[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

FEBRUARY 16, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-1

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-430 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
Wisconsin MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID WU, Oregon
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
MO BROOKS, Alabama
RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ED FEDDEMAN Subcommittee Staff Director
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
BEN SCHELL Republican Staff Assistant
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member

C O N T E N T S

February 16, 2011

Page
Witness List..................................................... 2

Hearing Charter.................................................. 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chair,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Statement by Representative Marcia L. Fudge, Acting Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14

Witnesses:

Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President, NextGen and Operations
Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 16

Hon. Calvin Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23

Dr. R. John Hansman, Chair, FAA Research, Engineering, and
Development Advisory Committee, Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Director, MIT International Center for Aviation
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32

Mr. Peter Bunce, President and CEO, the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 36

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President, NextGen and Operations
Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 56

Hon. Calvin Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 61

Dr. R. John Hansman, Chair, FAA Research, Engineering, and
Development Advisory Committee, Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Director, MIT International Center for Aviation.. 63

Mr. Peter Bunce, President and CEO, the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association...................................... 65

A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

----------

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

hearing charter

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's

Research and Development Program

wednesday, february 16, 2011
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building

Purpose

The purpose of the February 16 Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics hearing is to review the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) portfolio of research and development programs, and examine
priorities and challenges.

Witnesses

Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President, NextGen and Operations
Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration

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

Dr. R. John Hansman, Chair, FAA Research, Engineering and Development
Advisory Committee; Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics;
Director, MIT International Center for Aviation

Mr. Peter Bunce, President and CEO, the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA)

Background

Overview
Aviation is a vital national resource for the United States. It
supports commerce, economic development, law enforcement, emergency
response, and personal travel and leisure. It attracts investment to
local communities and opens up new domestic and international markets
and supply chains. During calendar year 2009, the FAA estimates that
our nation's commercial aviation industry accounted for 5.6% of U.S.
Gross Domestic Product ($1.3 trillion in economic activity).
Additionally, aerospace products represent the fastest growing source
for technological exports.
Research and Development is an essential component of FAA's ability
to provide solutions to emerging industry challenges and create new
capabilities. The FAA's R&D mission is to ``Conduct, coordinate and
support domestic and international R&D of aviation-related products and
services that will ensure a safe, efficient and environmentally sound
global air transportation system.''
Our nation's civil aviation research and development is carried out
both by FAA and NASA. Their efforts are complementary, not duplicative.
FAA R&D focuses on near-term strategic needs enabling the agency to
address industry challenges primarily related to aviation safety,
environmental compliance, and implementation of the Next Generation Air
Transportation Management Systems (NextGen). NASA's R&D efforts are
more long-term, pursuing high-risk, high-reward technologies in the
areas of aviation safety, airspace systems, and fundamental
aeronautics.
Broadly speaking, FAA's research portfolio has two major thrusts--
(1) safety and capacity R&D projects needed to support day-to-day
operations of the national airspace system, and (2) technologies needed
to enable and implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(``NextGen'').
Examples of research programs include:

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety R&D. Develops
analytical and testing methods to understand how design, load,
and damage can affect composite structures and by developing
maintenance and repair methods.

Fire Research and Safety R&D. Develops technologies,
procedures, and test methods that can prevent accidents caused
by fires and fuel tank explosions and improve survivability
during a post-crash fire.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Research. Ensures safe
integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the
nation's aviation system. It also provides certification
procedures, operational requirements, and safety oversight
activities for UAS civil applications and operations.

NextGen--Alternative Fuels for General Aviation R&D.
Current GA piston aircraft rely exclusively on leaded gasoline.
This program researches the use of alternative and renewable
fuels for GA to lessen aviation environmental impacts by
developing data and methodologies to support their
certification.

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human
Factors R&D. Identifies and analyzes trends in air traffic
operational errors and technical operations incidents. It also
manages human error hazards, their consequences, and recovery
methods in early stages of system design or procedural
development and technology to modernize workstations and
improve controller performance.

For a complete listing of FAA's R&D activities and their associated
funding levels, see attachment.

NextGen and the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)
NextGen is the agency's high priority program to modernize our
nation's air traffic control system. Its goals are to triple the
capacity of our national airspace system by 2025 (using 2004 as the
baseline), to make the system safer and more secure, and to mitigate
aviation's impact on the environment. NextGen is an ambitious, long-
term and expensive undertaking, and will require sustained investments
by government agencies responsible for managing and protecting our
airspace system and infrastructure. It will also require large
investments by air carriers to equip their fleets with the technologies
that will enable them to fully exploit NextGen's capabilities.
The FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) was created
to coordinate interagency planning for those federal stakeholders
participating in NextGen, including the Department of Transportation,
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of
Commerce, NASA, the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and the FAA. The JPDO also works with industry and academia.

Research and Development Goals
FAA has established ten high-level goals for its full suite of R&D
activities. They are:

1. Fast, Flexible, Efficient. A system that safely and quickly
moves anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime on schedules that
meet customers' needs;

2. Clean and Quiet. A reduction of significant aerospace
environmental impacts in absolute terms.

3. High Quality Teams and Individuals. The best qualified and
trained workforce in the world.

4. Human-Centered Design. Aerospace systems that adapt to,
compensate for, and augment the performance of the human.

5. Human Protection. A reduction in fatalities, injuries, and
adverse health impacts due to aerospace operations.

6. Safe Aerospace Vehicles. A reduction in accidents and
incidents due to aerospace vehicle design, structure and
subsystems.

7. Separation Assurance. A reduction in accidents and
incidents due to aerospace vehicle operations in the air and on
the ground.

8. Situational Awareness. Common, accurate and real-time
information on aerospace operations, events, crises, obstacles,
and weather.

9. System Knowledge. A thorough understanding of how the
aerospace system operates, the impact of change on system
performance and risk, and how the system impacts the nation.

10. World Leadership. Globally recognized leader in aerospace
technology, systems, and operations.

The William J. Hughes Technical Center, located at the Atlantic
City, NJ airport, is the FAA's principal research facility. It houses a
number of laboratories, cockpit simulators, and systems integration
facilities that support research in the fields of capacity and air
traffic management; communications, navigation and surveillance;
NextGen concept validation; weather; airport technology; aircraft
safety; information security; and environment and energy.
Through a contractual relationship with the Mitre Corporation, the
FAA also funds the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development
(CAASD), a Federally Funded Research and Development Center located in
McLean, VA. CAASD performs air traffic management research.

FAA's Research Budget
FAA funds R&D from each of the agency's four budget accounts. The
Research, Engineering and Development Account is fully dedicated to
R&D; the other accounts (ATO Capital Account; Airport Improvement
Program; and Operations) have portfolios of which R&D is but a
fraction. For Fiscal Year 2010 enacted, FAA R&D programs were funded at
$346.3 million.
With the exception of Operations, FAA's accounts are fully funded
by the Aviation Trust Fund, which is capitalized through a series of
taxes imposed on the flying public, the largest being a 7.5% tax
assessed on the purchase of airline passenger tickets. The Operations
account receives funding from both the Aviation Trust Fund and General
Treasury revenues.

External Advisory Committee
Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC).
The REDAC advises the FAA Administrator on management of its R&D
activities, their performance and content, and ensures FAA research
activities are coordinated with other government agencies and industry.
A long-time REDAC member and current committee chair, Dr. R. John
Hansman, will appear as a witness.
In a letter sent to the Administrator last fall, the REDAC made
several observations. The following are excerpts:

The REDAC is concerned that there does not appear to
be a clear high level Research and Development plan for NextGen
that articulates the critical NextGen needs and links them to
the R&D portfolio.

As noted in prior recommendations the FAA has a
unique need for expertise in key areas such as critical
software and digital systems and human factors both for
certification and acquisition. The REDAC reiterates its concern
that there has been inadequate progress in developing the core
competency and technical workforce in this and other key areas.

The REDAC applauds progress in defining a clearer
path forward toward certification and routine operation of UAS
in the National Airspace System (NAS). In light of the
significant community pressure on the FAA to accelerate the
safe integration of UAS in the NAS, the REDAC questions if the
research is sufficient to address the complexity of the
operational, technical and policy changes associated with safe
integration of UAS and whether the timeline could be
accelerated if additional resources were available.

Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
will come to order. Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing
entitled, ``A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's
Research and Development Programs''. In front of you are
packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and
Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's witness panel.
Before we get started, this being the first meeting of the
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee for the 112th Congress, I
would like to ask the subcommittee's indulgence to introduce
myself, and welcome back returning Members. It seems to be a
little empty because there are a lot of competing interests
this morning for Members' time, but they will be coming and
going. I would also like to introduce new Members on our side
of the aisle. Afterwards, I will recognize Ms. Fudge to do the
same.
It is an honor and a privilege for me to chair the Space
Subcommittee for this Congress, and it is a position I do not
take lightly. I want all Members of the subcommittee to know
that my door is always open, and that I will endeavor to serve
all Members fairly and impartially. I will work to serve the
best interests of Congress and all Americans, to ensure that
the agencies and programs under our jurisdiction are worthy of
the public support.
In the last Congress this chair was held by Representative
Gabrielle Giffords, an extraordinary lady and leader who is a
fierce advocate of our nation's space program. I ask all in
this room to keep Representative Giffords in their thoughts and
prayers, as she continues to recover from her wounds.
Since there is not really anyone to welcome back on this
side, we will skip this part, and I would like to go ahead and
let Ms. Fudge introduce her Members.
Ms. Fudge. Okay.
Chairman Palazzo. At this time I recognize myself for five
minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today's
hearing. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us
who will discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's Research
and Development Program, and at the outset I wish to extend a
sincere thank you to each of our witnesses for taking the time
and effort to appear before us today. Please know that your
testimony and wisdom will be of immense help to the Members of
this Committee.
Our National Air Transportation System plays a critical
role in every American's daily life, enabling aviation services
to conveniently reach into virtually every corner of our
nation. For cities and towns, large and small, aviation has
become essential to sustaining commerce, public safety, and
leisure. It is a capability that has enabled our society to
flourish in many ways, and while economists have often spoken
about the incalculable benefits that were enabled by the
development of the interstate highway system, there is no doubt
that aviation has had a comparable effect, stitching together
virtually all regions and communities of our nation. Without a
robust commercial air transportation system, many forms of
commerce and intercity travel would be significantly
diminished.
With that in mind, the Federal Aviation Administration's
role of safely managing and regulating our national airspace
system and its users is an enormous enterprise. Demand on the
NAS has in recent past strained FAA's ability to efficiently
manage the system, in part due to the limitation of the current
radar-based system. We cannot afford to continue in this way.
It simply can't absorb additional traffic that will surely come
once our economy rebounds.
Just yesterday the FAA released its annual forecast,
predicting that air travel will double over the next two
decades. FAA also predicts that the system will move one
billion passengers annually by the year 2021, just ten years
from now.
In the safety arena, FAA is confronting a wide spectrum of
challenges such as developing the knowledge to ensure safe
operations of aging aircraft, understanding the performance and
failure modes of new materials used in aircraft structures, new
automation systems, understanding man/machine interfaces, and
human factors, and researching and certifying new fuels for
piston and turbine power plants, just to name a few examples.
It is critical that FAA meet these challenges and to do so
it must have a robust and well-managed research and development
program that enables the agency to accommodate growth and
accommodate new technologies.
This morning's hearing will give us an opportunity to hear
from industry experts and senior agency officials to help us
understand the successes and obstacles FAA must confront as it
continues to advance our nation's air transportation system. It
is critically important that FAA and its industry partners
provide good rationale for agency-supported research projects
and activities and to justify the level of funding. These are
uncertain times. Congress is facing enormous pressure to reduce
the size of our budget deficit, and every federal activity will
come under intense scrutiny, no matter how meritorious you and
I might think they may be.
Thanks again to our witnesses.
With that I now recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms.
Fudge, for her opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Palazzo follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Steven M. Palazzo

Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing. We
have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us who will discuss the
Federal Aviation Administration's research and development program. And
at the outset I wish to extend a sincere thank you to each of our
witnesses for taking the time and effort to appear before us today.
Please know that your testimony and wisdom will be of immense help to
the Members of this Committee.
Our national air transportation system plays a critical role in
every American's daily life, enabling aviation services to conveniently
reach into virtually every corner of our nation. For cities and towns
large and small, aviation has become essential to sustaining commerce,
public safety, and leisure. It is a capability that has enabled our
society to flourish in many ways and while economists have often spoken
about the incalculable benefits that were enabled by the development of
the interstate highway system, there is no doubt that aviation has had
a comparable effect, stitching together virtually all regions and
communities of our nation. Without a robust commercial air
transportation system, many forms of commerce and intercity travel
would be significantly diminished.
With that in mind, the Federal Aviation Administration's role of
safely managing and regulating our national airspace system and its
users is an enormous enterprise. Demand on the NAS has in the recent
past strained FAA's ability to efficiently manage the system, in part
due to limitations of the current radar-based system. We cannot afford
to continue in this way; it simply can't absorb additional traffic that
will surely come once our economy rebounds. Just yesterday the FAA
released its annual forecast, predicting that air travel will double
over the next two decades. FAA also predicts that the system will move
one billion passengers annually by the year 2021, just ten years from
now.
In the safety arena, FAA is confronting a wide spectrum of
challenges such as developing the knowledge to ensure safe operations
of aging aircraft, understanding the performance and failure modes of
new materials used in aircraft structures, new automation systems,
understanding man/machine interfaces and human factors, and researching
and certifying new fuels for piston and turbine powerplants, just to
name a few examples.
It is critical that FAA meet these challenges, and to do so, it
must have a robust and well-managed research and development program
that enables the agency to accommodate growth, and accommodate new
technologies. This morning's hearing will give us an opportunity to
hear from industry experts and senior agency officials to help us
understand the successes and obstacles FAA must confront as it
continues to advance our nation's air transportation system.
It is critically important that FAA and its industry partners
provide good rationale for agency-supported research projects and
activities, and to justify the level of funding. These are uncertain
times. Congress is facing enormous pressure to reduce the size of our
budget deficit, and every federal activity will come under intense
scrutiny, no matter how meritorious you and I might think they might
be.
Thanks again to our witnesses. With that, I now recognize the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello, for his opening statement.

Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the staff. As you know, I am sitting in for someone who
is standing in. Mr. Costello is actually the acting Ranking
Member, and I am standing in for him today because he is at
another hearing, and we are both just doing all we can to hold
down the fort until our friend Gabby Giffords returns to assume
this position as Ranking Member of the subcommittee. So I thank
you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to
review the Federal Aviation Administration's Research and
Development program. Mr. Costello has asked me to sit in the
Ranking Member's chair as the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee is marking up the FAA bill as we speak. I ask that
his prepared remarks be inserted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing
to review the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's)
research and development programs.

I look forward to working with you and continuing the
cooperative, bipartisan spirit of this Subcommittee.

I would like to start by saying a few words about
Congresswoman Giffords, my good friend and a true champion of
our nation's space program.

Following Congresswoman Giffords' election as Ranking
Member of this Subcommittee, I was asked by the leadership of
the Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee to serve in her
absence as she recovers.

I am encouraged by her ongoing progress, including
the announcement this week that she was speaking and
communicating with her doctors and family. My thoughts and
prayers are with her, her husband Mark, and their family as she
recovers. I look forward to her return, and I am honored to
serve as Acting Ranking Member during her recovery.

When I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, the House
and Senate came very close to delivering a strong, balanced and
bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill in the last Congress. Today
in the Transportation and Infrastructure Full Committee, we are
marking up our FAA titles. The legislation under discussion is
a four-year bill that includes several provisions with which I
agree but also contains many controversial provisions. We
intend to offer amendments to improve the legislation, and I am
hopeful we can do so before the measure comes to the floor.

In the last Congress, I included language in the
Federal Aviation Research and Development Title to the FAA
Reauthorization to establish a Center of Excellence in Aviation
Employment, which would focus on research and training across
the civil aviation industry. It is imperative that as we
continue to improve the civil aviation industry, we ensure we
have the most skilled and competitive workforce possible.

In addition, we are moving forward with implementing
NextGen, which is essential to moving from a radar system to a
satellite-based system. I strongly support continued funding of
NextGen's R&D program over which this committee has
jurisdiction. I believe we must continue to fund these efforts
and move forward with its implementation.

In addition, we must continue to invest in the
development of lower-emission and unleaded aviation fuels
through the Avgas program. I will work with you, Chairman
Palazzo, to ensure our title of the FAA bill directs the agency
to work in cooperation with NASA, industry representatives,
manufacturers, fuel producers, and other stakeholders to
develop a roadmap for achieving emission reduction goals.

Finally, I recognize the importance of reducing our
federal spending and addressing our deficit. However, we should
not make cuts that compromise the safety and security of the
flying public and the competitiveness of the aviation and
aerospace industry.

I thank our witnesses for being here to testify
today, and I look forward to working with all interested
parties to develop a strong, fiscally-responsible, and forward-
looking FAA bill.

Chairman Palazzo. Without objection.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. I would like to welcome the new
Members who are not here, but I will tell you who they are. The
gentlewoman from Alabama, Ms. Sewell, and the gentlewoman from
Florida, Ms. Wilson. We look forward to their participation on
this subcommittee.
Aviation is a vital part of the U.S. economy, making up as
much as nine percent of America's GDP and representing the
fastest-growing source for technological exports. R&D is an
important component, and FAA's contribution is vital. In
particular, FAA's implementation of NextGen is essential to
moving from a radar system to a satellite-based system.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has
jurisdiction over the research and development for NextGen, and
I am hopeful we can provide adequate funding for this vital
program. Some Members of Congress have suggested we reduce or
eliminate funding for NextGen and other FAA R&D programs. I am
convinced cutting these programs now would present major
concerns for aviation safety in the coming years and push our
aviation industry backwards instead of moving us forward.
Further cutting funding now would actually eliminate future
opportunities for FAA to save billions of dollars through the
agency's facility consolidation efforts, reductions in fuel
consumption, and decreases in engine emissions.
I recognize the need to reduce federal spending and address
our deficit. However, I believe we cannot jeopardize the safety
and security of the flying public or the future of the American
economy in the process. I will work with you, Chairman Palazzo,
to ensure our Title of the FAA bill reflects our interests.
I thank our witnesses for being here to testify today, and
I look forward to working with all interested parties in
developing a strong, fiscally-responsible, and forward-looking
FAA bill.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fudge follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Marcia L. Fudge

I would like to welcome the new Democratic members of the
subcommittee. The gentlewoman from Alabama, Ms. Terri Sewell, and the
gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Frederica Wilson. We look forward to your
participation on this subcommittee.
Aviation is a vital part of the U.S. economy, making up as much as
9 percent of America's GDP and representing the fastest-growing source
for technological exports. R&D is an important component, and FAA's
contribution is vital. In particular, FAA's implementation of the Next
Generation air transportation system, also known as NextGen, is
essential to moving from a radar system to a satellite-based system.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over
the research and development for NextGen, and I am hopeful we can
provide adequate funding for this vital program. Some members of
Congress have suggested we reduce or eliminate funding for NextGen and
other FAA R&D programs. I am convinced cutting these programs now would
present major concerns for aviation safety in the coming years and push
our aviation industry backwards instead of moving us forward.
Further cutting funding now would actually eliminate future
opportunities for FAA to save billions of dollars through the agency's
facility consolidation efforts, reductions in fuel consumption, and
decreases in engine emissions.
I recognize the need to reduce federal spending and address our
deficit. However, I believe we cannot jeopardize the safety and
security of the flying public or the future of the American economy in
the process. I will work with you, Chairman Palazzo, to ensure our
Title of the FAA bill reflects our interests.
I thank our witnesses for being here to testify today, and I look
forward to working with all interested parties in developing a strong,
fiscally-responsible, and forward-looking FAA bill.

