Next Generation Air Transportation System: FAA Faces Implementation Challenges
Released: 2012-09-12T00:00:00

Letter

FAA Is Taking Steps to Address Challenges in Delivering and Demonstrating NextGen’s Benefits

Delivering NextGen Benefits

FAA must deliver systems, procedures, and capabilities that provide operators with a return on their investments in NextGen avionics in order to convince operators to continue making such equipment investments. For example, a large percentage of the current fleet is equipped to fly more precise performance-based navigation (PBN) procedures, such as following precise routes that use the Global Positioning System or glide descent paths, which can save the operators money through reduced fuel burn and flight time. However, aircraft operators have expressed concerns that FAA has not produced the most useful or beneficial PBN routes and procedures to date. As a means to leverage existing technology, provide immediate benefit to the industry, and in response to the RTCA Midterm Implementation Task Force’s (Task Force) recommendations, FAA began an initiative to better use PBN procedures to resolve airspace problems in and provide benefits to areas around busy airports, known as “metroplexes.” This initiative, the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (Metroplex), is under way in eight metropolitan areas across the country and planning is under way for other areas (see fig. 1).

FAA is working to design its Metroplex and other PBN initiatives to avoid some of the challenges that have limited the use and, in turn, potential benefits of existing PBN procedures. For example, FAA has found that some PBN procedures developed without air traffic controllers’ involvement have been used infrequently, if at all, because of problems with the procedure design or other challenges. In response, FAA has worked to include stakeholders, such as air traffic controllers and airlines, in the study and design of new PBN procedures. For example, FAA included airlines and local air traffic controllers in the design of PBN procedures under the Metroplex and Greener Skies over Seattle initiatives. This inclusion, according to stakeholders involved, should help to ensure that the new PBN procedures can be used by local controllers and produce quantifiable benefits to aircraft operators. Greener Skies also formally involved local airports in the PBN procedure development process to help avoid adverse environmental—largely noise-related— community impacts. As we have previously reported, effective outreach to affected stakeholders can help anticipate and address potential community concerns—particularly with regard to noise. If not addressed, these concerns can delay efforts to use airspace more efficiently.

Many of FAA’s near-term improvement efforts have focused on developing new PBN procedures rather than on other near-term improvements recommended by the Task Force, such as airborne or surface traffic-management improvements. Following up on the Task Force’s work, the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) made recommendations in May 2012 to help FAA identify and prioritize improvements—including and in addition to PBN procedures—that could provide near-term benefits. FAA is assessing the extent to which it can make these other improvements in later rounds of the Metroplex initiative.

In the meantime, the agency has turned its attention to expanding or developing some of these improvements—including the air-traffic- management tools that allow for the sequencing of planes—at some of the facilities that are the focus of ongoing Metroplex efforts. Generally, these efforts are still in the planning phase. Figure 2 shows the complexity of merging or sequencing traffic that is approaching an airport using PBN procedures, such as precision Required Navigation Performance (RNP) turns and optimized profile descents (OPD). This complexity can be mitigated with the use of new airborne traffic management tools. Given the integrated nature of near-term NextGen improvements, it will be important for FAA to determine how its Metroplex initiative and airborne and surface traffic management improvements—as well as other improvements prioritized by the NAC—will be implemented and will work together so that the full benefits of these improvements can be realized.

In addition, although FAA has made progress in developing new PBN procedures with its Metroplex and other PBN initiatives, much work remains to be done to improve the overall process for amending and implementing PBN procedures. According to FAA, the current process for implementing or amending flight procedures consists of a bundle of interconnected, overlapping, and sometimes competing processes, which, on occasion, results in the implementation of low or no-benefit flight procedures that have to be reworked or amended. Likewise, RTCA has recommended that FAA address problems with what it has termed FAA’s inefficient processes for validating and certifying new technologies, which are critical steps in the process for allowing the use of new procedures. We have also expressed concerns about the time and human resources required for the validation and certification processes and have identified these processes as a significant risk to the timely and cost-effective implementation of NextGen. To address these challenges, FAA has undertaken a Navigation Lean (NAV Lean) project to streamline the implementation process for flight procedures. The agency anticipates this project will be mostly in place by the end of 2015.work for this committee that further explores issues and challenges associated with near-term NextGen implementation.

