitoring and evaluation work occurs at the Coordination  Committee level. The coordination plan leaders will jointly report progress  within their respective coordination plans twice a year to their working  group leaders, who will report on the status of their activities at the  Coordination Committee meetings.
The Coordination Committee is to examine the progress made on the  coordination plans, which contain issues to be addressed, actions to be  taken, target dates, current status information, and a statement of the  consequences if the issue is not resolved. This committee is to provide  the working group leaders with support and guidance, and to ensure that  adequate planning and resource allocation takes place for each working  group. It is also responsible for examining any issues raised by the  working group leaders, such as unclear situations, or activities that  require a specific Coordination Committee action. If necessary, issues not  resolved through the Coordination Committee are raised to the High Level  Committee. Industry stakeholders aware of the governance structure in  the 2011 MOC told us that it is a good sign that FAA and SJU have  recognized the need for oversight over collaborative efforts because such  oversight will help ensure that the systems are not developed in isolation.
Previous agreements also had provisions for monitoring results. FAA and  EUROCONTROL have a Coordination Committee under the MOC  between the two organizations to oversee the FAA/EUROCONTROL  action plans. The 2006 MOU called for FAA and the European  Commission to try to meet at least every 12 months to review the  functioning of the MOU.
FAA’s performance management system is designed to incorporate all of  the responsibilities and duties of each staff member, according to FAA  officials we interviewed. This means that if a person is involved in the  harmonization work under the 2011 MOC, his or her duties are covered  under their performance plan and become part of his or her annual  review. Additionally, FAA officials noted that the coordination plan leaders  will be held accountable for the actions and deliverables, described and  agreed to within their respective coordination plans, and will have to  report results of their efforts to the Coordination Committee. We have  previously reported that high-performing organizations use their  performance management systems to strengthen accountability for  results by placing greater emphasis on fostering the necessary  collaboration both within and across organizational boundaries to achieve  results.
FAA has not externally reported its collaborative efforts with EU entities in  public documents, such as its strategic plan or performance and  accountability reports. As previously discussed, FAA has a long history of  collaboration with the EU, but it has not detailed these efforts or outcomes  in these publications. For instance, FAA’s strategic plan for 2009 through  2013, known as the Flight Plan, lacks any detailed information on these  efforts. Likewise, FAA’s 2010 Performance and Accountability Report  does not discuss FAA’s collaborative efforts with EU entities. In our past  work, we have found that public reporting of results can reinforce agency  accountability for collaboration. To FAA’s credit, its NextGen  Implementation Plan, issued in March 2011, does state that the United  States and EU have agreed to enter into a new MOC to advance the  interoperability of NextGen and SESAR technologies and that FAA and  SJU are collaborating on air traffic management research, development,  and validation for global interoperability. However, the plan does not  identify goals and strategies to achieve this interoperability, such as the  structure and governance for ensuring interoperability outlined in the 2011  MOC.
Stakeholders representing U.S. airlines, the U.S. aviation industry, and  European avionics manufacturers told us that they were aware that work  was progressing to ensure the interoperability of systems, but they were  not aware of specific details. For example, stakeholders in the aerospace  equipment industry expressed concerns about the differences in NextGen  and SESAR’s Data Comm implementation timelines but could not say  whether the collaborative structure of the 2011 MOC could help resolve  these differences because they were not familiar with the details of the  MOC’s structure and governance. Providing such information in these  plans or other public documents would provide industry stakeholders with  more details of the steps that FAA and SJU are taking toward  NextGen/SESAR interoperability and would reinforce FAA’s accountability  for achieving them.