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
I would like to mention that our Chairman, Mr. Hall, is
here. Thank you for coming. Do you have anything you would like
to say?
Mr. Rohrabacher is here. He is a returning Member.
At this time I would like to introduce our panel of
witnesses. We will proceed to hear from each of them in order.
Our first witness is Ms. Victoria Cox. She is Senior Vice
President of NextGen Operations Planning in the Air Traffic
Organization, and with the Federal Aviation Administration.
Next we will hear from the Hon. Calvin Scovel, Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Following Mr.
Scovel we will hear from Dr. John Hansman, Chairman of the
Research, Engineering, and Development Committee of the Federal
Aviation Administration, and a Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Our
final witness will be Mr. Peter Bunce, President and CEO of the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Thanks, again, to
our panel for being here this morning.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a
motion for personal privilege here. I would like to have the
opportunity to ask one question before the testimony begins
that could be followed up on after the testimony.
Chairman Palazzo. Hearing no objections? All right. You are
granted.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like the witnesses to be thinking
about this question. They could give it some thought, and give
us a serious answer. I would like you to tell me what you
believe the number one priority the FAA and that we should have
in this arena. What is the number one priority, and also, most
important, tell us what the lowest priority should be. So when
we have to balance budgets, we will have some direction from
you. I needed to ask that before to give them time to think
about it.
So thank you very much for granting me that one minute.
Chairman Palazzo. As our witnesses should know, spoken
testimony is limited to five minutes each. After all witnesses
have spoken, Members of the Committee will have five minutes
each to ask questions.
I now recognize our first witness, Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior
Vice President, Federal Aviation Administration.

STATEMENT OF MS. VICTORIA COX, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NEXTGEN
AND OPERATIONS PLANNING, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Ms. Cox. Thank you. Good morning, Committee Chairman Hall,
Subcommittee Chairman Palazzo, Congresswoman Fudge, and Members
of the Subcommittee.
Chairman Palazzo. Please pull the microphone closer. Thank
you.
Ms. Cox. I am Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for
NextGen and Operations Planning Services in the Air Traffic
Organization of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a
pleasure to meet the new Members of the Subcommittee today, and
I look forward to working with all of you. It saddens me that
Congresswoman Giffords is not here, having appeared before her
last year. We at the FAA join the rest of the Nation in keeping
her recovery in our thoughts.
Research and development has been essential and necessary
to aviation, since its very beginning. Where would we be
without the Wright Brothers' studies and experiments on the
dynamics of flight? The FAA's Research, Engineering, and
Development, or RE&D Programs, carry this legacy forward as
aviation continues to thrive and change.
Aviation is a vital national resource for the United
States. The aviation industry alone directly employs 1.1
million people, and the industry supports more than 11 million
jobs in related industries through spending by direct aviation
employees. Altogether, this direct support represents six
percent of the gross domestic product of the United States.
In addition to the support it provides for commerce, jobs,
and economic development, we cannot forget aviation's integral
role in law enforcement, emergency response, national defense,
and security of the homeland. These benefits of the aviation
industry require that America's air transportation system
remain the best in the world.
But being the best has a price. To maintain leadership
requires constant introduction of new technologies and
procedures, innovative policies, and advanced management
practices into the aviation system. In order to do that, we
need to make sustained investments in advanced research and
technology development. A robust RE&D Program allows for cost-
effective implementation of vital new technologies and
capabilities through concept development, testing, early risk
identification, and mitigation.
There is often an incomplete understanding of what the Next
Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is and what
it can do. The concept is simple. NextGen is a set of
technologies, processes, procedures, and policies that together
will revolutionize how people fly. It is a radical departure
from the ground-based radar of years gone by, and a shift
towards satellite control and navigation. It is a game changer
for the controller, the pilot, and the passenger.
With the technology and procedures of NextGen, we will
vastly improve the safety, efficiency, and overall performance
of air transportation. However, we are well aware that this is
not the whole story. If we want to get maximum return on the
investment. If we want to support unconstrained market growth
in aviation, we must take an aggressive approach to upgrading
our infrastructure to maximize the benefits of NextGen.
At some point, keeping legacy systems going becomes more
costly than replacing them with new technology. To that end, we
have developed a research portfolio that will address today's
needs while laying the foundation to address the needs of the
future of NextGen. The FAA's research and development is geared
to practical applicability. While we are developing NextGen
with an eye towards long-term transformation of the air traffic
control system, we are also evolving the system in the near to
mid-term as well.
FAA's research portfolio is divided into related fields.
Our core NextGen RE&D funding includes research that supports
aviation, safety, and regulatory processes. Other research and
development activities are aimed at introducing innovative new
technologies into the air transportation system that will
deliver future operational capabilities envisioned for NextGen.
My written statement provides examples of our ongoing
efforts, and their importance to our overall success. I would
be remiss if I did not point out that we are not alone in our
efforts. We are committing to working smartly and more leanly,
and to that end we are partnering with others to leverage their
knowledge and resources to augment ours. We engage with
industry via advisory boards and with a multitude of
international organizations.
The Joint Planning and Development Office, or JPDO,
facilitates partnerships across government agencies including:
FAA, NASA, and the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and
Homeland Security. The JPDO supports a future vision for
NextGen by developing the long-term research plan for
improvements that extend beyond the mid-term planning window of
the FAA.
Our approach to research and development is focused on
maintaining our leadership in aviation, while leveraging our
partnerships to the maximum extent possible. I believe this
approach is bearing fruit. As the aviation industry continues
to evolve and change, it is vitally important that our country
leads the world in this sector.
I look forward to working with this Congress to ensure that
we do. This concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you again. I
will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]

Prepared Statement of Victoria Cox

Good morning, Chairman Palazzo, Congressman Costello, and Members
of the Subcommittee. I am Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for
NextGen and Operations Planning Services in the Air Traffic
Organization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is a
pleasure to meet the new Members of the Subcommittee today and I look
forward to working with all of you. It saddens me to miss Congresswoman
Giffords here, having appeared before her last year, and we at the FAA
join the rest of the nation in keeping her recovery in our thoughts.
Research and development has been essential and necessary to
aviation since the beginning. Where would we be without the Wright
Brothers' studies and experiments on the dynamics of flight? The FAA's
research, engineering and development (RE&D) program carry this legacy
forward as aviation continues to thrive and change.
Aviation is a vital national resource for the United States. The
aviation industry alone directly employs 1.1 million people and
supports more than 11 million jobs in related industries and through
spending by direct aviation employees. Altogether, this represents 6%
of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition to the support it
provides for commerce, jobs, and economic development, we cannot forget
aviation's integral role in law enforcement, emergency response, and in
the national defense and security of the homeland. These benefits of
the aviation industry require that America's air transportation system
remains the best in the world.
But being the best has a price. To maintain leadership requires
constant introduction of new technologies and procedures, innovative
policies, and advanced management practices into the aviation system.
In order to do that, we need to make sustained investments in advanced
research and technology development. A robust RE&D program allows for
cost-effective implementation of viable new technologies and
capabilities through concept development, testing, early risk
identification and mitigation.
There's an incomplete understanding of what the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen) is and what it can do. The concept is
simple: NextGen is a set of technologies, processes, procedures and
policy that together will revolutionize how people fly. It is a radical
departure from the ground-based radar of years gone by, a shift toward
satellite control and navigation. It is a game changer for the
controller, the pilot, and the passenger. With the technology and
procedures of NextGen, we can help turn that around. But we are well
aware that is not the whole story. If we want to get maximum return on
the investment, if we want to support unconstrained market growth in
aviation, we must take an aggressive approach to upgrading our
infrastructure to maximize the benefits of NextGen. At some point,
keeping the legacy systems going becomes more costly than replacing
them with new technologies.
To that end, we have developed a research portfolio that will
address today's needs while laying the foundation to address the needs
of the future for NextGen. The FAA's research and development is geared
to practical applicability. While we are developing NextGen with an eye
towards the long-term transformation of the air traffic control system,
we are evolving the system in the near-to mid-term as well, as my
testimony will highlight later. FAA efforts focus on the period between
now and 2018.
FAA's research portfolio is divided into related fields. Our core
and NextGen RE&D funding includes research that supports aviation
safety and regulatory processes. Other research and development
activities are aimed at introducing innovative new technologies into
the air transportation system that will deliver future operational
improvements envisioned for NextGen.
Our Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping (ATD&P) work is
funded in the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) appropriation. It further
develops products resulting from FAA RE&D investments as well as
research transitioned from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and other sources of basic and fundamental
research. ATD&P activities include development of detailed mid-term
operational concepts, concept validation studies, human factors
analyses and requirements for individual systems based on those
concepts, and validation prototypes and demonstrations.
NextGen System Development is funded in the F&E appropriation and
supports the transition from RE&D to advanced technology development
through activities such as concept modeling, system level requirements
development, assessments of human performance and integration with
technologies, and development of environmental management
methodologies.
Research and development performed by MITRE's Center for Advanced
Aviation System Development (CAASD) directly supports needs of FAA
research and development programs that can uniquely be provided by this
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC).
Finally, research and development is also funded by the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). There are two components: first the Airport
Technology Research Program addresses the research and development
needs of the Office of Airports in the areas of airport pavement,
rescue and firefighting, wildlife hazard mitigation, runway surface
technology, and visual guidance. The results of this research are used
to update guidance material, manuals, and technical specifications that
airports rely on when expending AIP funds. Second, the Airport
Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is funded by the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). ACRP is an industry-driven, applied research
program that develops near-term, practical solutions to problems faced
by airport operators. The FAA sponsors ACRP, and the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies manages the program.
Contractors who are selected on the basis of competitive proposals
conduct the research.
FAA takes seriously the need to continue to improve environmental
performance in order to sustain aviation growth. The FAA and aviation
industry agree that environmental impacts will constrain NextGen if
they are not effectively managed and mitigated. Technological advances
in engine, airframe, and fuels technologies offer the greatest
improvements and will keep the U.S. globally competitive. We have
partnered with industry in our Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and
Noise (CLEEN) technology program to develop new technologies to reduce
aircraft noise, emissions, and fuel burn, and to advance sustainable
alternative aviation fuels.
Engine and airframe technologies will offer the greatest long term
benefit but these new technologies must be coupled with efficient
procedures, particularly in the near term. Thus, we are implementing
new Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs) at nine locations including Los
Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Honolulu and Anchorage. In
addition, eight OPD projects are presently under development in the NAS
including Seattle, St. Louis, Louisville, Charlotte and Memphis.
Traditional approaches require a plane to follow a stair-step pattern
of arrival--descending and leveling off several times before landing.
Each time a pilot has to stop descending and resume level flight, they
have to throttle up the engines. These OPDs allow planes to continually
descend to the airport from high altitudes without having to level off,
or step down, at interim altitudes. This process of continuous descent
results in significant fuel savings and a reduction in radio
communications--especially, in complex, busy airspace around major
airports.
Sustainable alternative fuels development and deployment offer
prospects for environmental improvements, energy security, and economic
stability for aviation. We're working cooperatively with the industry
through the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) to
develop ``drop-in'' fuels. We achieved approval of a synthetic fuel in
2009 (ASTM D7566), the first new fuel standard in decades. We are on
track to achieve a fuel standard that will allow a 50% blend of a
synthetic fuel with jet fuel this year.
We do want to point out that we are not alone in these efforts. We
are committed to working smarter and more leanly, and to that end, we
are partnering with others to leverage their knowledge and resources to
augment ours. We engage with industry via advisory boards and with a
multitude of international organizations. The Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO) facilitates partnerships across the
government agencies including FAA, NASA and the Departments of Defense,
Commerce and Homeland Security. The JPDO supports the future vision for
NextGen by developing the long-term research plan for improvements that
extend beyond the 2018 planning window that is FAA's focus.
Through our coordination with our internal and external partners,
we have been able to identify research gaps, reduce duplication of
efforts, and leverage available resources. One of our most important
research partners is, of course, NASA. That agency's contributions to
our research and development are of such vital importance that, as of
January 2011, we have assigned an FAA liaison to NASA's Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) to identify research and
development collaboration opportunities and ensure stronger and timely
coordination between FAA and NASA.
One of the many ways we partner with NASA under the auspices of the
JPDO is on a series of Research Transition Teams (RTT). Four pilot RTTs
were initiated in 2007 to ensure that research and development needed
for NextGen implementation is identified, conducted, and effectively
transitioned to the implementing agency. These include:

Integrated Arrival/Departure/Surface

Efficient Flow into Congested Airspace

Dynamic Airspace Configuration

Flow-Based Trajectory Management

Both NASA and FAA collaborated through these RTTs to conduct joint
research, simulation, and field trials of NextGen technologies. Through
this interaction selected algorithms have been transferred from NASA to
the FAA, along with research results to inform the implementation
process of the given technologies.
We are also partnering with NASA on our NextGen Human Factors
Research Coordination Plan. Our work began in September 2010 and we
anticipate that the final product will be published this month by the
JPDO. This product will describe key coordination activities
recommended by Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the
Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General, namely:
identification of initial focus areas for research, establishment of
methods for leveraging past and current human factors research, and
creation of an inventory of existing facilities for human factors
research. The coordination process leverages GAO-recommended best
practices to help enhance and sustain collaboration among Federal
agencies. This is an aggressive renewed effort to formalize existing
human factors research coordination process between FAA and NASA, and
begins an annual coordination process between our two agencies to
review planned research efforts, identify gaps, monitor and evaluate
progress, and report results.
NASA also is a vital collaborator with the FAA in its Partnership
for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction (PARTNER) Center of
Excellence supporting development of aviation technologies and
operational procedures to reduce fuel burn and environmental impacts
due to noise and emissions.
On the Department of Defense side, we have an Air Force Research
Lab (AFRL) Liaison to FAA for NextGen. In 2010, the Air Force assigned
a NextGen research liaison to FAA to work closely with researchers to
identify opportunities to leverage relevant research, laboratory
capabilities and expertise available within AFRL. Our joint goal is to
advance the air traffic management research and technology required for
FAA to implement our National Airspace System (NAS) mid-term
capabilities as defined in the Enterprise Architecture and the NextGen
Implementation Plan (NGIP). The ARFL Liaison partnership, in
particular, has helped advance Human Factors, Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) and sustainable alternative fuels work.
Finally, we work closely with the JPDO to continue to define our
future needs and priorities. The JPDO works to mitigate research and
development risk for 2025 by analyzing various issues, such as:

UAS and other advanced technologies that will require
careful transition and ultimately lead to NAS integration

Trajectory Based Operations

Potential environment constraints.

The JPDO works with FAA to coordinate development of information
data sharing standards, models, and integration of advanced aviation
weather forecasts into air traffic control tools. I am pleased to
report that our efforts have been paying off. In Fiscal Year 2010, we
have completed several research and development efforts in the safety
arena. In partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Weather Service, FAA has developed the
Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model, an operational next-
generation numerical weather prediction system designed to serve both
operational aviation forecasting and atmospheric research needs. FAA-
funded researchers also developed the Graphical Turbulence Guidance
(GTG) product which provides contours of weather turbulence potential
out to 12 hours. The current product, GTG2, operationally implemented
on Aviation Digital Data Service in FY 2010, provides forecasts for
clear air turbulence from 10,000-45,000 feet. The Congressional Joint
Economic Committee estimates that air traffic delays cost the U.S.
Economy over $41 billion in 2007, of which 70% are related to adverse
weather--and as the demand for air traffic grows, air traffic delays
and the associated economic toll will only increase. We have determined
that 2/3rds of these weather related delays are avoidable with more
accurate and better integrated weather information for decision-making,
potentially reducing the number of delays by 46% and saving $19 billion
annually. The FAA, NOAA and other partners are working to realize these
savings and accommodate the expected demand growth.
In partnership with the Air Transport Association's Human Factors
Committee and Alaska Airlines, we completed beta testing of new
training material and procedures to improve safety in Airline
Maintenance and Ramp Operations. FAA developed Front Line Manager Best
Practices Quick Reference Guide (FLM QRG) to assist air traffic front
line managers in preventing errors through performance management. FLM
QRG provides helpful information on topics such as communications,
improving performance, training, and leadership.
In the NextGen arena, we have completed a Wake Turbulence
Separation Safety Risk assessment to reclassify all B757s in the same
weight class and harmonize the weight boundary between the US Heavy and
Large from 255,000 to 300,000 lbs, thus harmonizing with ICAO. This
successful change was implemented April 8, 2010. The completion of the
Wake Turbulence Safety Risk assessment for the B787 Dreamliner has been
submitted to the FAA Safety Management System for adoption. and we have
ongoing work with the B747-8 and A380 in response to satisfying the
NTSB recommendation A-94-056. These efforts address the need to
mitigate the risk for wake turbulence through the development of safe
wake separation standards prior to entry into service of new aircraft
and to continue this evaluation early in the service life.
We have completed Human-in-the-Loop Simulations and flight trials
for the 4-Dimensional (4D) Flight Management System (FMS) Trajectory-
Based Operations (TBO) and partnered with Alaska Airlines to conduct 4D
FMS TBO Initial Flight Trials at Seattle. In response to the RTCA Task
Force 5 recommendations, FAA has partnered with Federal Express and
Delta Airlines to field test the Collaborative Departure Queue
Management surface management system at Memphis and Orlando. We
completed initial investigations, including Human-in-the Loop
simulations, into application of Data Communications in the terminal
domain, and conducted Staffed NextGen Tower proof-of-concept field
demonstrations at Dallas Fort Worth Airport in August 2010. Finally, in
partnership with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we conducted
flight trials with CBP's Predator UAS system at Cape Canaveral to
investigate potential solutions to help with integration into the NAS.
This is the first in a series of progressive demonstrations that are
planned for next year, with an expanding list of partners. Each of
these accomplishments takes us step-by-step closer to realizing the
full benefits of NextGen.
In the airport environment, I am pleased to report that we have
developed a new FAA Wildlife Website/Database with a cell phone
application for reporting wildlife strikes. Additionally, we have
installed a pilot Runway Status Light (RWSL) system at Boston-Logan
Airport aimed at investigating RWSL applicability for intersecting
runways. We conducted Human-in-the-Loop simulations using Converging
Runway Display Aid (CRDA) at Newark Airport. Finally, we have recently
completed installation of prototype Low Cost Ground Surveillance
systems at Spokane, WA; Manchester, NH; and San Jose, CA. These cost
effective systems offer the potential to provide an added layer of
safety by giving air traffic controllers basic ground surveillance for
aircraft and vehicles operating on runways and adjacent taxiways, where
current radar-based ground surveillance is not available.
As our recent accomplishments illustrate, our approach to research
and development with an eye toward maintaining our leadership in
aviation while leveraging our partnerships to maximum effect is bearing
fruit. As the aviation industry continues to evolve and change, it is
vitally important that our country leads the world in this sector. I
look forward to working with this Congress to ensure that we do.
This concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.