Demonstrating NextGen Benefits

As we have previously reported, FAA should regularly provide stakeholders, interested parties, Congress, and the American people with a clear picture of where NextGen’s implementation stands, and whether the capabilities being implemented are resulting in positive outcomes and improved performance for operators and passengers. We have recommended that FAA develop a timeline and action plan to work with industry and federal partner agencies to develop an agreed-upon list of outcome-based performance metrics, as well as goals for NextGen broadly and specific NextGen improvement areas. In addition, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires FAA to report on measures of the agency’s progress in implementing NextGen capabilities and operational results. In 2011, the NAC recommended that FAA adopt a set of performance metrics to address operational changes affecting capacity, efficiency, predictability, and access. In addition, the NAC has continued to work on outcome-based metrics to inform the public about the overall status of NextGen implementation and the program’s contribution to national aviation policy goals. To date, FAA has established metrics for five of its key performance areas—capacity, efficiency, predictability, environment, and safety—but metrics for the three other key performance areas—access, equity, and flexibility—are still preliminary. FAA has also 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 in order to reduce delays by 27 percent from 2009 levels, and achieve a 5 percent reduction in average taxi-time at key airports.

Developing metrics and NextGen performance goals are positive steps, but much work remains, including finalizing agency targets for specific improvement areas and making a link between NextGen performance goals and metrics and NextGen improvements. For example, public information about FAA’s near-term plans for implementing additional capabilities lacks specifics about the timing and locations of implementation. According to RTCA, a lack of published information with specific implementation dates and locations for NextGen capabilities is an obstacle to incentivizing airlines to equip their aircraft with additional NextGen avionics. Without a clearer picture of the return on investment— and the progress being made—aircraft operators may be hesitant to make business and operational decisions necessary to fully realize NextGen benefits. Measuring performance of near-term NextGen improvements will be critical for FAA management and stakeholders to assess various impacts, make investment decisions, and monitor NextGen progress. We will report on this issue in more detail as part of our ongoing near-term NextGen implementation work for this committee.

FAA Is Working to Identify and Develop a Cost-effective Mechanism to Encourage Operators to Equip with NextGen Technologies

While some operational improvements can be made with existing aircraft equipment, realizing more significant NextGen benefits requires a critical mass of properly equipped aircraft. Reaching that critical mass is a significant challenge because the first aircraft operators to purchase and install NextGen-capable technologies will not obtain a return on the investment until many other operators are similarly equipped. FAA estimates that NextGen avionics needed on aircraft to realize significant midterm NextGen capabilities will cost private operators about $5 billion to $7 billion through 2020. For example, according to the RTCA, it would cost from $150,000 to $650,000 to equip a regional jet with an RNP package, which is one of the technologies that allows for precision approaches.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act authorized the creation of a program to facilitate public-private financing, such as loan guarantees and other credit assistance tools, for equipping general aviation and commercial aircraft with NextGen technologies. According to FAA, the goal for an equipage program would be to encourage deployment of NextGen-capable aircraft sooner than would have occurred without such funding assistance in place. FAA is soliciting industry input about how to design and implement such a program but has yet to decide on how to incentivize this transition. Although authorized, no funding has been appropriated to establish a public-private financing program. According to FAA, it is working to understand what options exist for establishing a program even if it receives no appropriations toward the program.