section_title: Mitigating Stakeholder Skepticism Is a Challenge
subsections: section_title: Lack of Details on Collaborative Efforts Contributes to Stakeholder Skepticism about NextGen and SESAR Benefits
paragraphs: Some stakeholders we interviewed on both sides of the Atlantic  expressed skepticism about whether or when the future benefits of  NextGen and SESAR will be realized, echoing concerns that have been  raised in the past. We have reported on stakeholder concerns about  FAA’s not following through with its NextGen efforts, which made airlines  hesitant to invest in new equipment. This hesitancy arose after an airline  equipped some of its aircraft with a then-new Data Comm system, but  because of funding cuts, among other things, FAA canceled the program,  and the airline could not use the system. The program’s cancellation  contributed to widespread skepticism about FAA’s commitment to follow  through with its plans, and that skepticism persists today among some of  the stakeholders with whom we spoke. In Europe, an air navigation  service provider representative said that experiences such as FAA’s  canceling the earlier Data Comm program have led airlines to take a  cynical view of promised benefits. He noted, for example, that the Atlantic  Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions may demonstrate benefits,  but these benefits are not realized when landings are delayed at  congested airports. He said that because industry has not realized  many promised benefits from past efforts, there is skepticism about what  today’s programs will produce. Similarly, a U.S. air freight transportation  stakeholder pointed out that standards are now being implemented to  support technologies designed to provide more distant benefits, but there  is no guarantee that FAA will implement those technologies.
Airline confidence that there will be NextGen/SESAR benefits over the  long term is an important element in NextGen/SESAR implementation.  FAA and SJU have been wrestling with airlines’ hesitancy to equip with  NextGen/SESAR technologies because some of the key benefits, such as  increased capacity and more direct, fuel-saving routing will not be  realized until a critical mass of equipped aircraft exists. Because the first  airlines to equip with the new technologies will not realize immediate  benefits, it is difficult for an airline to make a business case showing that  the near-term benefits of equipping will outweigh the cost.
Our previous work has shown that agencies such as FAA can  demonstrate their commitment to the collaborative process—a key  element in NextGen and SESAR’s success—by using their strategic and  annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration. To its credit,  FAA has briefed EU’s Consultation Body, an industry group composed of  all European aviation stakeholders, on its collaborative efforts and has  made presentations in a number of aviation forums, including the Air  Traffic Control Global Conference, RTCA’s 2011 Annual Symposium, and  a subcommittee of the NextGen Advisory Committee. Now that the 2011  MOC has been signed, FAA has an additional opportunity to demonstrate  its commitment to the collaborative effort by detailing the collaborative  framework provided in the MOC. Such reporting could help reduce  stakeholders’ skepticism and airlines’ hesitancy to equip with NextGen  technology.
Efforts to reduce the federal debt could decrease the funding available to  FAA for both collaboration and NextGen system development, potentially  slowing the schedule for harmonization and adding to stakeholders’  skepticism. According to an action plan team report, traveling restrictions  would cause a 6- to 9-month delay. To reduce travel costs, action plan  teams have endeavored to schedule their meetings to coincide with other  meetings and officials are making use of technological substitutes for  travel, such as Webex. However, a EUROCONTROL official said that  he does not consider these virtual meetings to be as effective as face-to- face interactions, and an official representing European air navigation  service providers told us that overuse of this technology could impede  harmonization and result in higher costs over the long run.
Cuts in system development budgets could also delay the schedule for  harmonization and the realization of interoperability benefits. FAA officials  told us that they normally absorb funding cuts by eliminating or delaying  programs, with funding cuts taking precedence over previously agreed  upon schedules, even those whose schedules they have previously  coordinated with Europe. For example, FAA officials responsible for  navigation systems told us that FAA is restructuring the plans for its  ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) because of potential funding  reductions. These officials said that FAA might have to stop its work on  GBAS while SESAR continues its GBAS development, with the result that  SESAR may have an operational GBAS, while FAA does not. A delay in  implementing GBAS would require FAA to continue using the legacy  Instrument Landing System, which does not provide the benefits that  GBAS would provide, according to these officials. Such a situation could  further fuel stakeholder skepticism about whether FAA will follow through  with its commitment to implementing NextGen, and in turn, increase  airlines’ hesitancy to equip with NextGen technologies.