Biography for Victoria Cox

As the Air Traffic Organization's Senior Vice President for NextGen
and Operations Planning, Vicki Cox provides increased focus on the
transformation of the nation's air traffic control system by providing
systems engineering, research and technology development, and test and
evaluation expertise. She is also responsible for the NextGen portfolio
and its integration and implementation.
Within the FAA, Cox has served as the Director of the ATO's
Operations Planning International Office, the Director of Flight
Services Finance and Planning and the Program Director of the Aviation
Research Division.
Prior to joining the FAA, Cox was Director of International
Technology Programs in the Office of the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She has an
extensive research and development and program management background,
having supported the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and
Technology as the DOD Laboratory Liaison. She also worked as a Program
Manager for a number of ballistic missile defense technology programs
for the U.S. Air Force. A physicist, Cox served as Chief of Physics and
Scientific Director of the European Office of Aerospace Research and
Development in London. She also worked as a scientist responsible for
thermal vacuum conditioning and testing of the Hubble Telescope for
NASA.
Cox graduated from Converse College and received a Master's degree
from East Carolina University. She has a certificate in U.S. National
Security Policy from Georgetown University and is a DOD Level III
Certified Acquisition Professional in Systems Planning, Research,
Development and Engineering. She also earned her private pilot's
license in 1985.

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Calvin
Scovel, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation.

STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fudge, Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to
testify on FAA's NextGen efforts.
NextGen aims to fundamentally transform our aviation system
to better manage air traffic and reduce congestion over the
next several decades. Since FAA launched this complex effort in
FY 2004, we have reported on the management challenges FAA
faces in delivering NextGen's promised benefits.
Today I will discuss two areas that could impact FAA's
ability to meet long-term NextGen goals. First, schedule delays
and cost increases with the En Route Automation Modernization
Program or ERAM and second, coordination gaps with FAA's
partner agencies on key research and development efforts. I
will also highlight actions needed to strengthen FAA's
management of NextGen initiatives.
ERAM is NextGen's primary tool for processing flight data
and serves as the hub system for achieving some of its most
beneficial capabilities. Without ERAM other programs intended
to provide more efficient data sharing and airspace routes will
not be possible.
FAA originally planned to fully deploy ERAM by the end of
2010, at a cost of $2.1 billion, but significant software
problems at the initial test sites have pushed deployment out
by four years. FAA estimates that overall ERAM delays will cost
an additional $330 million. Our work in a recent MITRE
analysis, however, suggests total cost growth could be
significantly more, as much as $500 million.
FAA will also incur other costs to sustain aging equipment
longer than planned and to retrain controllers on both legacy
and ERAM systems. Cost escalations of this magnitude could
affect FAA's capital budget and crowd out other projects.
In addition to keeping key programs on track, FAA must
address research and development gaps with its partner
agencies, such as the Department of Defense. Multi-agency
coordination on NextGen is not only mandated by law, but it is
needed to achieve key capabilities and stay on track with
NextGen's cost, schedule and performance goals.
These key research gaps concern integrating weather
information into advanced automated systems, establishing joint
surveillance requirements to securely track aircraft,
incorporating unmanned aircraft systems into domestic airspace,
and assessing NextGen's human factors impact on pilots and
controllers.
As we reported last June, FAA's delayed decisions on
critical requirements have impacted other agencies' R&D plans
and NextGen's overall progress. For example, FAA has yet to
determine how much responsibility to delegate to pilots versus
controllers and ground systems to track aircraft. Another major
factor in NextGen cost planning will be the degree to which FAA
consolidates or eliminates air traffic facilities.
At the same time, FAA continues to lack an integrated
budget document to track partner agencies' involvement in
NextGen and align resources. FAA has been working toward this
for over four years. While FAA's partner agencies support
NextGen, some have not adjusted their R&D budgets and programs
specifically for NextGen efforts. It is, therefore, difficult
for FAA and Congress to determine if FAA is leveraging the
right research, if funding is adequate for specific efforts, or
if projects will improve the air transportation system and at
what cost.
To strengthen the multi-agency approach and better manage
long-term NextGen initiatives, there are five key areas where
the FAA needs to take action. First, clarify FAA's Joint
Planning and Development Office's responsibilities for critical
NextGen development areas such as simulation and modeling,
technology transfer, prototype development, and policy
formulation.
Second, finalize performance goals and matrix for NextGen.
Until FAA moves beyond the broader goals that it has laid out,
it will be difficult to assess short and long-term efforts for
improving airport arrival rates, reducing fuel burn, or
decreasing FAA operating costs.
Third, complete efforts to establish an integrated NextGen
budget document. Fourth, fully leverage DOD's expertise. While
DOD contributes to NextGen in an advisory capacity, FAA has not
yet fully assessed DOD's vast research and development
portfolio or technology that could help reduce risk with the
precision landing systems envisioned for NextGen.
Finally, secure a workforce with the skill sets needed to
execute NextGen. While FAA recently completed an initial
acquisition workforce plan, the plan contains no specifics on
the method or timing of this effort. We have work underway to
examine FAA's plans for determining its acquisition workforce
needs, and its progress in addressing them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to address any questions you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Calvin L. Scovel III

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) efforts to develop and transition to
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). As you know,
NextGen is a central issue in reauthorizing a wide range of FAA
programs, including the Agency's research and development efforts and
capital budgets. FAA is developing NextGen to meet anticipated future
air travel demands. The NextGen effort involves a significant overhaul
of the National Airspace System (NAS) to shift from a ground-based to
satellite-based air traffic management system. This will require
considerable research and development and successful transfer of
technology between Federal agencies and the private sector.
Since the effort began in fiscal year 2004, we have reported on the
cost and schedule risks as well operational and management challenges
that FAA must address to successfully implement NextGen. Today, I will
discuss two areas that have significant impact on FAA's ability to meet
long-term NextGen goals: (1) the status of the En Route Automation
Modernization (ERAM) program, a key modernization effort that could
affect the pace of NextGen, and (2) FAA's efforts to coordinate and
reach consensus with partner agencies on key research and development
efforts. I will conclude with actions needed to strengthen FAA's
management of long-term NextGen initiatives.

SUMMARY

FAA's key long-term goals for NextGen, such as increasing airspace
capacity and reducing flight delays and congestion, depend on the
successful implementation of ERAM--a $2.1 billion system for processing
flight data. However, software problems with ERAM have caused
significant delays that will affect FAA's NextGen plans and costs.
NextGen's success also relies on a strong, multi-agency approach to
develop safe and effective aviation technologies. While FAA has made
progress in coordinating its partner agencies' diverse Federal research
and long-term plans, it has not reached consensus on fundamental issues
that will materially affect the cost, schedule, and capabilities of
NextGen. We have identified several management actions that FAA can
take now to clarify roles, set performance goals, and align research
priorities so that NextGen delivers the promised benefits to FAA and
airspace users.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, Congress mandated that FAA establish the Joint Planning
and Development Office (JPDO) and create and carry out a plan for
implementing NextGen by 2025.\1\ Congress also required the JPDO to
coordinate diverse research efforts of other Federal agencies,
including the Departments of Defense (DOD), Commerce, and Homeland
Security (DHS) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Since 2006, our reports and testimonies have identified NextGen
as a high-risk effort and one of the Department's top management
challenges for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. We have made numerous
recommendations to help FAA achieve its NextGen goals. While initial
planning for NextGen focused on implementing improvements through 2025,
FAA has more recently emphasized initiatives for the near and midterm,
defined as between 2015 and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Pub. L.
No. 108-176 (2003).

DELAYS IN ERAM'S IMPLEMENTATION HAVE COST AND SCHEDULE IMPLICATIONS FOR
NEXTGEN

As the primary NextGen tool for processing en route \2\ flight data
across the NAS, ERAM's implementation is fundamental to achieve the
mid- and long-term benefits envisioned for NextGen. ERAM will replace
all the existing hardware and software at air traffic facilities that
manage high-altitude traffic. FAA originally planned to deploy ERAM to
20 en route facilities by the end of 2010 at a cost of $2.1 billion.
However, due to software problems at its initial operating sites, ERAM
is experiencing major schedule slips and cost increases. These delays
could significantly impact the cost and pace of NextGen--without ERAM,
the key benefits of several other programs, such as more efficient data
sharing and advanced airspace routes, will not be possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ En route airspace is typically above 10,000 feet where aircraft
reach their cruising altitudes and fly as direct a route as possible
between their points of departure and destination.

ERAM Software Problems Have Caused Schedule Delays and Cost Overruns

Although ERAM passed testing at FAA's Technical Center and achieved
Government acceptance,\3\ testing at initial operating sites in Salt
Lake City and Seattle revealed significant software-related problems
that have pushed schedules well beyond original completion dates and
increased cost estimates by hundreds of millions of dollars. These
problems include interface issues between the key sites and other air
traffic facilities, radar processing failures, errors that tag flight
data to the wrong aircraft, and hand-off problems between controllers.
To compensate for these problems, controllers relied on workarounds
that increased their workload and fatigue and diverted them from
managing air traffic. As a result of these issues, FAA postponed its
plans to fully deploy ERAM at the initial sites--originally scheduled
for December 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Government acceptance (GA) of ERAM by the FAA Technical Center
requires meeting specific criteria established for the project
baseline. These criteria include successfully completing developmental
testing activities per the Statement of Work, listing all problem
trouble reports, demonstrating that all contractual requirements are
satisfied, and completing both functional and physical configuration
audits. At GA, the Government (i.e., FAA with ERAM) assumes full
control and responsibility of the system.
\4\ FAA delayed the in-service (ISD) and operational readiness
decisions. An ISD authorizes deployment of a system into the
operational environment. It occurs after demonstration of initial
operational capability at the key test site. The ISD is based on
testing to verify performance and establishes the foundation for
operational readiness to be declared at key site and subsequent sites
following completion of joint acceptance and inspection by the
operating service organization and certification of compliance with
information security requirements. For ERAM, the Operational Readiness
Demonstration (ORD) is the final certification required for the system
to become operational and for FAA to no longer retain the HOST Computer
system as a backup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last March, FAA placed a moratorium on further operational ERAM
testing at the 2 initial sites to fix the more than 200 problems
identified, reassess its efforts, and develop a new course of action.
FAA has since resumed testing, and senior FAA officials state that they
are improving system stability, continuing testing at additional sites,
and seeing progress in conducting continuous operations without the
need to fall back to the legacy system. FAA now plans to complete ERAM
in 2014--a schedule slip of 4 years--with the next major milestones
focused on getting the Salt Lake City and Seattle sites fully
operational.\5\ However, FAA and its contractor plan to add new
capabilities while attempting to resolve problems identified in earlier
software versions, which could cause further schedule delays. Updated
software releases have already exhibited new problems, including inter-
facility interface issues that lock up the system and a significant
software failure that resulted in Seattle falling back to the legacy
system for several weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Independent Operational Assessment, formally called Independent
Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), is an assessment of a new system's
operational effectiveness and operational suitability performed by an
Air Traffic Service (ATS) Test Team on systems designated for IOT&E by
ATS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FAA estimates that delays with ERAM will translate into an
additional $330 million to complete deployment, our work and a recent
MITRE analysis suggest the total cost growth could be as much as $500
million.\6\ Cost escalations of this magnitude in today's fiscally
constrained environment will affect FAA's capital budget and crowd out
other projects. Further, FAA will incur additional costs to sustain
aging equipment longer than planned and retrain controllers on both the
legacy and ERAM systems. A driving factor behind potential future
delays and additional cost overruns will be ERAM's performance at large
locations, like Chicago and New York Center. The MITRE analysis
cautions that FAA's initial corrective action plan for ERAM was not
comprehensive and that additional time and resources will be necessary
to accommodate site-specific operational differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MITRE Corporation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology/
Lincoln Laboratory Report, Independent Assessment of the ERAM Program,
October 15, 2010. For official use only and not approved for public
release.

Continued Problems With ERAM Will Impact Other NextGen Efforts

Continued problems with ERAM will affect both the cost and pace of
FAA's other NextGen efforts. Our work has shown critical
interdependencies between ERAM and three of five NextGen technologies
that are key to fundamentally changing how air traffic is managed (see
table 1).\7\ These three technologies have already been allocated more
than $500 million to integrate and align with ERAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These programs include the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS-B), System-Wide Information Management (SWIM), NextGen
Data Communications, National Airspace System Voice Switch, and NextGen
Network Enabled Weather.

In addition to these programs, FAA enterprise architecture
documents acknowledge that ERAM delays will also affect FAA's
development of trajectory-based operations \8\ and the transition to a
common automation platform for terminal and en route operations.
Prolonged delays with ERAM could also impact future software
enhancements for new NextGen capabilities, such as flexible and dynamic
airspace that will allow controllers to shift segments of airspace to
other controllers based on weather and changes in traffic patterns.
These future enhancements are currently estimated to cost $1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Trajectory-based operations focus on more precisely managing
aircraft from departure to arrival with the benefits of reduced fuel
consumption, lower operating costs, and reduced emissions.

LACK OF COORDINATION BETWEEN FAA AND PARTNER AGENCIES ON KEY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS WILL IMPACT NEXTGEN'S LONG-
TERM COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE

Leveraging other agencies' research is key to achieving the
capabilities envisioned for NextGen since FAA conducts little long-term
air traffic management research. In June 2010, we reported that while
FAA is working to coordinate with the Department of Commerce, DOD, DHS,
and NASA on NextGen plans, it has yet to make critical design decisions
or address research and development gaps with these partner agencies
that will affect NextGen's cost, schedule, and performance.\9\
Unresolved issues include integrating weather information into advanced
automated systems, determining joint surveillance requirements to track
aircraft, incorporating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), and assessing
NextGen's human factors impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ OIG Report Number AV-2010-068, ``Timely Actions Needed To
Advance the Next Generation Air Transportation System,'' June 16, 2010.
OIG reports and testimonies are available on our website:
www.oig.dot.gov.

FAA Has Not Made Key Decisions About the Design of the Long-Term
NextGen System

FAA has delayed critical decisions on how key NextGen capabilities
will be designed and integrated. Continuing to delay these decisions
will slow NextGen's overall progress and impact NASA's and other
agencies' research and development efforts. According to FAA, decisions
on the following will determine NextGen capabilities, timing, and
costs:

Division of responsibility delegated to pilots in the
cockpit and to controllers and FAA ground systems for tracking
aircraft.

Level of automation needed to support division of
responsibility, ranging from today's largely manual flight
management to a primarily automated system centered on machine-
to-machine exchanges with little controller involvement.

Number and locations of air traffic facilities needed
to support NextGen--the degree to which FAA eliminates or
consolidates air traffic facilities is a major factor in both
capital and operating costs for NextGen.

FAA has stated that NextGen is one of the most complex systems ever
developed by the U.S. Government. As a result, FAA will need to obtain
a workforce with the specific skill sets to develop and execute new
NextGen technologies and manage the transition from legacy systems. In
response to a recommendation we made in February 2007, FAA commissioned
the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to assess the
skill sets needed for NextGen implementation.\10\ In its September 2008
report, NAPA identified 26 competencies needed to execute NextGen that
FAA lacks.\11\ These include program management, software development,
contract administration, and systems engineering with an emphasis on
human factors considerations. FAA has developed a segmented Acquisition
Workforce Plan, an important first step, but to meet the goals set out
in the NAPA study, the plan will need to evolve further with a more
defined strategy to acquire the needed skill sets for NextGen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ OIG Report Number AV-2005-031, ``Joint Planning and
Development Office: Actions Needed To Reduce Risks With the Next
Generation Air Transportation System,'' February 12, 2007.
\11\ Report by a panel of the National Academy of Public
Administration, ``Identifying the Workforce To Respond to a National
Imperative--The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen),''
September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A NextGen portfolio analysis, commissioned by JPDO, concluded that
some NextGen automated air and ground capabilities originally planned
for 2025 may not be implemented until 2035 or later and could cost the
Government and airspace users significantly more than the projected
cost estimate of $40 billion.\12\ JPDO officials recently stated that
research priorities need to be established as well as an executable
path from the near and midterm to the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The analysis is referred to as the NextGen portfolio or
``trade space'' analysis. FAA is continuing to update and revise the
analysis. The study sought to examine the costs, risks, and benefits of
the JPDO Integrated Work Plan targeted for 2025.

Disagreements Between FAA and the Department of Commerce Impact NextGen
Weather Systems

Technical disagreements between FAA and Commerce over how to
synchronize national applications of observed, forecast, and
disseminated weather data may delay NextGen's weather data system
beyond its scheduled 2013 completion date. Commerce has the lead role
in developing the 4D Weather Cube, which is expected to provide a
common picture of weather for the entire country that airspace users
may view and apply directly in flight planning and responding to
inclement weather.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The 4D Weather Cube is to be a distributed, national database
of gridded and interpolated weather observations and automated
analyses, scaled consistently over time for any location above the
continental United States. It is expected to provide observations with
respect to latitude, longitude, altitude, and time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPDO's analysis of ongoing weather efforts identified policy,
funding, and technical issues, including defining requirements and who
pays for what capabilities. Officials in Commerce's National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicated that their work on the
4D Weather Cube focuses exclusively on Commerce's requirements.
Additionally, NOAA expects FAA to provide funding or reimbursement for
costs to support development of aviation-related NextGen requirements.
To address these issues, FAA, Commerce, and DOD have developed a
NextGen Weather Plan. In addition, JPDO created and hosts the NextGen
Executive Weather Panel to improve coordination between the three
agencies; members include the FAA Senior Vice President for NextGen and
Operations Planning and the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Weather
Services. However, much work remains for the agencies to better define
their roles and expectations regarding costs and implementation. This
year, the Office of Management and Budget tasked FAA and Commerce to
revalidate 4D Weather Cube requirements and review cost and performance
parameters. As part of these efforts, Commerce was asked to define what
its requirements would be to develop the Cube without including FAA's
aviation costs.