FAA Faces Challenges in Maintaining Timely Delivery of Key Acquisitions

NextGen has significantly increased the number, cost, and complexity of FAA’s acquisition programs, and it is imperative that these programs remain on time and within budget, particularly given current budget constraints and the interdependencies of many NextGen-acquisitions. In February 2012, we reported that most of the key NextGen-related acquisition programs were generally proceeding on time and on budget.See appendix I for the current cost and schedule performance of select baselined NextGen and related acquisition programs. However, delays with the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program—a critical program for NextGen—illustrate how delays can affect overall acquisition and maintenance costs as well as time frames for other programs. As we previously reported, ERAM’s schedule delays and cost increase of $330 million over 4 years were associated with unanticipated risks associated with operational complexities at the selected sites, insufficient testing to identify software issues before deployment at key sites, insufficient communication between the program office and field sites, and insufficient stakeholder involvement during system development and deployment.

The delays with ERAM added an estimated $18 million per year to the costs of maintaining the system that ERAM was meant to replace. Additionally, ERAM is important to the on-time implementation of two other key NextGen acquisitions—Data Communications (Data Comm) and System Wide Information Management (SWIM). In part because of ERAM’s delay, FAA pushed the Data Comm program’s start date from September 2011 to May 2012, revised the original plan for the first segment of SWIM to mitigate the impact of ERAM delays on the SWIM program, and delayed the start date for segment 2A of SWIM from 2010 to July 2012. Looking more broadly, the implementation of NextGen— both in the midterm (through 2020) and in the long term (beyond 2020)— will be affected by how well FAA manages program interdependencies.

NextGen Organizational Structure Has Undergone Changes, but Leadership Roles and Responsibilities Remain Unclear

As we have previously reported, industry stakeholders have expressed concerns about the fragmentation of authority and lack of accountability for NextGen, two factors that could delay its implementation. We have also found that programs can be implemented most efficiently when managers are empowered to make critical decisions and are held accountable for results. To ensure accountability for NextGen results, several stakeholders have suggested that an office is needed that would report directly to the FAA Administrator or the Secretary of Transportation. Stakeholders have also cited challenges with coordinating implementation of NextGen capabilities across FAA lines of business. With multiple FAA lines of business responsible for various NextGen activities, including offices within FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) and outside ATO, coordination and integration is vital since delays in actions required from several offices could prevent or delay NextGen benefits. FAA has made organizational changes in the past in an effort to address these concerns.

Beginning in 2011, FAA made additional changes to its NextGen organizational structure to address these long-standing issues. Specifically, FAA reorganized the structure of the office responsible for carrying out NextGen implementation, moving the office from within the ATO to under FAA’s Deputy Administrator (who is currently serving as the Acting Administrator). According to FAA, this change increased NextGen’s visibility within and outside the agency and created a direct line of authority and responsibility for NextGen. However, in February 2012, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act designated that the Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)—who is responsible for NextGen planning and coordination—report directly to the FAA Administrator and created a new leadership position—the Chief NextGen Officer—who will also report directly to the Administrator. The Chief NextGen Officer position has not yet been filled. FAA has not yet made the organizational changes called for by the act or clearly defined the relationships among the Deputy Administrator, Chief NextGen Officer, and JPDO director. According to FAA, no organizational changes will be made until the agency has a permanent FAA Administrator in place.

FAA also reorganized its NextGen efforts around its “Ideas to In-Service Management” (I2I) process. According to FAA, the I2I will support enterprise-level, cross-program management in bringing capabilities into the national airspace system and will formalize collaboration among NextGen program offices, ATO, and other relevant FAA organizations such as Aviation Safety. Within ATO, a new Program Management Office has been established to improve oversight of ATO’s NextGen implementation efforts. According to FAA, by combining acquisition program managers into one organization, ATO will ensure more coordinated program management throughout the full life cycle of NextGen acquisitions. While an increased focus on accountability for NextGen implementation is a positive step, it remains to be seen whether this latest reorganization will produce the desired results without a clarification of NextGen leadership roles and the fulfillment of all the necessary leadership positions. As we have previously reported, leadership is a critical element of success for large-scale systems integration efforts like NextGen.