Providing information about the ramifications of budget proposals is  important to help congressional decision makers anticipate the effects of  their decisions and to manage stakeholders’ expectations. In the past, we  found that when FAA was required to cut its budget in line with expected  funding, it did not inform decision makers about the implications of the  cuts, including the rationale for proposed trade-offs, and the effects of  cutting one program on related interdependent programs. In addition,  FAA did not report on the impact of cuts on air traffic control  modernization, including both the delayed benefits and the increased  costs of maintaining legacy systems longer than originally planned. We  recommended that FAA annually report this information to Congress, as  well as the potential effects of any budget or schedule slippages on the  overall transition to NextGen. In response, FAA established a new  appendix to its Capital Investment Plan, which FAA provides annually to  Congress and to the public over the Internet. The appendix includes each  acquisition’s original and current budget and schedule, as well as the  reasons for changes, as we recommended.
section_title: It Is Too Early to Judge the 2011 MOC’s Effect on Ensuring Interoperability
paragraphs: While the 2011 MOC follows several of the key practices that we have  found can help to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, it is still in the  early stages of implementation. During the spring and summer of 2011,  FAA and SJU were implementing the various pieces of the MOC and  Annex I, such as developing coordination plans and appendixes.  Although meetings or actions will not be considered formal until these  elements are approved, FAA and SJU officials continue meeting  informally to address technical issues. Because the components of the  MOC have not yet been put into action, we were unable to judge its  effectiveness in facilitating collaboration toward interoperability. The real  test of the MOC’s effectiveness will come when NextGen and SESAR  move toward final decisions about implementing solutions and system  components. In the past, FAA and Europe jointly developed systems that  were either not implemented or were implemented differently by each  side, such as early efforts at developing harmonized Data Comm  systems. The structure of the 2011 MOC is designed to prevent such  results in the future. However, the absence of effective collaborative  practices does not guarantee failure, nor does their presence ensure  success.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The continuing skepticism among industry stakeholders about FAA’s  commitment to follow through on its plans elevates the importance of  providing these stakeholders with more detailed information on the  agency’s efforts toward interoperability and in particular, on the structure  and processes laid out in the 2011 MOC’s Annex 1. These details could  allow stakeholders to judge for themselves whether interoperability efforts  are moving ahead deliberately, as planned, and provide assurances that  FAA is serious about collaborating on interoperability and implementing  NextGen. Providing this assurance could help to mitigate stakeholders’  skepticism about whether or when NextGen and SESAR benefits will be  realized and alleviate airlines’ hesitancy to equip with new technology.
As Congress works to reduce the federal debt, we believe that it will be  important for FAA to provide current information on how budget decisions  will affect the progress of NextGen, as well as for stakeholders to  understand how any changes in planned funding will affect their  realization of NextGen benefits. Because we have previously  recommended that FAA provide such information, and FAA has recently  begun to implement our recommendations, we are making no further  related recommendation in this report.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better inform aviation stakeholders of efforts toward interoperability  and to improve accountability for, and the credibility of, such efforts, we  recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA  Administrator to publicly provide more details on the efforts FAA has  taken and planned toward NextGen/SESAR interoperability, such as  through strategic plans, performance reports, or other means.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a copy of this report to the Department of Transportation  and other interested parties for review and comment. The Department of  Transportation agreed to consider our recommendation. The Department  of Transportation and the European Commission provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, we plan no further distribution until 20 days  from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation,  the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify and understand the efforts that the Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA) has taken to ensure the interoperability of the Next  Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) with the Single  European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme,  we reviewed key documents and conducted semistructured interviews  with FAA officials and aviation stakeholders. Specifically, we reviewed  agreements between FAA and the European Union (EU) concerning  collaborative research on air traffic management and other documents  such as the NextGen Implementation Plan and the European Air Traffic  Management Master Plan, which provide details on NextGen and SESAR  programs, and reports comparing NextGen and SESAR concepts and  avionics road maps. To gain perspective on FAA’s collaborative efforts,  we developed 29 questions spanning four topics: (1) past harmonization  efforts and outcomes, (2) the organization of current harmonization  efforts, (3) the 2011 Memorandum of Cooperation, and (4) harmonization  factors. FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provided written responses  to these questions, and we met with officials from ATO’s International  Office and from FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office to obtain  clarification on their responses.
To understand the nature and outcomes of past joint research efforts with  the EU related to NextGen and SESAR, we reviewed the research topics  of 18 action plan teams to identify those that dealt with topics most  closely related to the central operational concepts of NextGen and  SESAR. We reviewed documents such as the annual work plans and  status reports spanning 2004 to 2010 for the 4 action plan teams that we  identified as meeting our selection criterion.