Partner Agencies Have Not Established Joint Surveillance Requirements

FAA, DOD, and DHS have not established joint surveillance
requirements, which are needed to track aircraft and achieve the
integrated surveillance capabilities envisioned for NextGen. This will
require a collaborative effort to develop approaches and requirements
to meet the surveillance needs of all partners. Each of these agencies
have the need for surveillance data but they do not all share the same
requirements. Without closer coordination and agreement about
surveillance requirements, there is potential for duplicative efforts
and gaps in airspace coverage.
Thus far, DOD and DHS have not identified any budgets or programs
specifically to support NextGen, but joint surveillance requirements
are one of their main concerns in maintaining security coverage for the
United States. This includes tracking aircraft designated as
potentially non-cooperative targets, a capability currently provided by
FAA through long and short range radar.\14\ Moreover, when FAA
implements ADS-B, it plans to decommission a number of unneeded
secondary radar systems.\15\ If DOD or DHS should determine that some
of these radar must remain in service, these agencies would have to
assume the responsibility for the maintenance and replacement costs.
Therefore, FAA, DOD, and DHS must focus more attention on finalizing
requirements, prioritizing research and development efforts to achieve
a secure next generation surveillance system, and identifying
individual partner agency responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The term ``non-cooperative targets'' refers to aircraft that
are not transmitting flight information to FAA ground systems.
\15\ A secondary radar operates on the coded reply sent from the
airborne radio beacon transponder in an aircraft in response to an
interrogation signal sent from the ground station.

Cross-Agency Attention Is Needed To Safely Incorporate Unmanned
Aircraft Systems Into the National Airspace System

Addressing unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations has been a
recurring issue in JPDO's annual cross-agency gap analysis. A number of
safety issues must be addressed, such as risks of UAS operations near
populated areas and potential collisions with manned aircraft. FAA
currently authorizes Government UAS operations on a limited basis but
is developing a regulatory framework to address the unique
characteristics of UAS. As recognized in FAA's annual analysis, this
will require new cross-agency standards and procedures to assess the
impact of UAS on air traffic operations and safety, which will also
impact how FAA develops NextGen procedures. As a result, NASA has
included an additional $30 million in its fiscal year 2011 budget
request to develop technologies that will allow unmanned aircraft to
have routine access to the NAS. This effort will focus initially on
Government-owned and -operated UAS aircraft, followed by private-sector
UAS aircraft.

FAA Has Not Developed a Cross-Agency Plan To Identify and Address
NextGen Human Factors Issues

The NextGen concept of operations calls for significant changes to
the roles of controllers and pilots. A focused ``human factors''
research effort on the impact of such changes, such as how highly
automated systems will affect controllers, will ensure that new
concepts and technologies can be safely implemented. However, as we
have noted in the past, FAA continues to lack a cross-agency research
plan that (1) establishes an agreed-upon set of initial focus areas for
research, (2) inventories existing facilities for research, and (3)
capitalizes on past and current research.
FAA's inadequate attention to such research when implementing the
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) resulted in
significant cost increases and schedule slips.\16\ JPDO officials state
that they are developing a cross-agency human factors plan and plan to
complete it later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ STARS was designed to provide the software and hardware
platform necessary to support future air traffic control tools. In
1996, FAA selected STARS as the centerpiece of its strategy to
modernize controllers' terminal automation systems. However, due to
technological problems and costs that far exceeded original estimates,
FAA delayed deploying STARS as planned. Over the last several years,
FAA has deployed the Common Automated Radar Terminal System (Common
ARTS) hardware and software to facilities where FAA intends to deploy
STARS.

ACTIONS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN FAA'S MANAGEMENT OF LONG-TERM INITIATIVES

In closing, I would like to highlight a number of areas where FAA
needs to take action to strengthen the multi-agency approach to
developing NextGen, better leverage resources, and prevent duplicative
efforts.
Clarify the Role of the JPDO: There is confusion within FAA and
industry about JPDO's role in advancing NextGen. FAA has reorganized
its NextGen efforts several times in the last 4 years, most recently
placing JPDO under the Deputy Administrator, separate from the primary
office overseeing NextGen implementation. While Department and FAA
officials recognize the need to better define JPDO's mission, no
definitive action has been taken to determine what role, if any, JPDO
will play in critical NextGen development issues, such as simulation
and modeling, technology transfer, prototype development, or NextGen
policy issues.
Finalize Performance Goals and Metrics for NextGen: While FAA has
established broad goals for NextGen, it has not identified clear goals
for performance capabilities or metrics for NextGen initiatives. This
was a major concern recently reported by a Government-industry task
force on implementing NextGen in the near term.\17\ As NASA and FAA
officials point out, performance goals and metrics for NextGen may
differ for long-term efforts; this includes requirements and priorities
for future research and development. Until FAA provides clarification,
it will be difficult to assess short- and long-term efforts for
improving airport arrival rates, reducing fuel burn, or decreasing FAA
operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ RTCA, ``NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report,''
September 9, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establish Research Priorities and Develop an Integrated NextGen
Budget Document That Aligns Partner Agency Resources: FAA and JPDO have
been working on a NextGen integrated budget document (similar to the
Office of Management and Budget Exhibit 300 \18\ ) for over 4 years
with little to show for the effort. This tool is important to track
partner agencies' involvement in NextGen and to align resources. While
generally supportive of NextGen, some partner agencies have not
adjusted their research and development budgets and programs or changed
requirements to accommodate NextGen efforts. The lack of progress with
the integrated budget document is traceable to a number of factors,
including complexity, the lack of a common method to identify NextGen-
related budget items, and FAA's focus on running and maintaining the
existing air traffic system. Without an integrated budget document with
clear priorities, it is difficult for both FAA and Congress to
determine if FAA is leveraging the right research, if funding is
adequate for specific efforts, or if projects will improve the air
transportation system and at what cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Office of Management and Budget Exhibit 300 is designed to
ensure that the business case for investments is made and tied to
agency mission statements and long-term goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leverage DOD Research and Development for NextGen: Currently, DOD
contributes to NextGen as a member on various committees, boards, and
work groups. DOD has also taken the lead in network-centric operations
efforts and is working with FAA and JPDO on surveillance issues.\19\
However, neither FAA nor JPDO have done a complete assessment of DOD's
vast research and development portfolio and already derived
capabilities. DOD's experience with enterprise architecture
development, large-scale systems integration, and overall management of
high-risk efforts could prove useful. Moreover, FAA could leverage DOD
technology on a satellite-based Joint Precision Approach and Landing
System to help reduce risk with precision landing systems envisioned
for NextGen.\20\ In response to our June 2010 recommendation, FAA
agreed to develop a plan to effectively review and identify DOD
research and technologies that could be used for NextGen and establish
mechanism to coordinate and transfer the information to FAA. According
to JPDO officials, efforts are underway to assess DOD's research base
and should be completed this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOD's Network-Centric Operations is a robust networking of
information for geographically dispersed forces.
\20\ The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) is a
satellite-based system that will allow aircraft to land on any suitable
land or sea-based surface worldwide, while minimizing the impact to
airfield operations because of a low ceiling or poor visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Necessary Expertise To Execute NextGen: FAA recently
completed an initial acquisition workforce plan to address
recommendations in the NAPA study--an important first step. However,
the plan requires more development and clarification to be useful. For
example, the plan does not specify how or when FAA will actually secure
the necessary skill sets and expertise. We have work under way to
examine FAA's plans for determining its acquisition workforce needs and
progress in addressing them--including an assessment of FAA's oversight
of its System Engineering 2020 support service contracts worth $7
billion.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
address any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.

Biography for Calvin L. Scovel III

Mr. Scovel is the sixth Inspector General of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. He was nominated by President George W. Bush, confirmed
by the Senate, and sworn in on October 27, 2006. Mr. Scovel is
responsible for leading the efforts of 400-plus staff in support of
DOT's priorities of transportation safety and effective program
delivery and performance. Recent audit and investigative activities
including congressional testimony have addressed the Department's
implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; safety
and financing issues in multi-billion dollar highway and transit
programs; and the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of
aviation safety and efforts to develop the Next Generation Air
Transportation System.
Mr. Scovel joined the Department of Transportation after 29 years
of active service in the U.S. Marine Corps, from which he retired as a
Brigadier General. His last military assignment was as a senior judge
on the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. He previously
served as Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy for Military
Justice--the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the
Judge Advocate General--on all criminal justice policy matters. He also
commanded a military police battalion, which provided all security and
law enforcement services for the Marine Corps Base in Quantico,
Virginia.
Mr. Scovel served as senior legal advisor for the 4th Marine
Expeditionary Brigade, which included all Marine amphibious forces in
Operation Desert Storm and later in a NATO exercise above the Arctic
Circle in Norway. A Marine judge advocate, Mr. Scovel served as
prosecutor, defense counsel, or judge in 250 courts-martial that
included charges of murder, rape, child sexual assault, and drug
trafficking.
His personal military awards include the Legion of Merit (four
awards) and the Combat Action Ribbon. Mr. Scovel is also the recipient
of the Secretary of Transportation's Gold Medal for Outstanding
Achievement. This award was for his leadership of the OIG in supporting
the Department of Transportation's recovery effort after the 2007
collapse of the I-35 West Bridge in Minneapolis.
Mr. Scovel received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Juris Doctor degree from Duke
University. He also received a Masters degree from the Naval War
College.

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize our next
witness, Dr. John Hansman, Chairman of the FAA Research,
Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee.

STATEMENT OF DR. R. JOHN HANSMAN, CHAIR, FAA RESEARCH,
ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PROFESSOR OF
AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, DIRECTOR, MIT INTERNATIONAL
CENTER FOR AVIATION

Dr. Hansman. All right. As you can see I have some slides
here, Chairman Palazzo. Thanks for the opportunity to talk, and
members, faculty members can't talk without slides.
I want to motivate first why we are doing the modernization
of the system. So if you haven't seen this, this is a movie
produced by NASA looking at the U.S. system. It starts in the
afternoon period, if you look now, we are going into the
overnight period. You can see the transcontinental flights and
the flights going into and out of the cargo hubs.
As dawn hits the East Coast, you can see the traffic expand
and blossom. At the peak midday period in the system, we are
tracking about 4 to 5,000 airplanes in the system. So this is a
highly dynamic system that is totally integrated.
Now, this is a picture of the system when it works well.
Let me show you a picture on a day when weather hits New York.
This is just flights going into the New York airports. You can
see the weather in the upper right. You can see when the
weather starts to hit New York, the airplanes are going into
holding patterns. You can see that as the weather hits,
airplanes start to go into holding patterns all the way across
the U.S. You also see them go down the East Coast.
So when we have a perturbation in the system that is so
tightly coupled, these perturbations propagate through the
system and result in delays throughout the entire system.
So if we look at why we are doing modernization, why we do
research and development. There are a number of drivers, but
there are four key drivers. The first is safety, and we have
actually done a remarkable job in safety. You can see this is
data from Boeing looking into commercial fatal accident rates.
You can see it has gone down tremendously. We have an
incredibly safe system.
We have also been worried about, in recent years, capacity
and delay as the demand on the system comes up, as we get the
types of growth that we have had, delays have gone up. You can
see in the bottom left the delay data. You can see the drop
after September 11, and you can see the delays built up again
afterwards. You can see that the delays have gone down in the
past couple of years in part due to the demand coming off the
system with the economy in the downturn. It is our expectation
that when the demand comes back up, the system will again reach
its capacity constraints, and we will have significant delay in
the system. Which is why we need to modernize.
Now, there are two other really new drivers or emerging
drivers that have occurred in recent years. One is the concern
on fuel availability and cost. In the upper right you can see
the rapid run up in fuel costs. There is a recent drop, but
they have run up again. This has really driven up the need for
more efficiency in the operation of the system.
You can also see that there is increasing concern about
environmental impact and in particular, greenhouse gas
emissions. Today, aviation represents about between two and
three percent of the manmade anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions. As pressure comes to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, other emitters, particularly ground-based emitters,
have much easier alternatives to go to low-carbon alternatives.
So the percentage of contribution from aviation in the future
is going to rise. There will be increasing pressure on aviation
to reduce these gas emissions.
So these are drivers for why we are doing the research.
Now, I want to just get to the questions that were asked
and try to address them quickly. First is what are the REDAC's
chief concerns about the agency's R&D initiatives with regard
to content and funding or the gaps. If so, what are they? The
REDAC is generally supportive of the content of the R&D
programs. There are some gaps. In particular, there is a
concern about the complexity of the NextGen research and
development plans, which actually make it hard to evaluate if
there are gaps.
There is a real need for processes to accelerate NextGen
implementation. I will address that more in the next question,
and there is a well-known problem of how to introduce unmanned
aircraft systems in terms of their operations and our national
airspace system.
Another concern which was voiced previously is the level of
technical expertise in key areas. In particular, areas of
digital systems and software, which is very hard for the FAA to
compete for talent in the open market.
In terms of how well does the agency's research portfolio
support timely implemention of NextGen, I would say the
technology is not the issue. The challenge is actually in the
operational approval of NextGen capabilities and procedures. It
is very difficult to prove that this new thing that we are
going to do is safe enough that it won't degrade the safety of
the system that results in significant delay.
Finally, how would you assess the role and effectiveness of
the JPDO as the FAA's long-range planning office? JPDO has not
been effective recently as a long-range planning office for the
FAA. It was effective in the initial definition of NextGen, but
its effectiveness has waned over the past years. I am happy to
talk more about it in the questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hansman follows:]

Prepared Statement of R. John Hansman, Jr.

Chairman Palazzo and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Aviation
Administration's research and development capability. I am a Professor
of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and the Co-Chair of the FAA Research and Development
Advisory Committee (REDAC). The REDAC is a Congressionally mandated
committee which advises the FAA Administrator on research and
development.
The role of research and development in the FAA is to support
current and future operational requirements as well as the agency's
mission of providing a safe, secure, and efficient air transportation
system.
The U.S. still has one of the safest and highest performance air
transportation systems in the world, but the system is under stress due
to increased demand (Figure 1) and emerging issues such as fuel costs
(Figure 2), environmental concerns, ageing infrastructure, as well as
others. The Congress, the FAA, and other government and community
stakeholders have recognized the need to address these issues and
responded through a number of initiatives including NextGen.

The system has run well in the past few years, although this cannot
yet be attributed to NextGen. The accident rate and delays (Figure 3)
are both down over the past 2 years although we are still experiencing
congestion at the large hubs. This is, in part, a result of the
reduction in the number of flights due to high fuel prices (Figure 2)
and the weak economy. While the FAA has done a better job at managing
delay in the system, it is likely that delay will increase as the
economy strengthens and traffic levels rise.

At the time NextGen was initiated, delay was the key issue
motivating system improvement with assumptions of a three fold increase
in traffic. Today, increasing fuel efficiency to reduce fuel costs and
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, as well as the integration of Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the NAS, have emerged as key drivers of
system evolution, and the projections on the rate of traffic have been
reduced.
I will comment briefly on the specific questions you have asked me
to address.

1. What are the REDAC's chief concerns about the agency's R&D
initiatives with regard to content and funding? Are there any
gaps, and if so, what are they?

The REDAC has been generally supportive of the specific content of
the FAA's R&D programs. However, there are several areas where the
REDAC has expressed concern.
Complexity of NextGen Research and Development Plans--The REDAC is
concerned that there does not appear to be a clear high level Research
and Development plan for NextGen that articulates the critical NextGen
needs and links them to the R&D portfolio. The REDAC understands the
challenge of defining such a plan for a complex system such as NextGen.
However, the plans and roadmaps that have been presented to the REDAC
do not articulate a high level vision and are so detailed and complex
that they are intractable.
This makes it difficult to evaluate if the necessary R&D is being
accomplished and how R&D results will be used. The REDAC has
recommended that a high level R&D plan be developed from the existing
more detailed plans and enterprise architecture in order to articulate
the R&D vision and identify the critical path of R&D for NextGen.
Research and Development Gaps--The REDAC has identified several
areas where strengthened R&D, as well as agency commitment, would
significantly enhance future NAS performance. These include research to
support: the implementation of NextGen enabled capabilities including
new approaches to safety and environmental review process;
certification and routine operation of UAS in the NAS; and mitigation
of adverse environmental effects of aviation.
Level of Technical Expertise in Key Areas--The FAA has a unique
need for expertise in key areas such as critical software and digital
systems design, and human factors for both certification and
acquisition. The REDAC has long been concerned that there has been
inadequate progress in developing the core competency and technical
workforce in these and other key areas. The problem is recognized by
the agency but progress has been limited due to the FAA's inability to
compete on the market for highly desirable talent.

2. In your view, how well does the agency's R&D research
portfolio support timely implementation of NextGen? How
effectively are new technologies being transitioned from
research to implementation?

There are fundamental issues which will make the effective
implementation of NextGen much more difficult than is generally
appreciated. The issues are not with technology development, but rather
stem from the ability of the FAA to assure, in a timely way, that
fundamentally new operational procedures do not compromise safety or
result in adverse environmental performance. The current operational
approval processes are not equipped to deal with the magnitude of
change envisioned in NextGen.
It is extremely challenging and time consuming to evaluate the
impact of a major NextGen change requiring fundamentally new safety and
environmental impact reviews. It is much easier, and faster, to receive
operational approval for changes which do not significantly alter the
current operational procedures. As a consequence, there is the risk
that NextGen technologies will only be used to fly today's procedures
thereby severely limiting the operational benefit from NextGen and
making it difficult for operators to justify the significant investment
in aircraft equipment that NextGen will require.
The REDAC as well as the RTCA Task Force 5 have noted this concern.
The FAA has responded by initiating a lean process analysis of their
current operational approval and certification processes for Instrument
Flight Procedures (IFP). The NavLean report was issued last week and is
a good first step in addressing these issues, however, even if fully
implemented, it will only solve part of the problem.
Research is needed in fundamental and applied areas to support the
implementation of NextGen enabled capabilities. Fundamental research in
procedure development, such as human-automation roles or the change in
the roles between pilots and controllers, will guide effective
procedure design. Also, more research is needed to support procedure
development and testing in ways that supports future certification and
environmental approval. The REDAC has noted some good work in this
area, specifically in operational concept validation and modeling, but
it is a small fraction of the research portfolio and only covers a
limited set of the proposed NextGen operational changes. In addition,
the REDAC notes the need for research in safety analysis, transition
processes, and innovative approaches to environmental impact
assessment.
Finally, as noted above, the complexity and obscurity of the
NextGen plans make it difficult to identify the critical research and
development issues that will impede timely implementation of NextGen.

