Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Has Made Some Progress in Implementation, but Delays Threaten to Impact Costs and Benefits
Released: 2011-10-05T00:00:00

Letter

FAA Has Implemented Aspects of NextGen That Have Produced Measurable Benefits, but Delays Threaten to Increase Costs and Impact Overall Implementation

FAA has made progress in several areas to improve its implementation of NextGen. FAA has set performance goals for NextGen through 2018, including goals to improve the throughput of air traffic at key airports by 12 percent over 2009 levels, reduce delays by 27 percent from 2009 levels, and achieve a 5 percent reduction in average taxi-time at key airports. The setting of NextGen performance goals is a positive step, but much work remains in identifying measurable and reasonable performance metrics and targets for specific NextGen activities.

FAA has undertaken a number of NextGen initiatives to improve system efficiency. For example, FAA has begun work to streamline its procedure approval processes—including its environmental reviews of new procedures—and has expanded its capacity to develop new performance- based navigation routes and procedures. In 2010, FAA produced over 200 performance-based navigation routes and procedures, exceeding its goal of 112. FAA reports thousands of gallons of fuel savings from the performance-based navigation routes in operation at Atlanta and the continuous descents being used into Los Angeles and San Francisco. However, aircraft operators have complained that FAA has not produced the most useful or beneficial routes and procedures to date. To address these concerns, FAA has undertaken thorough reviews in a number of areas. FAA has completed initial work to identify improvements needed in the airspace in Washington, D.C.; North Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; Northern California; and Houston, Texas—focusing on routes and procedures that will produce benefits for operators. While the specific benefits from this work are not yet fully known, FAA expects to achieve measurable reductions in miles flown, fuel burn, and emissions from these actions. In addition, airport surface management capabilities—such as shared surface surveillance data and new techniques to manage the movement of aircraft on the ground—installed in Boston and New York have saved thousands of gallons of fuel and thousands of hours of taxi- out time, according to FAA.

With respect to the continuing implementation of NextGen systems and capabilities, our ongoing work has preliminarily found that some key NextGen-related programs are generally proceeding on time and on budget (see table 1).

Some key acquisitions may soon encounter delays, which can increase overall acquisition costs, as well as costs to maintain current systems. For example, delays in implementing the ERAM program is projected to increase costs by $330 million, as well as an estimated $7 to $10 million per month in additional costs to continue maintaining the system that ERAM was meant to replace. Moreover, due to the integrated nature of NextGen, many of its component systems are mutually dependent on one or more other systems. For example, ERAM is critical to the delivery of ADS-B because ADS-B requires the use of some ERAM functions. ERAM is also pivotal to the on-time implementation of two other key NextGen acquisitions—Data Communications and SWIM. In part due to ERAM’s delay, FAA pushed the Data Communications program’s start date from September 2011 to February 2012, plans to revise the original SWIM- segment 1 cost and schedule plan, and delayed the SWIM-segment 2 start date from 2010 to December 2012. The long-term result of this decision is not yet known but it could delay certain SWIM capabilities and hinder the progress of other capabilities that depend, in turn, on the system integration that SWIM is intended to provide. Thus, looking more broadly, the implementation of NextGen—both in the midterm (through 2018) and in the long term (beyond 2018)—will be affected by how well FAA manages program interdependencies.

Delays in program implementation, as described above, and budget constraints have also affected FAA’s capital budget planning. The Administration has proposed reducing FAA’s capital budget by a total of $2.8 billion, or 20 percent, for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 largely due to governmentwide budget constraints. Most of this proposed reduction is on NextGen and NextGen-related spending, as reflected in FAA’s revised 5-year Capital Investment Plan for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Congress has not completed FAA’s appropriation for fiscal year 2012, but current House and Senate appropriation bills propose to fund the agency near or above 2011 levels. FAA will have to balance its priorities to ensure that NextGen implementation stays on course while also sustaining the current infrastructure—which is needed to prevent failures and maintain the reliability and efficiency of current operations.

FAA Faces Several Ongoing Issues That Will Affect NextGen Implementation

To maintain credibility with aircraft operators that NextGen will be implemented, FAA must deliver systems and capabilities on time so that operators have incentives to invest in the avionics that will enable NextGen to operate as planned. As we have previously reported, a past FAA program’s cancellation contributed to skepticism about FAA’s commitment to follow through with its plans. That industry skepticism, which we have found lingers today, could delay the time when significant NextGen benefits—such as increased capacity and more direct, fuel- saving routing—are realized. A number of NextGen benefits depend upon having a critical mass of properly equipped aircraft. Reaching that critical mass is a significant challenge because the first aircraft operators to equip will not obtain a return on their investment until many other operators also equip.