To understand how key NextGen and SESAR programs must  interoperate, we interviewed officials in FAA’s offices for NextGen  Planning and Integration, Navigation Services, Communications, and  Surveillance. To understand the nature of collaborative efforts between  FAA and European aviation experts, we met with key officials from four  RTCA special committees that are working jointly with the European  Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) to develop  performance standards for NextGen and SESAR equipment. To  understand NextGen and SESAR interoperability in a global context, we  obtained a briefing from a representative of the International Civil Aviation  Organization (ICAO). We also conducted a series of interviews with EU  officials in Brussels, Belgium and Paris, France to obtain their  perspectives on FAA’s efforts to ensure NextGen/SESAR interoperability.  Specifically, we met with high-ranking officials at the European  Commission; the SESAR Joint Undertaking (SJU); European  Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL); and  EUROCAE. We conducted a telephone interview with a representative of  the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
We also obtained perspectives from high-level U.S. and European  stakeholder associations representing airlines, airports, as well as  airframe and equipment manufacturers. In Washington, D.C., we visited  the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), to meet with officials from  AIA’s Civil Aviation Infrastructure, International Affairs, and  Standardization Offices. Officials from Raytheon’s Civil Programs and  Rockwell Collins’ Strategic Initiatives also participated in the AIA meeting.  At Honeywell, we met with an official with Aerospace Regulatory Affairs.  At the Air Transport Association, we met with officials within Legislative  and Regulatory Policy, Airspace Management, and Operations. At the  International Air Transport Association, we met with officials within  Infrastructure Implementation and Airports; Legislative Affairs North  America; Safety, Operations, and Infrastructure for the Americas; and  Safety, Operations, and Infrastructure in Europe. At Airbus’ Washington,  D.C., office, we met with officials within Engineering, Airbus Americas;  Safety and Technical Affairs; Government Relations; and Airbus Prosky.  We also met with officials from Airports Council International. We  conducted telephone interviews with officials from the National Business  Aviation Association; FedEx; the International Federation of Air Traffic  Controllers’ Associations (IFATCA); the International Coordinating  Council of Aerospace Industries Associations, and a Professor of  Aeronautics and Astronautics.
To obtain perspectives of European stakeholders, we visited the  Aerospace and Defense Industries Association of Europe to meet with an  official from Air Transport and an official representing Dassault Aviation,  Direction Generale Technique, and we met with a representative of EU  Air Navigation Service Providers. We conducted telephone interviews  with officials from the Industry Consultation Body (ICB) and the Civil Air  Navigation Services Organization (CANSO).
To determine how FAA’s collaborative efforts with the EU compare with  effective interagency collaborative practices, we compared FAA’s  collaborative efforts, as documented in status reports of action plan teams  and in the 2011 Memorandum of Cooperation, with key practices that we  have previously identified in effective interagency collaborations. We  combined two of the practices into one due to their similarities, resulting in  the seven key practices that we used to conduct our comparative  analysis. Prior to deciding on the seven key practices, we conducted a  literature search of peer reviewed journal articles published between 2006  and 2011 to identify studies on effective practices for interagency or  international collaboration. We conducted a search utilizing multiple  databases, such as ProQuest, Academic OneFile, and EconLit, using  search terms such as collaboration, cooperation, coordination combined  with the terms interagency, successful, and effective. From those  sources, an initial 428 results were returned. After reviewing citations for  relevance and eliminating duplicates, we were left with 37 citations. We  reviewed citations to select studies dealing explicitly with effective  practices for collaboration. Based on the review of these articles, we  identified effective practices for collaboration and compared these  practices with those from our prior work with the conclusion that the  practices we had previously identified were (1) consistent with the  academic literature on interagency collaboration, and (2) also applicable  to international collaboration.
We conducted this performance audit from January to November 2011 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Maria Edelstein, Assistant  Director; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Lauren Calhoun; Elizabeth Curda; Pamela  Davidson; Leia Dickerson; Colin Fallon; Jeffrey Heit; Edmond Menoche;  Joshua Ormond; Taylor Reeves; and Maria Stattel made key  contributions to this report.