3. How would you assess the role and effectiveness of the JPDO
as the FAA's long-range planning office? How engaged are the
JPDO's partner agencies?

The JPDO has not been effective as a long-range planning office for
the FAA.
In its early stages the JPDO played an important and effective role
in identifying the need for NAS modernization, coordinating input from
the community and its partner agencies resulting in the initial NextGen
Integrated Plan, as well as the Operational Concepts and Operational
Improvements which have come to define NextGen. After this initial
surge the JPDO lost its focus and did not effectively engage the
partner agencies, in particular the operational elements of the FAA who
would be responsible for implementing NextGen.
The NextGen plan stagnated with the JPDO unable to add substantive
detail (e.g. the definition of a 4D Trajectory), to adapt the plan to
emerging requirements (e.g. rising fuel costs or increasing
environmental concerns), or to clearly define research needs at a
specific level. Instead of focusing on long-range planning, much of the
JPDO activity over the past few years was devoted to developing and
managing a complex accounting system to track responsibility for
integrated work plan elements. There are a few areas where strong JPDO
working groups have made substantial progress notably in ATC-Weather
Integration and Avionics.
The engagement of the partner agencies has varied. Most of the
partners, with the possible exception of the DOD, were heavily engaged
with the initial JPDO efforts, with the DOT, FAA, NASA and Department
of Commerce strongly involved in defining the initial NextGen Concept
of Operations. The engagement of many of the agencies has waned over
time although there is some recent evidence of improved collaboration
under the leadership of the new JPDO Director. For example, the DOD has
recently increased its engagement with the JPDO in the areas of Net-
Centric operations and integration of UAS in the NAS.

Biography for R. John Hansman, Jr.

R. John Hansman is a Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics MIT,
where he is the Director of the MIT International Center for Air
Transportation. He conducts research in the application of information
technology in operational aerospace systems. Dr. Hansman holds six
patents and has authored over 250 technical publications. He has over
5300 hours of pilot in-command time in airplanes, helicopters and
sailplanes including meteorological, production and engineering flight
test experience. Professor Hansman chairs the US Federal Aviation
Administration Research & Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) and is
a member of the NASA Advisory Committee for Aeronautics as well as
other national and international advisory committees. He is a Fellow of
the AIAA and has received numerous awards including the AIAA Dryden
Lectureship in Aeronautics Research, the ATCA Kriske Air Traffic Award,
a Laurel from Aviation Week & Space Technology, and the FAA Excellence
in Aviation Award.

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize our final
witness, Mr. Peter Bunce, President and CEO, General Aviation
Manufacturers' Association.

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER BUNCE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE GENERAL
AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Bunce. Chairman Palazzo, Congresswoman Fudge, Chairman
Hall, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
thanks for the opportunity to come talk to you today. I am an
active jet and piston pilot, flying in the system every day, so
everything that my government colleagues talked about today
about NextGen is very sacred to me. I want to talk about a part
of the research and development budget that is particularly
important to a segment of the industry that I represent.
GAMA, General Aviation Manufacturers Association,
represents 70 of the world's leading producers of manufactured
aircraft engines, avionics, and as we move to NextGen we are
moving much of the system from a ground-based system up to
avionics that are installed in the air so that we can better
handle traffic as my colleagues have mentioned.
So I have responsibility for everything from Boeing
business jets down to aircraft like small Cessnas and Pipers,
and that part of the industry, the piston part of the industry,
is in a tough shape right now. Economically we have lost a lot
of jobs, over 20,000 since the economic downturn happened, and
about 45 percent of the product that we were producing back in
2008 is gone.
But with all that said, our companies are heavily invested
in R&D and looking for, as the economic conditions start to
pick up, an ability to go and produce even more fuel-efficient
products.
But on the piston end we are being squeezed between the
Environmental Protection Agency on one side, and the FAA on the
other, and that is in the area of leaded avgas. Now, piston
aircraft operate on a fuel that was developed primarily during
World War II, and all our engines were developed to be able to
use the lead content which is in that fuel. They are designed
to very close tolerances, and when you start to take the lead
out, you get what is called detonation. You might recall when
we switched to unleaded fuel in a lot of our cars, we got
knocking, but a car, one, you can pull over to the side of the
road, and, two, it has got a very robust engine block. Aircraft
engines don't work like that. If you have detonation cylinders
blow off, and people get hurt.
So we have the EPA on one side saying you have to get the
lead out of the fuel. We have the FAA regulator on the other
side saying that the only way we can get product to market, the
only way we can change the fuel, is it has to go through the
FAA. They have to certify the new fuel. I am talking low dollar
amount. It is about $2 million for each year of this
reauthorization bill that we are talking about. There is a tech
center up in Atlantic City where we provide some of the engines
for them to be able to research the new fuels that we develop,
and we fix the engines when they break. We have to have this
because it is the only way we can convert to an unleaded fuel.
We can't just use auto gas. Seventy percent of our aircraft out
there could not use auto gas. You would have the same problems.
You would have engines falling apart.
The only way we can get to a new fuel, which our different
companies and our industry is developing, is to have that
capability up in Atlantic City. So, Mr. Rohrabacher talked
about what my number one priority, small dollars but it is
truly my number one priority because of the squeeze that we
have--that we feel right now in our ability to convert the
industry.
There are other things for general aviation that become
very important, and my colleagues have talked about NextGen
which is extremely important to us. Being able to leverage our
universities that are out there, there is an acronym called
CGAR that basically is our Centers of Excellence--it is called
the Centers for General Aviation Research, and we have that at
Embry-Riddle University, Florida A&M, University of North
Dakota, University of Alaska, and a couple other great, great
institutions out there that have great aviation programs. We
leverage these smart people that really understand software,
and they are able to go and try to figure out how we are going
to take the satellite-based system that we are going to, and
integrate it with the avionics to be able to have more and more
capability delivered out there so that we can go and address
these congestion issues that, again, my colleagues have
addressed.
Also important to us in the R&D program is the CLEEN
Initiative. The Continuous Low Energy Emissions and Noise
Initiative that basically is our ability to make engines and
airframes and also the materials that we use on aircraft, to
make them lighter and be able to leverage all of that
technology to be able to go and reduce our fuel burn. Because
when we reduce our fuel burn, we go and cut emissions, but we
also have the capability to cut noise, and noise as we all know
is an important issue, much more important in Europe but very
important here in the states.
So all of these initiatives play into NextGen so we can do
things on the aircraft manufacturing side, but we also can do
the way we operate aircraft on the operational side to be able
to go ahead and reduce emissions out there. So we think that
the program that we are able to leverage with the universities
is very important to us, the CLEEN Initiative, and of course,
what we are doing in NextGen as well.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bunce follows:]

Prepared Statement of Peter J. Bunce

Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello, my name is Pete Bunce
and I am the President and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA). GAMA's sixty-eight member companies are the world's
leading manufacturers of general aviation airplanes, engines, avionics,
and components. Our member companies also operate aircraft fleets,
airport fixed-based operations, pilot training and maintenance
facilities worldwide. On behalf of our members, I appreciate you
convening this important hearing and providing me with the opportunity
to testify before the Subcommittee about the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill and its research title.

Overview of General Aviation

General aviation is an essential part of our transportation system
that is especially critical for individuals and businesses that need to
travel and move goods quickly and efficiently in today's just-in-time
market. General aviation is also an important contributor to the U.S.
economy, supporting over 1.2 million jobs, providing $150 billion \1\
in economic activity and, in 2009, generating nearly $5 billion \2\ in
exports of domestically manufactured airplanes. We are one of the few
remaining manufacturing industries that still provide a significant
trade surplus for the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Aviation Contribution to the US Economy, Merge Global
2006.
\2\ 2009 General Aviation Statistical Databook and Industry
Outlook, GAMA 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our industry, like others, is struggling due to the recession. Due
to the economic downturn, our member companies have seen more than
20,000 layoffs over the last two years. Our deliveries have declined
significantly--by 45% between 2008 and 2009 and almost 15% between the
first three quarters of 2010 as compared to the first three quarters of
2009.
Despite these tremendous economic challenges, our member companies
have responded by continuing to innovate and invest in new products to
take advantage of market opportunities as the recession ends. We
believe the market is stabilizing as we see an increase in orders in
some segments of our industry. We also believe that this Subcommittee
has a key role to play in helping our industry take full advantage of
their investments and innovations.

Importance of FAA's R&D program

Research and development at the FAA is conducted within two
separate programs: the research, engineering and development program
(RE&D), and the facilities and equipment (F&E) program. My testimony
will focus on the FAA's RE&D program, but I will reference other issues
as well which are relevant to your oversight responsibilities.
The FAA focuses its research activities on aviation safety, air
traffic control modernization, and the environment to advance agency
policies, guide future technologies, and understand safety issues
facing the aviation system. The FAA's research program has become more
important recently as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) aeronautics budget has been cut dramatically
over the past ten years. As a result, some policymakers have debated
shifting all federal aeronautics research to the FAA.
GAMA opposes this idea because the two agencies have quite
different capabilities, missions, and goals. Moreover, during debate on
its FAA reauthorization bill earlier this month, the Senate voted
overwhelmingly against commissioning a study to determine the
feasibility of transferring NASA's aeronautics program to the FAA.
However, with respect to air traffic control modernization and other
areas, it is very important that the two agencies coordinate their
research programs and work closely together.

FAA Research Centers

As the committee knows, the FAA conducts much of its research at
the William J. Hughes Technical Center (Tech Center) in Atlantic City,
New Jersey and the Civil Aero Medical Institute in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. Both facilities bring unique capabilities to support the
FAA's mission, and are globally recognized as world class research
centers for aviation safety, technology and environment.
An issue of great importance to the general aviation industry and
the U.S economy is the FAA's evaluation and safety certification of
alternative fuels which is primarily done at the Tech Center. GAMA and
all other key industry stakeholders are currently involved in a joint
public-private initiative to develop an unleaded aviation gasoline for
piston engine aircraft and renewable fuels for turbine engine aircraft.

Alternative Unleaded Avgas Research

One of the most important and critical FAA research activities for
general aviation is to identify the information necessary to develop,
approve and deploy an unleaded aviation gasoline (avgas) to replace the
current 100 low-lead avgas (100LL). Environmental actions by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and global economic factors
threaten the continued availability of leaded avgas. However, lead is
the only known additive for avgas which can protect high performance
piston engines from detonation, sometimes referred to as ``knock,''
which completely destroys an engine.
The FAA plays a critical role in industry initiatives to develop
alternative fuels as only the FAA can determine the performance and
airworthiness standards for the safety certification of new fuels. The
FAA is partnering with our industry as we begin the long, complex
effort to develop and approve an unleaded avgas and transition the
existing U.S. fleet of nearly 190,000 piston engine aircraft. The
Subcommittee's leadership will be absolutely essential this year and in
the future to make certain that this transition is done in a way that
ensures aviation safety is maintained, is technically and economically
viable, and has the least impact on the existing fleet of GA aircraft
and operators.
We respectfully request that the Subcommittee include two key
provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill with respect to avgas. The
first is to authorize $2 million annually over four years in the FAA's
research and development budget for Alternative Fuels for General
Aviation. The FAA requested this funding level in the FY2011 budget and
we expect the same request level for FY2012. This research program will
help develop FAA performance and certification methodologies necessary
for qualification and certification of alternative fuels.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NextGen Alternative Fuels for General Aviation A11.m Research
Plan FY 2011-2015. FAA Aviation Fuel and Engine Test Facility (AFETF),
William J. Hughes Technical Center AJP-6352. September 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testing that will be performed at the FAA's Tech Center in New
Jersey will include different unleaded avgas formulations being
developed by industry as well as possible piston engine modifications
to ensure that they can be used safely in aircraft. In addition, this
FAA activity is needed to ensure technical and safety cooperation with
EPA as it pursues regulatory actions under the Clean Air Act to address
lead emissions from general aviation. Support for this research will be
an absolutely critical part of the process to identify and transition
to a replacement unleaded avgas with the least impact on the existing
piston-engine aircraft fleet.
Secondly, we hope the Subcommittee will include the provisions of a
bill (H.R. 549) introduced by Chairman Sam Graves of the Small Business
Committee and Rep. John Barrow which will create a public-private
partnership to collect data; identify criteria for a viable avgas;
develop fuel emissions and airworthiness standards; and certify the
modifications made to the general aviation piston fleet. This
partnership will use the research data from the Tech Center to support
the development of standards, guidance and processes necessary for
safety certification and an efficient transition. In a move consistent
with this bill, the FAA recently chartered an Unleaded Avgas Transition
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAT-ARC) comprised of the key industry
and government stakeholders to identify issues relating to the
transition to an unleaded avgas and to recommend the tasks necessary to
investigate and resolve them.
An alternative unleaded avgas will require FAA approvals for tens
of thousands of aircraft and certification of any engine modifications
necessary to ensure that existing high-performance aircraft will be
able to safely operate. This will require FAA policies and procedures
to be in place as well as engineering resources available at aircraft
certification offices in order to address the significant technical
complexity and potential safety implications of transitioning the
existing fleet of piston aircraft to an unleaded aviation gasoline.
Our entire industry stands ready to work with you on this important
initiative. We have formed a General Aviation Avgas Coalition comprised
of general aviation manufacturers, operators, airport distributors and
fuel producer industry groups to ensure the long-term viability of
general aviation. GAMA companies have heavily invested in fuels
research and engine development activities and participate actively in
FAA research and Tech Center activities including the provision of
engineering expertise, testing capabilities, and the provision of
engine hardware and airworthiness maintenance support for the Tech
Center test facility.
Your Subcommittee's support is needed for FAA and industry to
continue all the necessary unleaded avgas activities. It is our hope
that a required or necessary transition to an unleaded avgas can be
done in a way that effectively balances environmental improvements with
aviation safety, technical feasibility and economic impact related to
issues surrounding the production, distribution and cost of fuel.

CLEEN

A number of GAMA member companies also participate in the FAA's
public-partnership research program known as CLEEN, or Continuous Lower
Energy, Emissions and Noise. The manufacturers engaged in CLEEN match
or exceed the government funding under CLEEN, thus leveraging the
public contribution. CLEEN is working on concrete solutions to increase
the environmental efficiency of aircraft through research into
promising new engine technologies, airframe and materials research, and
alternative fuels. CLEEN technologies in some cases can be retrofitted
to the existing fleet of aircraft thereby accelerating benefits to the
public. Through collaboration with other research agencies and
initiatives such as the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative or CAAFI, CLEEN is a key element of our industry's
aggressive efforts to mature and demonstrate the benefits of ``drop-
in'' alternative fuels for aviation.

Important Role of Centers of Excellence

The FAA has several Centers of Excellence (COE) that were
established by Congress to leverage academia in support of the FAA's
research priorities. GAMA works closely with the Center for General
Aviation Research (CGAR), which is a consortium of leading aviation
universities and flight schools including Embry-Riddle, Florida A&M,
the University of North Dakota, the University of Alaska, and Wichita
State University.
The CGAR consortium is celebrating its ten-year anniversary this
year of supporting the FAA's research mission. Its successes include:

- The development, evaluation and establishment of training
standards and testing standards for ``glass cockpit'' avionics
in light general aviation.

- Use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)
technology to track training flights.

- Evaluation of the use of data recorders in general aviation
flight operations at flight schools such as Embry-Riddle.

- The development of Safety Management System concepts for
general aviation and how they fit within current regulations.

- Accident trend analysis for general aviation operations that
is helping to guide the FAA's general aviation safety program,
the General Aviation Joint Safety Committee (GAJSC).

One hundred and ninety-two graduate and undergraduate students have
directly participated in these and other research projects sponsored by
the FAA and CGAR. GAMA believes strongly in this type of foundational
research and, more importantly, this research has a clear link to
introducing new technologies or policies that have direct benefit to
improving safety or capacity in our industry.
The FAA reauthorization bill that passed the House in the last
Congress included language to change the cost sharing criteria for FAA
research projects. The bill capped the federal share at 75 percent for
COE programs and, if justified, allowed for a 90 percent federal share
in some cases. The feedback that GAMA has received from the CGAR
program is that this new structure would further expand the ability of
the program to support FAA's research mission through a shared cost
structure. GAMA supports this change because of its ability to
strengthen public-private research projects and encourages its
inclusion in the new FAA bill.

NextGen Research

Air traffic control modernization, or NextGen, will transform the
National Airspace System (NAS) by using modern technologies to make air
travel safer and expand capacity. We believe that the current
impediment to accelerating NextGen is not a lack of technology but the
inability to develop processes and procedures that will support the
technology. To do this, FAA must leverage its research resources
through both the RE&D budget and the F&E account. During the past two
years, with direction from Congress, the FAA has undertaken specific
initiatives to support the deployment NextGen. I would like to
highlight two of them.
In late 2008, the FAA announced a $9.3 million research award to
develop and conduct flight demonstrations for an ADS-B ``In''
application called Enhanced Traffic Situation Awareness on the Surface
with Indications and Alerts (or ``SURF-IA''). The SURF-IA application
is a priority of the FAA as it would address safety enhancements
recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). This
research and evaluation was carried out successfully and identified
specific technical areas that require additional attention from the
FAA. The FAA shared the results of these projects with the ADS-B In
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) which in turn endorsed a strategy
to resolve any issues with this application so that it can be deployed.
We believe this is an example of the FAA effectively leveraging timely
research for needed NextGen deployments. We encourage more targeted
NextGen research of this type in the future.
Another ADS-B In application that will enhance safety in general
aviation is called ``Traffic Situational Awareness with Alerts (TSAA)
and would provide an evolved traffic collision avoidance system for
light general aviation. As the Subcommittee may know, the FAA has
struggled to identify benefits for general aviation from ADS-B and
funding to develop this application is welcomed by GAMA. The contract
has been awarded to MIT and the research plan is designed to develop
ADS-B technical standards over the next three years. We encourage more
targeted NextGen research to be undertaken in a manner similar to these
two projects.
Finally, we believe that NextGen research should benefit all
segments of the aviation system. Although much work has been done to
support key NextGen technologies like ADS-B, data communications, and
System Wide Information Management, not enough work has been done to
evaluate human factors issues relative to the deployment of these
technologies, especially for general aviation operations. We believe it
is important for the FAA to continue to engage with our community
through forums such as the Research, Engineering and Development
Advisory Committee to help guide its future research activities for
NextGen. We especially want to make sure that issues within general
aviation, like single pilot operations, are not overlooked when
technologies such as data communications are developed toward
deployment.