Stakeholders have proposed various equipage incentives. For example, one such proposal is for a private equity fund, backed by federal guarantees, to provide loans or other financial assistance to operators to help them equip, with payback of the loans dependent on FAA meeting its schedule commitments to implement capabilities that will produce benefits for operators. In addition, the NextGen Advisory Committee has begun to identify the specific avionics requirements for particular NextGen capabilities through the midterm, as well as identifying who—in terms of which parts of the fleet operating in which regions—should be targeted for additional incentives to equip.

Our past and ongoing work examining aspects of NextGen have highlighted several other challenges facing FAA in achieving timely and successful implementation. For this statement, we would like to highlight a few specific areas: the potential effect of program delays on international harmonization efforts, the need for FAA to ensure that it addresses human factors and workforce training issues to successfully transition to a new air transportation system, the need for FAA to continue to address potential environmental impacts, and the need for FAA to improve the management and governance of NextGen.

Effect of delays on FAA’s ability to collaborate with Europe.

Delays to NextGen programs, and potential reductions in the budget for NextGen activities, could delay the schedule for harmonization with Europe’s air traffic management modernization efforts and the realization of these benefits. FAA officials indicated that the need to address funding reductions takes precedence over previously agreed upon schedules, including those previously coordinated with Europe. For example, FAA officials responsible for navigation systems told us that FAA is restructuring plans for its ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) because of potential funding reductions. While final investment decisions concerning GBAS have yet to be made, these officials said that FAA might have to stop its work on GBAS while Europe continues its GBAS development, with the result that Europe may have an operational GBAS, while FAA does not. A delay in implementing GBAS would require FAA to continue using the current instrument landing system which does not provide the benefits of GBAS, according to these officials. Such a situation could again 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.

Need to address human factors and training issues. Under NextGen, pilots and air traffic controllers will rely to a greater extent on automation, which will change their roles and responsibilities in ways that will necessitate an understanding of the human factors issues involved and require that training be provided on the new automated systems. FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—the primary agencies responsible for integrating human factors issues into NextGen—must ensure that human factors issues are addressed so that controllers, pilots, and others will operate NextGen components in a safe and efficient manner. Failure to do so could delay implementation of NextGen. We recently reported that FAA has not fully integrated human factors into the development of some aviation systems. For example, we noted that controllers involved in the initial operations capabilities tests of ERAM at an air traffic control center in Salt Lake City found using the system cumbersome, confusing, and difficult to navigate, thus indicating that FAA did not adequately involve controllers who operate the system in the system’s early development. In response to our recommendations in that report, FAA has created a cross-agency coordination plan in cooperation with NASA that establishes focus areas for human factors research, inventories existing facilities for research, and capitalizes on past and current research of all NextGen issues. In addition to integrating human factors research into NextGen systems, FAA and NASA will have to identify and develop the training necessary to address controllers’ and pilots’ changing roles, and have this training in place before NextGen is fully realized (when some aircraft will be equipped with NextGen systems and others will not).

Need to address environmental impacts of NextGen. Another challenge to implementing NextGen is expediting environmental reviews and developing strategies to address the environmental impacts of NextGen. As we stated in our recent report on environmental impacts at airports, with the changes in aircraft flight paths that will accompany NextGen efforts, some communities that were previously unaffected or minimally affected by aircraft noise will be exposed to increased noise levels. These levels could trigger the need for environmental reviews, as well as raise community concerns. Our report found that addressing environmental impacts can delay the implementation of operational changes, and indicated that a systematic approach to addressing these impacts and the resulting community concerns may help reduce such delays. To its credit, FAA has been working to develop procedures for streamlining environmental review processes that affect NextGen activities.

Need to improve management and governance. FAA has embarked on an initiative to restructure a number of organizations within the agency. We have previously reported on problems with FAA’s management and oversight of NextGen acquisitions and implementation. Specifically, FAA plans to abolish and merge a number of committees to improve decision making and reduce time requirements of senior FAA executives. It also plans to make the NextGen organization the responsibility of the Deputy Administrator and to create a new head of program management for NextGen- related programs to ensure improved oversight of NextGen implementation. Further, the Air Traffic Organization will be divided into two branches: operations and NextGen program management. Operations will focus on the day-to-day management of the national air space and the program management branch will be responsible for developing and implementing programs while working with operations to ensure proper integration. While elimination of duplicative committees and focus on accountability for NextGen implementation is a positive step, it remains to be seen whether this latest reorganization will produce the desired results.

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Paul Aussendorf, Maria Edelstein, Heather Krause, Ed Laughlin, and Andrew Von Ah (Assistant Directors); Colin Fallon, Bert Japikse, Ed Menoche, and Dominic Nadarski.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.