FAA Faces Challenges in Balancing the Needs of the Current and NextGen Systems and Addressing Infrastructure and Operational Issues That Transcend NextGen

Particularly in light of constrained budget resources, FAA will have to balance its priorities to help ensure that NextGen implementation stays on course. Sustaining the current legacy infrastructure remains critical, as it will continue to be the core of the national airspace system for a number of years, and some of its components will be part of NextGen. For example, while FAA transitions to satellite-based surveillance through the deployment of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, the agency expects to continue to operate and maintain current radar technology through at least 2020. At that time, FAA is scheduled to make decisions about which radars the agency will decommission and which will be maintained as the back-up system for ADS-B. If either ADS-B’s deployment or airlines’ efforts to equip with this technology should slip, then FAA may have to maintain and operate some of its radars longer than expected. We have ongoing work for this committee that is further exploring how FAA is preparing for the transition to NextGen and balancing the demands of the legacy and NextGen systems, including potential implications for the legacy systems and FAA budgets if NextGen implementation is delayed.

In addition, to fully realize NextGen’s capabilities, reconfiguring facilities that handle air traffic control will be required. FAA recently approved an initial plan to consolidate en route centers and terminal radar approach- control facilities (TRACONs) into large, integrated facilities over the next two decades. However, FAA has yet to make key decisions, such as where to build the first integrated facility. These decisions could affect future consolidation plans. While FAA develops its facilities plan, it faces the immediate task of maintaining and repairing existing facilities so that the current air-traffic control system continues to operate safely and reliably during the expected 20-year transition. According to FAA, in 2011, 65 percent of its terminal facilities and 74 percent of its en route facilities were in either poor or fair condition with a total deferred maintenance backlog of $310 million for these facilities. Once FAA develops and implements a facility consolidation plan, it can identify which legacy facilities to continue to repair and maintain and, in doing so, potentially reduce overall facility repair and maintenance costs. FAA has acknowledged the need to keep long-term plans in mind so that it does not invest unnecessarily in facilities that will not be used for NextGen.

Moreover, although NextGen is projected to keep delays at many airports from getting worse than would be expected without these improvements, NextGen alone is not likely to sufficiently expand the capacity of the national airspace system. For example, FAA’s NextGen modeling indicates that even if all ongoing and planned NextGen technologies are implemented, 14 airports—including some of the 35 busiest—may not be able to meet the projected increases in demand (fig. 3). The transformation to NextGen will also depend on the ability of airports to handle greater capacity. For example, decisions regarding using existing capacity more efficiently include certifying and approving standards for using closely spaced parallel runways. At some airports, policies may need to be developed to address situations where demand exceeds capacity (e.g., pricing, administrative rules, service priorities, and so forth). Planning infrastructure projects to increase capacity, such as building additional runways, can be a lengthy process and will require substantial advance planning and safety and cost analyses. Also, the improved efficiency in runway and airspace use that should result from some NextGen technologies may exacerbate capacity constraints in other areas, such as taxiways, terminal gates, or parking areas. Finally, increasing capacity must be handled within the context of limiting increases in emissions and noise that can affect the communities around airports.

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 Heather Krause and Ed Laughlin (Assistant Directors), Jessica Bryant-Bertail, Bert Japikse, Delwen Jones, Molly Laster, Dominic Nadarski, and Melissa Swearingen.

Appendix I: Selected Baselined NextGen and Related Programs Cost and Schedule Performance as of July 2012

Start date June 2003

According to FAA, this difference is the result of additional work added to the ADS-B program baseline in March 2011 and includes congressional earmarks of $9.3 million in fiscal 2008 and $6.8 million in fiscal year 2009 as well as an additional $15 million held in reserve to mitigate potential automation risks. In addition, the Colorado Wide Area Multilateration Phase II was added to the program ($13.6 million).

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.