The Role of the Joint Planning Development Office (JPDO) in Guiding
Research

The JPDO was established by Congress in the Vision 100-Century of
Aviation Revitalization Act of 2003. Its role is to coordinate
activities between the various federal agencies that have a stake in
NextGen including NASA and the Department of Defense. In addition, the
JPDO also plays a role in ensuring that research essential to the
deployment of NextGen is completed.
GAMA believes that the JPDO must do three key things to be
successful in achieving its research goals:

- Better integrate and coordinate with the FAA's NextGen
office

- Develop both short and long term plans that complement the
FAA's plans for NextGen so that they are seamless and unified

- Step up coordination between stakeholder agencies to ensure
research goals are met

Since there are several different NextGen research and advisory
committees, we urge this Subcommittee to evaluate the management of all
these different institutional arrangements to ensure they are not
duplicating efforts or a failing to establish clear areas of
responsibilities.

Software Research

Lastly, we have frequently voiced concern about the FAA's ability
to develop and certify policy for software. We have championed this
area over the past decade and within the research area we endorsed
recommendations last spring for the software and digital systems
program.
GAMA has engaged the FAA over the past decade about the importance
of building internal technical expertise on the staff level as well as
to conduct targeted research in the area of software and digital
systems. As the subcommittee knows, the NextGen program makes onboard
avionics part of the ATC infrastructure as opposed to today's ground
based radars and other equipment.
As this ATC evolution begun, industry raised concerns over the
FAA's internal capability to support this technology development
through policy. Specifically, we believe that software and digital
systems research and development should be given additional emphasis by
the FAA including adequate staffing and funding. Industry has also
called for the FAA to develop a comprehensive software and digital
systems research plan that integrates with future policy and rulemaking
needs.
The FAA took some steps during 2010 to develop a research plan, but
concerns remain about the level of resources. GAMA is encouraged that
the FAA is listening to industry about this important area of NextGen
and wants to ensure that appropriate levels of funding are provided to
maintain internal expertise and advance research in the area of
software and digital systems.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, the FAA's research and development program is a
critical part of the agency's mission and it's important that Congress
continue to provide it with the resources it needs to meet the
challenges I outlined in my testimony. GAMA stands ready to work with
you and the other members of this Subcommittee to advance NextGen,
support the transition to an unleaded avgas, and meet critical
environmental goals. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Biography for Peter J. Bunce

Chairman Palazzo. I thank the panel for their testimony.
Reminding Members that committee rules limit questioning to
five minutes. The Chair will at this point open the round of
questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Dr. Hansman and Mr. Scovel, given the research and
development projects and activities being undertaken by FAA,
how would you characterize the level of resources being
provided by the agency. Are resources commensurate with the R&D
projects, goals, and schedules?
Dr. Hansman. Over the past years I would say the resources
have been good and have been commensurate with the general
need. With the ramp up to NextGen in some sense it was hard to
figure out what needed to be done, and there was a little bit
of scrambling, but I say the first order the resources have
been appropriate.
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, I would concur. We think that
funding over the past number of years targeted towards NextGen
has generally been adequate. We have noted, as I stated in my
opening statement, execution or implementation problems on
FAA's part carrying out the programs that have been approved
and some of which have been mandated by Congress. We see room
for improvement in the multi-agency efforts, specifically with
regard to weather and the Department of Commerce, DOD and DHS
on surveillance, Department of Defense with unmanned aircraft
systems, and finally NASA perhaps on human factors.
FAA and its agency partners can do a much better job in
those areas.
Chairman Palazzo. Mrs. Cox, FAA's budget will come under
intense scrutiny now and for the foreseeable future. If
research and development funding were reduced, where do you
believe the cuts would be taken, and how would FAA manage its
R&D portfolio?
Ms. Cox. Sir, our National Aviation Research Plan has long-
reaching effects into the implementation of NextGen for the
future. As such, it is an extremely important investment that
not only advances innovative ideas, but it helps us to make the
better decisions for where we need to be going forward. So in
the long run an investment in research, engineering, and
development can lower the cost of more mature programs down the
road.
The RE&D program is a rather small part of the NextGen
portfolio that falls under my overall purview, although it has
been rather healthier in the last few years than it has been in
the past.
So we have intricate plans developed for moving forward.
Dr. Hansman has made a reference to those. We need to take a
look at the impact of our investments, use those plans to see
what the long-term impact would be.
The question about what would you cut versus what you keep,
it is not that simple because of the interdependencies across
these programs. So any decisions about funding need to take
into account those long-term interdependencies.
Chairman Palazzo. Mr. Bunce, once a new additive is
approved, what is the scope of work involved to certify the use
of new avgas formulation into the existing general aviation
fleet? Will it be as simple as certifying each type of power
plant, or will certification involve approving the fuels used
in every model of airplane in the fleet today? Also, how likely
is it that engines and fuel systems may have to be modified to
accept a new fuel?
Mr. Bunce. Mr. Chairman, we are hopeful that the fuel that
we are developing right now is a fuel that all of these engines
can use. However, each one of those different models does have
to be certified. So, heretofore, what the FAA did was basically
we had the set fuel, and they certified engines to be able to
operate on it. Now we are changing that whole paradigm, and the
FAA hasn't done that before. They have got to certify the fuel
to fit into these 200,000 plus airplanes that are sitting out
there to be able to go ahead and use it.
So it is a huge project because there are so many different
engines that are on those aircraft, and each one of those has a
substantial investment. To replace an engine right now is
about, for a small piston, it is in excess of $300,000, and a
lot of those airplanes just aren't worth that kind of money.
So we have to be able to go and certify each one of those
engines, and we have an investment of over 5,000 general
aviation airports around this country that are public-use
airports. The commercial airlines use about 500 of them, so
everything that we provide, from getting people airlifted to
medical centers, to angel flight, to organ transfer, and just
the commerce that is created from small and mid-sized
communities out there. Then, of course, not to mention all
agricultural business or the fact that Alaska just survives on
general aviation. There is no way that Alaska can function
without piston aircraft being able to deliver supplies because
there is no other way to get there, particularly in the winter.
So we have got to get this right, and it is a huge, huge
problem.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for your testimony today.
Ms. Cox, GAO, GAMA, and DOT Inspector General have all
identified the need for NextGen performance metrics that hold
FAA accountable and give Congress and the industry the ability
to measure progress.
What is the status of FAA's efforts to develop these
metrics, and secondly, do any of the other panel members wish
to comment after Ms. Cox?
Ms. Cox. Thank you. We have metrics in place to track our
programmatic milestones and are doing that in great detail. The
more difficult measure is how well are we doing overall with
our NextGen investments.
We have a group within the FAA that is focusing on
developing those metrics in support of our future flight plan
strategic goals, but it is not just the performance of the FAA
that we have to measure. We have to measure the performance of
our stakeholders, the operators in the system.
So FAA has tasked the RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee to
work with us in developing metrics not only for the FAA but for
the operators to measure how NextGen is benefiting their
performance.
Mr. Bunce. Congresswoman Fudge, I just would like to
comment. We think metrics becomes very important, and I think
Mr. Scovel pointed out that we have saying that the FAA has
used out there like, best equipped, best served. So if our
operators go and equip with certain technologies, we have to
get a return on that investment, and the things that we would
like to see from industry being able to measure is if we go and
do new approaches out there, and we are--and we go and equip
and have these new approach designs out there, okay, how are we
going to start to use them, and when we start to use them we
need to start measuring how many people want to go ahead and
use these styles of approaches where we can pull the power back
at altitude, descend on down on approach, and not burn the fuel
that we burn on the way we do approaches today.
Now, there are a lot of elements to that. We have asked the
T&I Committee to help us to go and work with the NEPA process,
working with the Environmental Protection Agency to streamline
the way we design approaches. Right now we build approaches and
then they just overlay old existing type of approaches. We
don't have to design them that way anymore. We can design very
curvilinear type approaches that brings it very short and
allows us to save a lot of gas coming down from altitude. That
reduces emissions, and it also reduces noise.
So if we can put some rigor into what the FAA means by best
equipped, best served, and get the FAA to sponsor getting
pilots and controllers together, to say how best can we crack
this nut to be able to go and make sure we make maximum
efficient use of the system, I think we can go a long way.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. Let me just follow up, Ms. Cox. When
do you believe that you will provide the metrics to us?
Ms. Cox. The committees are working on deliverables in the
September, 2011, timeframe. So I think that in the very short
term we will have some matrix available to follow. Meanwhile,
the FAA is also introducing new capabilities in the system to
respond to a previous taskforce recommendations.
To Mr. Bunce's point, we are looking to provide benefits to
operators who are already equipped, today. With that in mind we
are going out and looking at metroplex areas where we could
introduce these kinds of fuel-saving capabilities that he has
alluded to. And, our first study teams have completed their
assessment of the Washington DC metro area and the north Texas
metro areas and have come up with some specific recommendations
that will benefit operators there.
And, we are moving on to address 21 total metroplex areas.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. Mr. Scovel, you state that
although ERAM passed testing at FAA's Technical Center and
achieved government acceptance testing, initial operating sites
in Salt Lake City and Seattle revealed significant software-
related problems and that has pushed schedules well beyond
original completion dates.
Can you clarify the meaning of those test results, and what
does this variation say about the robustness of FAA software
testing?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. If you had asked me about
ERAM a year and a half or two years ago, I would have told you
that we had great confidence in the program at that time. It
appeared that the requirements for the contract were stable,
that the program management was consistent and capable, and
timelines for costs and for performance appeared to be track.
Things appeared to unravel, however, about the time that
the product was presented to the FAA Tech Center in New Jersey
for testing and government acceptance. Frankly, it is quite
disturbing. We have been asked, my office has been asked by the
House Appropriations Committee to do an in-depth study of the
ERAM Program, and this is an area that we are going to have to
dive into.
It appears that an incomplete version of the product was
presented to the Tech Center initially. It was lacking some of
the key software codes. That portion being specifically that
would enable key interface between the test sites in Salt Lake
and Seattle and other air traffic facilities. The Tech Center
never had an opportunity to test that. It appears also, and
this has been noted by MITRE, that the Tech Center didn't have
the capability to do all of the testing that would have been
desired, and FAA correctly points out that in any event,
testing at the Tech Center might well have been imperfect since
you can't plug a product like this into the NAS and have it
direct live traffic. It had to go out to the test centers at
Salt Lake and Seattle. Once that happened, that is where some
of the key defects became apparent; interface issues, radar
processing issues, erroneous flight data tagged to aircraft,
and handoff problems between controllers specifically.
The problems became so acute that the system had to be
taken offline. Those centers had to resort to the Legacy Host
System in order to direct high-altitude, long-range traffic,
and now we find ourselves in a position where FAA itself says
that ERAM delivery will be delayed by about four years and cost
an extra $330 million. MITRE, on the other hand, says a more
accurate number might be to 2015, or even 2016, and perhaps
$500 million.
So a lot is at stake in delivering this. ERAM is a key
enabling platform for a number of critical programs that are
truly NextGen-related as Ms. Cox has noted. FAA will get ERAM
right. It will take a lot more time and a lot more money, but
in the meantime it does raise questions for us about the
adequacy of the Tech Center's programs and ability to conduct
key testing like this.
And also, frankly, with the contract negotiation and
management point. If problems with testing at the Tech Center
were known or should have been known, why were those not taken
into account in the contract process so that the government
alone would not have borne the total risk? It could have been
spread between government and contractor perhaps. We will look
at that and report to the Department and to the Congress.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Sensenbrenner for
questions.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much. My question is
basically on what is being done to plug the holes in the air
traffic control system. Let me say, at the end of June last
year I was on a United Airlines commercial flight that was
going into Washington National Airport, and because there was a
line of thunderstorms between Dulles and the National Airport,
my plane was taken off the regular approach pattern into
National.
Shortly after that, the collision avoidance system went off
twice on the plane that I was on. The plane made some very
rapid and very sharp maneuvers in order to avoid a collision,
and I asked the FAA to come and show me the tapes, and I came
within 100 feet of being wiped out together with about 110
other passengers. The Washington Post has run a whole series of
stories as a result of this relative to near collisions. Some
people call them near misses. I think it is better to call them
near collisions in the skies above DCA. With the number of
people that go in and out of DCA, Members of Congress and
government officials, I think it is important to plug the holes
lest there be, you know, a huge tragedy.
What apparently came out of this investigation was that
there was a manual handoff or what was called a splat splat
between the National Airport controllers and the Dulles Airport
controllers. The National Airport controller handed control of
the plane off, he thought, to the Dulles Airport controller,
except the Dulles Airport controller never picked it up.
This was something that was done manually. Apparently there
was no training on the part of the Dulles Airport controller
who was relatively new in the FAA, and since he didn't know he
was in charge of dealing with both the general aviation plane
that took off from Dulles as well as my United Airlines
commercial plane, we came very close, like 400 feet, to having
a tragedy.
What is being done to prevent this from happening again?
Ms. Cox. A large part of the focus of the NextGen Program
is on better managing how we control traffic in very congested
airspace, such as the situation you described. Providing better
tools to the controller so that they can be alerted to
potential conflicts, such as the one that you experienced, and
help them to deal with it in a more automated fashion.
As you point out, very much of the system today is a manual
system. A lot of tracking is done by the human, and we are
looking at ways to automate some of that. From Dr. Hansman's
presentation you also saw the impact that weather can have to
further exacerbate the situation. NextGen also invests in
better tools for predicting the weather so that further out in
the system we can place that traffic more efficiently and
effectively for getting it into the airport of destination.
So these are the kinds of investments that we are looking
at.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay, but I just heard that NextGen is
going to require a lot of money, which we don't have at the
present time, and take quite a bit of time like maybe five
years plus, to become effective. I just don't want to see a
tragedy occur, whether it is in the congested airspace over the
DC area or someplace else.
Is there anything that is being done on a more immediate
basis to prevent one controller handing control of a plane off
to another controller, and the other controller doesn't pick it
up?
Ms. Cox. You are correct. Some of these investments in
automation systems do require long-term investments and longer-
term deliveries. Some of the things that we are looking at are
better control on the surface and integrated arrivals and
departures that manage those departures better, and some of
that capability is being delivered today.
So deconflicting traffic is one, for a departing aircraft,
for example, we are investing in capabilities that will address
that, and I will say that----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And when will it be addressed?
Ms. Cox. The----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Do we need to have a mid-air collision
before it becomes an urgency on the part of the FAA?
Ms. Cox. I think that the safety of the system is always an
urgency with the FAA and has our attention, and we believe that
we are one of the safest systems in the world.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, you know, so do I, but the
situation that the commercial airliner that I was on was
serious enough to warrant the NTSB's investigating this, and it
always takes awhile for them to figure out what went wrong, but
I would like to know that when the NTSB reaches its conclusion
that there would be immediate implementation of whatever
recommendations they make, and I haven't heard anything in this
hearing to put my mind at ease.
Ms. Cox. I can't speak to the outcome of the investigation.
I am certain that it will be taken very seriously.
Another investment that NextGen is making today, is in our
ability to take data such as you described and others that are
less serious than the incident that you described, track that
data, and develop capabilities to assess it so that we can
avoid those incidents in the future. Not wait until the
incident happens and then do the investigation. The ASIAS or
the Aviation Safety Information Assessment Sharing Program that
NextGen funds will help us make this safer.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Dr. Hansman, did you have anything you
would like to add?
Dr. Hansman. Well, I was just going to point out that while
this was a mistake in the system, I think it also illustrates
that we actually do have redundancies in the system that
provide protection. So there was a secondary collision alerting
system that the crew had to prevent a mishap.
Some of the things that are happening----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. If you will yield, the secondary system
that was on board the Airbus 319 that United was flying went
off twice.
Dr. Hansman. Sure, and so it worked.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yeah, it worked, and I am here today
because it worked.
Dr. Hansman. Yeah, and I think one of the things that is
happening in NextGen is we are adding additional levels of
redundancy in the system, so some of the things that are
happening, for example, with ADS-B, is the GA airplane in the
future, which wasn't equipped, I presume, will probably be
equipped. That will also have collision alerting system. So
there are things that are happening.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Sewell for
questions.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
thank the panelists for your testimony.
My question actually has to do with the Joint Planning and
Development Office. Ms. Cox, the OIG says that there is
confusion within FAA and the industry about the JPDO's role in
advancing NextGen. While the OIG acknowledges that FAA
recognizes the need to better define JPDO's mission, no
definitive action has been taken to determine what role, if
any, JPDO will play in the critical NextGen implementation.
My question is three-fold. Does FAA agree with OIG's
assessment? Secondly, what specifically do you plan to do to
address this concern?
Ms. Cox. I believe that the role of the JPDO is somewhat
better understood. They have a role with keeping an eye on
longer-term research that will provide the vision that the FAA
can aim its nearer-term activities toward achieving. So those
long-term goals are theirs.
The other mission of the JPDO is the one that Mr. Scovel
alluded to, which is the interagency contributions to the Next
Generation air transportation problem, and I think we do
concede that interagency cooperation is a very challenging
undertaking. We have made some advances with the help of the
Joint Planning and Development Office in leveraging some
research going on in other agencies, with NASA in particular,
upon whom we depend so much for a lot of the more basic and
fundamental research that contributes to our more applied
efforts.
We have been working very closely under the auspices of the
JPDO with Research Transition Teams. We are focusing in four
key areas that will help us improve NextGen. The JPDO this past
fall called together a workshop of the Air Force Research
Laboratory, NASA, and the FAA to look at long-term planning for
unmanned aerial systems operating in the National Airspace
System. So we are hoping to leverage those capabilities.
The Department of Defense named the Air Force as their
chief agency with responsibility for NextGen integration. The
Air Force has assigned a liaison, who is resident with us at
FAA headquarters to assist us in this effort, and we are
working very closely with the National Weather Service in
planning some of our joint weather plans for the future.
Ms. Sewell. Inspector General Scovel, do you agree with her
assessment?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Ms. Sewell. I would like to note,
and it is more than just a historical footnote, but I think
much of the confusion and disappointment with our industry
stakeholders in the JPDO's role----
Ms. Sewell. Uh-huh.
Mr. Scovel. --stems from the decision in 2008, to place the
JPDO within the Air Traffic Organization, in effect to bury it.
The Air Traffic Organization, of course, is rightly concerned
with safe operations of the NAS 24/7. The JPDO is designed to
look long term in executing NextGen. By placing it under the
ATO, the rationale was to make sure that long-term plans will
align with the operators who have to carry them out, but in
effect, the JPDO languished--it drifted for a couple of years.
It has now been removed from the ATO. It is now placed
directly under the Deputy Administrator----
Ms. Sewell. Uh-huh.
Mr. Scovel. --and Mr. Huerta has taken a very keen interest
in making sure that the JPDO steps forward to take its rightful
place not only for long-range NextGen planning but also we hope
and industry hopes along some of the lines that I outlined in
my statement for simulation and modeling perhaps, technology
transfer most certainly in the multi-agency role, prototype
development and policy formulation as well.
Ms. Sewell. Dr. Hansman, you stated that the JPDO has not
been effective as a long-term, long-range planning office, and
after playing an important and significant role in identifying
the needs for NAS modernization, the JPDO has lost its focus,
is what you said.
What needs to be done to restore the JPDO's effectiveness
in your opinion?
Dr. Hansman. So, I think there are a couple of challenges.
One is the challenge of basically having too many bosses, so
you have an organization that when it began was fairly bold in
its vision but then became timid because it was afraid of
offending, while making some of the hard decisions. So I think
that is one thing.
I think they also need to be looking for not so much at
micro-designing what the system will be in 2015----
Ms. Sewell. Uh-huh.
Dr. Hansman. --but really tracking what the future demands
and challenges on the system would be. So, for example, it is
disappointing that the JPDO is not more focused on
environmental concerns and efficiency issues, which have
emerged after the initial definition of the plan, but they were
very slow to respond.
So I would much rather see them really taking a longer-term
view of what the requirements are as opposed to the detailed
design of exactly how a procedure is going to work in 2015.
Ms. Sewell. Ms. Cox, do you agree with his critique?
Ms. Cox. I think that the suggestions are quite good in
terms of looking to the longer term and focusing there. So in
general, yes, I do.
Ms. Sewell. I yield the rest of my time.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
Rohrabacher for questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and Chairman Palazzo,
I want to congratulate you for--I take it this is the first
hearing of your subcommittee, and you have chosen for the first
hearing of your subcommittee a non-space-related issue, and
sometimes the criticism, and I think justified criticism, of
this subcommittee is that it spends all of its time on space
when there are general aviation issues and aviation issues that
are vitally important to the security and the prosperity of our
country. So I appreciate that.
We all know that Gabby Giffords isn't with us today, and we
are sad about that, and we certainly wish her well and hope she
gets back very soon.
So I would like to get back to priorities and things, and
the gentleman just mentioned too many bosses, and one thing
that seems to be coming out of this hearing at me is that we
have this bureaucratic system that is all around us, and
looking at components of this NextGen, it seems to me, that
maybe that we have in every one of those departments or
components that we are trying to place this part of the effort
here or over here, what is the ratio? Maybe I should ask that
of our Inspector General here. What is the ratio there of
bosses versus engineers and scientists and people doing the
software and people who are doing the grunt work that needs to
be done? What is that? Do we have a system that has too many
bosses?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I can't peg a
number to answer your question. We haven't done work in that
specific area. I can tell you, however, that what we have, as
we did in 2007, recommended to FAA that it undertake an
analysis of its acquisition work for us, specifically those
skills that would be needed for NextGen, FAA concurred in that
recommendation, contracted with National Academy of Public
Administration to do that, NAPA presented its report in
September, 2008, and identified, in fact, 26 key competencies
that were needed. The grunts, if you will, not just the top
leadership level.
FAA has moved, we think, quite slowly in filling the
trenches with those grunts in key areas like----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And could that be because the people
making the decision to hire the people that are actually doing
the real work know that the budget is coming out of the money
that would go to pay to them? I mean, this sounds like to me we
got an awful lot of people managing some engineers who are
actually doing all the work.
Mr. Scovel. I don't know what the rationale, sir, is. I can
only report on the results, which are that key skills like
program management, software development, systems engineering,
and integration specifically, for instance, having to do with
an emphasis on human factors, which is what NAPA identified,
some of those areas are lacking. My office is currently
undergoing or undertaking another review of FAA's acquisition
workforce, and we are going to try to peg those specific
deficiencies with greater specificity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, when I asked the original question,
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for granting me that one minute with
unanimous consent, and I said what are your highest priorities,
would I take it then that your highest priority is not hiring
more managers for this system but instead hiring more people
who are actually getting the software done and the engineering
done on the technology? Would I suggest that that might your
top priority and your lowest priority right there?
Mr. Scovel. It is certainly key, and in our statement we
identify that as one of the five action items that we have
recommended to FAA in this area.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we are still, remember, we are going
on here with a $40 billion program, we are being told, that it
went from--and the date for the actual put it in place went
from 2025, to 2035, now. How is that affecting the bottom line?
Is that--maybe I should ask Ms. Cox about that.
Ms. Cox. The original 2025 date was for the visionary
system that was described by the Joint Planning and Development
Office back in 2004----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Uh-huh.
Ms. Cox. --when the authorization set that office up. The
FAA has done some careful assessments, looked at research
requirements, and come up with what we believe is an achievable
plan for what will in essence transform the way the system
operates in a more mid-term timeframe, and our plans focus
toward those deliverables, which, granted, are not as visionary
perhaps as the original 2025.
The JPDO, meanwhile, continues to focus on the long-term
vision and look at how we can realistically connect that
research to deliver a capability in the future, because we
can't just stop in 2025----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ms. Cox. --or 2018 or----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Ms. Cox. We must continue to look forward, and that is our
goal, and that's why the investment in the research and
engineering is so very important as well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And when is that date when this new system
is going to be evident, although it is not complete?
Ms. Cox. I think there is evidence today that we are
introducing new capabilities. For the general aviation
community in particular, access to airports that they never had
access to before is available through space-based nav aids that
provide access to operators who are equipped, and they are
equipping at remarkable rates.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One last question, Mr. Chairman. The FAA
budget, is it $346 million a year research budget, is that for
overall FAA, or is that a NextGen?
Ms. Cox. The President's '12, budget request is a $380
million range for our National Aviation Research Plan. The
total NextGen request is in the 1.2 billion range.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. All right. With the committee's
indulgence I will conclude the hearing with one last question.
Mr. Scovel, Mr. Hansman, whoever wants to respond to this
is fine, but I think it is pretty much your statement, so might
want to back up. Might not be everybody's. Your statement
suggested a high level of participating agencies are not
realigning their R&D budgets and programs to aggressively
support NextGen. With exception of FAA and DOT, is NextGen's
implementation imperiled because of indifference or diminishing
commitment of some or all the partnering agencies?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think imperiled is
probably too strong a word. Is there potential for delay? Most
certainly. Is there potential for missed opportunities?
Absolutely.
I would characterize FAA's success in the multi-agency
effort as frankly being patchy at this point. They have had
some successes working with NOAA and Defense along weather
lines, but at the same time Commerce has made clear that they
are going to work on the 4-D weather cube to suit Commerce's
needs until FAA is able to better articulate and define what
FAA's weather needs are for NextGen. It has been the same with
DOD when it comes to unmanned aircraft systems and surveillance
needs. Human factors are also another area that needs greater
attention.
So I think FAA is going to get all of this right, but it is
frustrating for us and frankly for some of the other agency
partners, DOD in particular, when it comes to unmanned aircraft
systems, to see FAA's seeming inability in a prompt manner in
the views of the other agencies to define what the needs are so
that the agencies can work in a way that they think will suit
not only their own needs but FAA's.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me one
more question?
Chairman Palazzo. Let Dr. Hansman answer and then
absolutely I will recognize you for one additional question.
Dr. Hansman. I was just going to mention that there has
actually been good collaboration with NASA on NextGen, so I
think that has been a good interface. I agree that there is a
tension between the DOD and the FAA particularly in the area of
UAV operations.
There is also, I think, a concern on the part of the DOD
that a lot of the NextGen plans presume airborne equipage, and
it is very difficult for the DOD to be able to afford to
equipage for the number of airplanes that they have.
Mr. Bunce. Mr. Chairman, I would just add an industry
perspective for you on this. One of the things that we have
been very disappointed about is the involvement of the
Department of Homeland Security in the process as well. When
you look at what we are able to do with the NextGen System and
when we deploy ADS-B and we have this capability out there, the
original vision was we could get rid of some radars, and radars
are expensive down on the ground. Basically, these ADS-B boxes
that we are putting all over the country are about the size of
a refrigerator, much smaller, much easier to maintain, and we
are moving a lot of the infrastructure up to the air.
As you go you would think that as we deploy this system
that we would be able to get rid of a lot of the old technology
that we have been relying on, but there is a concern out there
about people that don't want to cooperate, what is called non-
cooperative targets, and want to turn off their systems. How
are we going to monitor those?
So who is going to be responsible for those radars that are
no longer needed by the FAA that have to be either picked up by
Homeland Security or picked up by DOD, and that is where I
think industry's frustration is as we look at the interagency
process and trying to see, okay, who is all sitting at the
table and when they go and the JPDO talks about this long-range
vision, when the FAA comes and says we want to do that, deploy
this NextGen System, where can we reap some savings and then
who do those responsibilities now transfer to?
And that is why we have to get everybody at the table, and
the only people that are going to be able to drive that is
going to be at the Administration level where they can say to
the secretaries, you got to get people to sit down at the table
and hash this all out and make the JPDO process work.
Ms. Cox. Mr. Chairman, can I make a small clarification in
terms of the FAA's planning for the radar systems? With the
advent of ADS-B, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, as
our primary surveillance system, the FAA has judged that it can
remove about 50 percent of our secondary radars that track
traffic in the immediate terminal areas for us, and we can do
that by re-siting some of the existing radars and get the same
coverage that we have today.
The longer-range radars that track the uncooperative
targets are today under the management of the DOD and the DHS
but maintained by FAA, and there is no plan to remove those
radars.
Chairman Palazzo. Okay. Thank you, all. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher for an additional question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
just like to ask Mr. Scovel, I am sure he can't answer this
question now but maybe you could get back to me with an
assessment from your organization as to what the actual cost is
here between managers and administrators for the NextGeneration
Project versus the actual online personnel who are the
scientists and the engineers.
I think it would be good for us to know what are the
administrative costs and, you know, at some point you can hire
enough administrators that they have to find reasons to argue
with one another, and they actually get in the way of people
who are actually developing software, et cetera, and I would
just like to get a better understanding of this particular
program and where the costs are in terms of personnel, and that
would be, I think, helpful for us to do our job here in making
sure that we make sure the money is being spent efficiently.
Thank you very much, and could you get back to me with some
assessment of that?
Mr. Scovel. I would be happy to, sir. You are right. We
don't currently have that information, but we would be glad to
take a crack at it for you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions.
The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and statements from Members.
The witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President, NextGen and
Operations Planning, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration

Questions submitted by Chairman Steven M. Palazzo

Q1. The witness from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
testified that certifying an unleaded gasoline for piston aircraft
would be a significant challenge. Assuming a new unleaded aviation gas
formulation is developed, what process would FAA undertake to approve
the use of this fuel in the legacy piston fleet? Would FAA require each
and every legacy piston engine type and model to be recertified, and
how would the certification be conducted? Would legacy fuel tanks and
aircraft fuel delivery systems also be subject to certification?

A1. The FAA and its industry partners in the Unleaded Avgas Transition
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAT ARC) recognize the challenge of
certifying an unleaded aviation gasoline for the entire piston-engine
powered aircraft fleet. The UAT ARC established a focus area dedicated
to investigating this issue and to providing recommendations on how to
facilitate the process. The scope of the resulting certification
process will depend on the degree of similarity of the new fuel with
the existing, lead-containing avgas. The difference will determine
whether or not a fleet-wide approach can be accomplished, or whether
the certification will need to address groups of similar type engines
and aircraft. Regardless, the FAA will strive to streamline or
facilitate the certification process. Legacy fuel tanks, aircraft fuel
delivery systems, and other ground-based infrastructure systems and
components are not under the FAA's regulatory authority and will not be
included in our resulting certification policy.

Q2. The Inspector General testified that there is ``confusion'' within
FAA and industry about JPDO's role. The Chairman of the REDAC also
offered the view that JPDO's role is ``not effective.'' What is FAA's
response to these assessments? Is FAA planning to take additional
measures to clarify JPDO's roles and responsibilities?

A2. The Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public
Law 108-176) established the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ``to manage work
related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).''
The integrated plan is designed to ensure that NextGen meets safety,
security, mobility, efficiency and capacity needs for 2025. The JPDO
responsibilities include coordinating goals, priorities and research;
facilitating technology transfer; and creating multi-agency research
and development roadmaps.
Now that the FAA is implementing NextGen, it is important that the
JPDO considers the implementation path. The JPDO will continue long-
range research planning, while synchronizing that planning with near-
term deployments and managing the policy challenges posed by
implementation. The JPDO Director serves as an advisor to the Secretary
of Transportation and as his liaison to the Senior Policy Committee,
consistent with Executive Order 13479.
The JPDO leads the interagency coordination of NextGen policy
issues. The Office monitors the progress and pace of implementation,
keeps senior leadership apprised of the progress, and if necessary,
raises concerns to the appropriate officials. The Director provides
dedicated senior leadership to ensure that NextGen is coordinated among
all government partner agencies, and with private industry. The Office
continues its work with planning and modeling, keeping in mind the
Federal government's planned funding levels.

Q3. With respect to Unmanned Aircraft Systems research and
development, what are FAA's near- and mid-term plans and goals? What
research activities is FAA undertaking?

A3. The FAA has identified critical areas where Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) research is needed to ensure the safe integration of UAS
in the National Airspace System (NAS) through the development of
policy, regulation, and a basis for certification:

UAS performance thresholds for safe operations in the
NAS and in the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen).

Certification requirements for UAS pilots and crews.

Design standards for UAS control stations.

UAS data link performance requirements.

UAS sense and avoid requirements.

The goal of this work is to reduce the mitigations required to
integrate UAS into the NAS, and eventually reach the point where UAS
have unfettered access to the NAS.
The FAA is undertaking research that will provide data to support
the safe integration of UAS in the NAS, including:

Demonstrations of UAS performance and impacts on the
NAS, as well as the integration of NextGen concepts and
technologies through collaborative efforts with industry and
other Government agencies.

Studies of key UAS human factors issues and safety
analyses through partnerships with academia.

UAS standards development work, specifically in the
areas of control and communications, and sense and avoid using
modeling and simulation, and

Additional collaboration on research initiatives to
address joint UAS challenges through interagency agreements.

It is essential these efforts continue to evolve as we move toward
the far-term, to ensure that we overcome all of the key challenges
critical to safe UAS integration into the NextGen NAS.
In addition, FAA has joined with the Joint Planning and Development
Office (JPDO), NASA and DOD to examine the current interagency research
activities, plans and challenges for integrating Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) into a future NextGen airspace. Three technical teams
were formed during a workshop co-sponsored by the JPDO and the Air
Force Research Laboratory in October 2011. The Air Vehicles team
focused on the on-board technology needed to enable semi-autonomous UAS
to operate safely in controlled airspace and populated areas. The
essential focus of the Sense and Avoid/Communications team was the
requirement to construct a framework that can bridge the current
practice of see and avoid to NextGen-appropriate paradigms that reflect
and leverage the operational differences between a manned and a
remotely operated aircraft. The Human Factors and Ground Control
Station team concentrated on developing pilot qualifications, levels of
automation, communication latency, contingency management, ground
control station information display, navigation system compatibility,
and the fact that the pilot is spatially separated from the UAS. The
workshop outcomes will serve as a starting point for developing a
strategic UAS research, development and demonstration roadmap.

Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello

Q1. The Transportation Inspector General's statement indicated that
FAA had yet to make critical design decisions or address research and
development gaps with its partner agencies that will affect NextGen's
cost, schedule, and performance. Two of the four unresolved issues he
stated were integrating weather information into advanced automated
systems and determining joint surveillance requirements to track
aircraft.

a. What is the crux of the technical disagreements between FAA and the
Department of Commerce over how to synchronize national applications of
observed, forecast, and disseminated weather data? How do you plan to
resolve these disagreements and what is your timetable for reaching a
resolution?

A1a. Although synchronization of programmatic efforts between partner
agencies is a coordination challenge, there are no significant
technical disagreements between FAA and the Department of Commerce
(DOC) with respect to national applications of observed, forecast and
disseminated weather. Integration of weather information with FAA air
traffic management (ATM) automation has been a topic of considerable
review and discussion during the past year. Those discussions have
resulted in a shared understanding of an ATM-Weather integration
context that affirms DOC's role as the primary provider of 4-
dimensional atmospheric state information and the FAA's primary role in
translating that information into relevant ATM constraint and impact
information.
The FAA recognizes DOC's lead role in developing the NextGen 4D
Weather Data Cube which is intended to serve as the source of weather
information from which a common operating weather picture will be
derived by airspace system users. In support of that role, the FAA has
collaborated with DOC for the past two years to develop and demonstrate
the application of standards that will enable effective exchange of
weather information between the NextGen 4D Weather Data Cube and FAA
applications. Those standards are essential components of the
infrastructure investment programs now under consideration at both DOC
and FAA. Although a final investment decision on the FAA's NextGen
Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) program will not be made before the end
of CY2012, close coordination between the agencies will remain during
detailed investment analyses to ensure that interoperability is not
affected as detailed technical implementation choices are made.
Note also, that the JPDO's NextGen Executive Weather Panel (NEWP)
has been and remains in place as an executive oversight and strategic
support body for cross-agency issue coordination and resolution.

b. Why have FAA and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security
not established joint surveillance requirements, which are needed to
track aircraft and achieve the integrated surveillance and the
capabilities envisioned for NextGen?

A1b. In 2009, the NextGen Senior Policy Committee (SPC) directed their
staffs to analyze existing and potential executive bodies to provide
interagency governance of aviation surveillance activities and make a
recommendation to the SPC as to which alternative should be
implemented. The main barrier to establishing interagency joint
surveillance requirements has been the lack of an institutional
mechanism to oversee and coordinate surveillance capabilities across
all departments and agencies. Such a governance mechanism must be
trusted to allocate requirements and costs fairly among the Federal
surveillance partners.
In July 2010, the SPC endorsed the governance recommendation and
the work plan for integration and alignment of surveillance
capabilities and directed staff to proceed with the plan as outlined.
The governance plan establishes an interagency executive-level council
and a technical staff to perform the engineering and analysis needed to
develop joint requirements and an acquisition strategy. It also
provides a process for elevating decisions when necessary through the
National Security Staff's interagency policy coordinating process.
As governance is established, technical work is proceeding in
several areas that will support joint requirements and a whole-of-
government solution, including additional refinement of a near-term
concept of operations, validation of non-cooperative surveillance
requirements, and documentation of planned capabilities and capability
gaps.

Q2. Unmanned aircraft systems, human factors, and weather are among
some of the areas that the Transportation OIG and REDAC have identified
as needing urgent attention, research, and planning at a cross-agency
level. How is the JPDO responding to their recommendations?

A2. The JPDO, recognizing the importance of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) to both the public and private sectors, brought the need for
interagency research and planning to the attention of the Senior Policy
Committee in July 2010. Subsequently, the JPDO and the Air Force
Research Laboratory (ARFL) co-sponsored a workshop to focus on critical
and cross-cutting long-term research challenges associated with flying
UAS in a future NextGen trajectory-based operations airspace. NASA, DOD
and FAA participated in the workshop. Technical teams were formed to
examine research relating to human factors, sense and avoid/
communications and air vehicles. These three teams continue to work to
identify current activities for long-term integration of UAS into the
national airspace system, map interagency research and develop
opportunities for collaborative demonstrations. A top-level summary of
the initial workshop is posted on http://www.jpdo.gov.
The JPDO recommended to the JPDO Board, at its February 2011
meeting, a plan to use the workshop outcomes as the basis for
developing a UAS research, development and demonstration roadmap to
identify the long-term research choices. The JPDO convened executive
leadership from the agencies to set particular direction for roadmap
development in March 2011. The next steps are to establish a work
charter and to produce an initial roadmap.
In February 2011, the JPDO released the ``NextGen Human Factors
Research Coordination Plan.'' This plan, developed by the FAA and NASA
in conjunction with the JPDO, formalizes the coordination process
between these two agencies for human factors research. It also begins
an annual coordination process to review planned research efforts,
identify gaps, monitor and evaluate progress, and report results. The
coordination process leverages GAO-recommended best practices to help
enhance and sustain collaboration among Federal agencies.
The JPDO's Weather Working Group has been working over the last
several years to define concepts, develop architectural designs and
demonstrate IT and net-centric capabilities for near-term
infrastructure improvements for NextGen. Parallel to that effort is the
needed improvements to the accuracy of digital weather information
provided to the FAA to enable integration and with improved performance
of air traffic management processes and systems. These improvements
will require continuing research and development efforts from
governmental, private sector, and academic institutions to realize
NextGen requirements. Our Weather Working Group and continues the work
to define overarching science and technological challenges and gaps
that exist in R&D to meet those challenges. Initial improvements from
R&D efforts include better turbulence and icing forecast predictions,
as well as the demonstration of thunderstorm forecast improvements for
air traffic management. We will continue to work with the NextGen
partners in the working group to develop a plan to leverage research
efforts currently in place, and identifying and incorporating new R&D
required to meet NextGen goals for optimized air travel.

Q3. The Transportation OIG says that FAA now plans to complete the En
Route Automation Modernization also known as ERAM in 2014--a schedule
slip of 4 years. However, the OIG also says that FAA and its contractor
plan to add new capabilities at the same time it is attempting to
resolve problems identified in earlier software versions-which could
further schedule delays.

a. Does it make sense to add new capabilities to an unstable system?

A3a. The FAA has made significant progress in the deployment of ERAM.
The Salt Lake City (ZLC) and Seattle (ZSE) Key sites have been
operating in an Operational Suitability Demonstration (OSD) phase since
October 19, 2010 and November 13, 2010, respectively. The FAA is
executing the plan agreed to with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to ensure we have repeatable processes with entrance and exit
criteria prior to delivery of software releases to sites for
operational use. Additionally, there is a measured benchmarking process
used at the sites to ensure that the software builds are mature and the
site is able to progress through a controlled process of initial,
extended, and continuous operations. Given the improvements in strategy
and processes, some software development of new capabilities in
parallel with the waterfall rollout of ERAM is a manageable activity.
For example, upgrading the D-side position is necessary to future
NextGen applications including the en route data communication
applications, advanced conflict probe functionalities including
conflict resolution advisories and integration of weather onto the
planning display. This also addresses the industry recommendations
included in the Task Force 5 recommendations on future en route data
communications.

b. Is the contractor incurring any penalties for the delays?

A3b. To date, there have been no contractual penalties incurred.
However, going forward, the FAA has strengthened the acceptance
criteria in the contract for future ERAM software releases to help
ensure higher quality software in the operational builds.

Q4. A Continuing Resolution at FY08 budget levels, or lower, would
translate into significant cuts for all agencies. How would FAA
prioritize its research under those conditions?

A4. Conducting current research activities at the FY 2008 levels
($147M) would present challenges. This would be approximately a 23%
reduction from the FY 2011 request level. This reduction would require
a reevaluation of all research activities and severely impact the
ability of the FAA to meet goals stated in the past National Aviation
Research Plans (NARP). This reduction would have significant impacts on
all areas of FAA research. Since safety is our highest priority, the
most substantial reductions will be in other areas, but there will be
significant impacts to our safety research programs as well.
A reprioritization of the research portfolio would be coordinated
by the R&D Executive Board (REB), which is responsible for strategic
planning and budget formulation for research in the FAA. The REB
members represent the FAA lines of business (associate administrators)
and assistant administrators who sponsor or manage funds for R&D
programs. The REB would review all currently planned programs and
reprioritize them taking into consideration the balance between current
safety requirements and future NextGen requirements. The REB would also
coordinate the reprioritization with the NextGen Integration and
Implementation Office.

Q5. The REDAC found that the aircraft icing program's very limited in-
house expertise requires FAA to rely heavily on partners and grantee/
contractors to manage their programs. As a result, the REDAC
recommended that FAA review the current ``bench strength'' and take
appropriate hiring action to assure continuity in technical strength
well into the future. What is the FAA doing to address the REDAC's
recommendation?

A5. The FAA recognizes the need for additional in-house expertise in
atmospheric and aerodynamic science and engineering and has addressed
it in the short term by developing research partnerships with NASA, the
U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Research
Council Canada, Environment Canada, other national research
organizations and academic institutions. For the longer term, the FAA
had planned to add to our technical staff, starting with a research
meteorologist. Unfortunately, due to current budget constraints and the
ceiling on federal positions in the RE&D appropriation, we will not be
able to add staff in this area at this time. We will pursue our hiring
plans if the situation changes. In the meantime, we will continue to
work with the Aircraft Icing Chief Scientist and Technical Advisor
(CSTA) and our research partners to ensure the needed technical
strength in the aircraft icing research area.

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Hon. Calvin Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation

Questions submitted by Chairman Steven M. Palazzo

Q1. As a routine matter, to what degree does FAA build margin into
their cost and schedule estimates for NextGen-related research projects
and plans?

A1. FAA's initial NextGen plans were very ambitious and did not
consider risk or build in sufficient margins to account for moving a
complex, software intensive system from development into actual
implementation. The Trade Space Analysis, led by the JPDO, examined
FAA's vision for NextGen targeted for 2025 and showed that FAA did not
sufficiently factor margins and risks into NextGen plans. This analysis
showed that capabilities originally planned for 2025 will probably not
be implemented until 2035 or beyond. Moreover, FAA's plans did not
fully account for the costs and time for airspace users to equip with a
wide range of NextGen avionics.

Q2. Your testimony highlighted difficulties encountered with initial
ERAM testing at Salt Lake City, estimating that total cost growth could
be as much as $500 million (based on a MITRE study). Does this estimate
reflect added cost to the ERAM program alone, or does it also include
cost increases associated with the delays of other NextGen-related
technologies that are dependent on ERAM?

A2. Answer: FAA's estimate that the current cost growth for ERAM will
be $330 million--which could increase to $500 million--reflects the
effort required to complete the program as originally planned. The
delays associated with NextGen, and related efforts, such as data
communications for controllers and pilots, are not included in the
estimate and have yet to be determined.

Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello

Q1. In your view, what are the impediments to FAA's implementation of
your organization's recommendations and what should be done to address
those impediments?

A1. FAA has concurred with most of our recommendations to reduce risk
with developing and implementing the multibillion-dollar NextGen
initiative. The problem, however, has been following through to
complete actions needed to fully respond to and ultimately close our
recommendations. We have found that impediments to FAA's response to
our recommendations mirror those that FAA faces in advancing NextGen.
These include overall complexity of the effort, lack of firm
requirements, and a culture highly resistant to change that focuses on
running the current system. For example, in responding to our
recommendations for leveraging other Federal research and completing an
integrated budget document, FAA officials also told us that a "not
invented here attitude" is a factor in limiting their progress. We will
continue to track FAA's progress with NextGen and how it implements our
recommendations.

Q2. How would you prioritize your organization's recommendations
relative to NextGen? What would you recommend to FAA as the top 5
priorities and would those priorities be the same if FAA's budget gets
cut significantly?

A2. In our statement, we outlined areas where FAA needs to take actions
to better manage its NextGen long-term efforts. The current budget
environment underscores the urgent need for FAA to strengthen the
multi-agency approach, better leverage Federal research, and prevent
duplicative efforts. The following actions are needed regardless of the
funding level Congress provides for FAA's long-term NextGen efforts:

Establish research priorities and develop an
integrated NextGen budget document that better aligns with
partner agency resources: Without an integrated budget document
that identifies the NextGen funding and R&D priorities of all
the partner agencies, Congress will not be able to determine if
the right research is being conducted and if the Government is
making the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Clarify the role of the JPDO: There is confusion
within FAA and the industry about JPDO's role in advancing
NextGen along the lines of development, simulation and
modeling, technical transfer and policy issues. FAA must
clarify JPDO's role so it can move forward and provide value to
NextGen efforts.

Finalize performance goals and metrics for NextGen:
Although there are broad goals for what NextGen should
accomplish, there are no clear, specific goals for performance
capabilities or metrics for FAA and industry to measure
accomplishments.

Leverage DOD research and development for NextGen:
Neither FAA nor the JPDO have fully assessed DOD's vast
research and development portfolio to determine if DOD's
completed work could be useful in meeting NextGen goals without
incurring cost, time, and risks to "re-develop" needed
capabilities.

Secure necessary expertise to execute NextGen: A
recent National Academy of Public Administration study
identified weakness and gaps in the FAA workforce that, if left
uncorrected, could impede FAA's efforts to execute NextGen.

Q3. How could FAA and JPDO better leverage DOD's R&D base in
developing NextGen?

A3. As we noted in our statement, DOD contributes to NextGen as a
member on various committees, boards, and work groups. DOD has also
taken the lead in the area of net-centric operations and is working
with FAA and JPDO on surveillance issues. However, neither FAA nor the
JPDO have done a complete assessment of DOD's vast research and
development portfolio. DOD's experience with enterprise architecture
development, large-scale systems integration, and overall management of
high-risk efforts could prove useful. Moreover, FAA could leverage DOD
technology such as satellite-based Joint Precision Approach and Landing
System to reduce risk with FAA's precision landing systems for NextGen.
In response to our June 2010 recommendation, FAA agreed to develop a
plan to review and identify DOD research and technologies that could be
used for NextGen and establish mechanisms to transfer the information
to FAA. According to JPDO officials, this effort should be completed
this year.

Q4. In your view, do NextGen implementation schedules reflect the time
to complete necessary environmental R&D and policies? If not, how much
additional time should be appropriately added?

A4. FAA's plans for NextGen in the near, mid-and long-term do not fully
reflect the risks associated with resolving various environmental
issues and policies. For example, FAA notes in its most recent NextGen
Implementation Plan that environmental reviews could delay new routes
that take advantage of precise navigation equipment on aircraft.
Further, FAA's Trade Space Analysis underscored the need for greater
attention to carbon emissions and noise generated by aircraft. We have
not conducted a review of NextGen environmental issues and therefore
are not in a position to comment on how much time should be added to
NextGen program schedules to resolve them.

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. R. John Hansman, Chair, FAA Research, Engineering, and
Development Advisory Committee, Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Director, MIT International Center for Aviation

Questions submitted by Chairman Steven M. Palazzo

Q1. When talking about FAA's research portfolio, you stated that
research is needed in fundamental and applied areas to support
implementation of NextGen enabled activities, specifically mentioning
research in procedure development, and development and testing to
support future certification and environmental approval. You also
suggested there was much more work still to be done. What other lines
of research should FAA pursue in order to enable full operational
benefits of NextGen?

A1. In order to achieve significant operational benefits from the
NextGen investment it will be necessary to change the operational
procedures to take advantage of the improved performance from the
advanced NextGen Communication, Navigation and Surveillance
infrastructure. If we only use these technologies to fly our current
procedures and separation standards the operational benefit will be
limited. Research is needed to support the definition of new high
performance procedures and new ways of operating. The research should
also provide data to support the safety analysis required for
operational approval. It is extremely difficult to prove that a new
NextGen procedure will not compromise the extraordinarily high level of
safety slowing down NextGen implementation. Research in new approaches
to safety analysis may provide approaches which will allow
implementation of the high benefit NextGen procedures while assuring
that the high level of safety of the system is maintained. A similar
need for innovative research exists in the environmental domain.

Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello

Q1. In your view, what are the impediments to FAA's implementation of
R&D Advisory Committee (REDAC) Recommendations and what should be done
to address those impediments?

A1. The FAA has responded to all REDAC recommendations and has
developed a formal tracking process to monitor the response to REDAC
recommendations. In some cases the FAA is limited in it's ability to
implement recommendations due to resources, personnel, culture or other
higher priority issues which slow the response. In some cases the FAA
may disagree with the REDAC recommendations.

Q2. How can the Congress assess whether initial NextGen building
blocks are achieving intended delay reductions in the absence of
clearly defined metrics to measure benefits.

A2. There is good tracking of delay data at the airport, facility and
system level, which is reported by the FAA and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics so it is possible to track the overall delay
trends. There are a number of factors which make it difficult to
attribute delay reduction to specific NextGen building blocks. First,
changes in traffic demand and weather conditions will change the
baseline delay expectation and confound the delay data. Second, NextGen
will require multiple ``building blocks'' as well as new procedures in
order to achieve delay reduction. A single ``building block'' such as
ADS-B, RNP or 3D trajectory management will have limited benefit on
it's own without the other elements.

Q3. You state that the REDAC is concerned that there does not appear
to be a clear high level Research and Development plan for NextGen that
articulates the critical NextGen needs and links them to the R&D
portfolio. Why is this important and has the FAA responded to the
REDAC's concerns? What should be the role of the JPDO in the
development of the R&D plan?

A3. A high level Research and Development plan is necessary to define
and prioritize research requirements as well as to provide the context
for the different research elements and for the stakeholders to have a
clear vision of the system under development. It is also useful in
managing the risk in the development program and coordinating with the
various stakeholders who contribute to or are investing in the NextGen
system.
The initial JPDO NextGen Integrated Plan followed by the Operation
Concepts documents were good motivational documents which outlined the
desired directions for NextGen but were too general to clearly define
research requirements. Subsequently the JPDO defined a vast set of
Operational Improvements which were uneven in detail are so numerous
that it is difficult to identify clear priorities. The FAA's NextGen
Implementation Plan is a reasonable high level document but it is
limited to mid term implementation.
Both the JPDO and the FAA have taken an Enterprise Architecture
approach to define the details of the NextGen program. This approach,
taken from DOD acquisition, is designed for managing complex
acquisition programs. It is useful for managing the acquisition parts
of NextGen but is extremely detailed and complex. Most who attempt to
use the Enterprise Architecture to understand NextGen find it
intractable and it would be extremely useful to have a higher level
Research and Development plan which is consistent with and traceable to
the lower level and more detailed Enterprise Architecture elements. In
the initial development there was an intent to link the Enterprise
Architecture to research requirements. The REDAC applauded this effort
but has not been briefed on the results so it is unclear if this has
been done.

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Peter Bunce, President and CEO, the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association

Questions submitted by Chairman Steven M. Palazzo

Q1. Once an alternative aviation gasoline candidate has been
developed, how long do you estimate it would take to get the fuel
certified?

A1. There are two steps required to ``certify'' an alternative fuel.
First, is an assessment and qualification of a potentially viable
candidate through the establishment of an aviation fuel specification
which is typically done at ASTM in coordination with FAA,
manufacturers, and fuel producers. This step provides the definition
and control necessary for use in aviation. This can be expected to take
2-4 years depending on how different the fuel is.
Second, FAA must certify or approve all existing engines and
aircraft to allow them to operate using the new avgas fuel. Depending
on how different the fuel is and whether any engine modifications are
required, certification/approval of the existing fleet to support a
complete transition could take several years. The automotive industry
transition from leaded to an unleaded fuel took a decade to accomplish
and industry did not have to wait for government certification.

Q2. And in your view, what's the safest and most effective path for
certifying legacy aircraft engines and fuel systems?

A2. First, we will need FAA research and development conducted, in
partnership with industry, to develop the appropriate certification
guidance, standards, processes and regulations necessary to certify/
approve the existing fleet of engines and aircraft to transition to an
alternative unleaded avgas. Second, FAA will need to determine which of
the existing fleet of engines/aircraft it can approve to transition
seamlessly to operate on an unleaded avgas. Finally, FAA and industry
must work in collaboration to identify, evaluate and certify the
modifications necessary for the remaining part of the fleet that could
not transition seamlessly to an unleaded avgas

Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello

Q1. What is the nature of the testing that will be performed at the
Tech Center with regards to alternative fuels?

A1. Testing will be focused on the assessment of fuels and on the
certification approval standards for engines and aircraft.
For fuels, the testing will support the development of assessment
and qualification guidance, standards and processes appropriate for
proposed alternative unleaded avgas candidate fuels. For example, the
testing will evaluate the minimum fuel performance requirements
necessary to ensure it is fit for aviation use including high/low
temperature characteristics, anti-knock tests, and the development of a
performance scale for unleaded fuels. The testing will also assess
exhaust gas emissions to ensure there are no potential new issues/
concerns that would be unacceptable to FAA/EPA.
For engines and aircraft, the testing will support the development
of appropriate FAA certification guidance, standards, processes and
regulations necessary to certify/approve the existing fleet of engines
and aircraft to transition to an alternative unleaded avgas. These will
include determining the tests or limits necessary for safety to address
differences in fuel composition, properties and performance and
determining which engines/aircraft can operate safely on the
alternative unleaded avgas and which engines/aircraft may need
modifications.
Most of these testing requirements are included in the FAA's draft
research plan and 5-year master schedule which was developed in support
of the proposed FY11 R&D program on alternative fuels for general
aviation requesting $2M per year 2011-2015 (http://www.crownci.com/
download/NAAFRP.pdf).

Q2. How long do you think it will take before a new fuel is developed
that is both economical and safe to use by the General Aviation
Community?

A2. With the support necessary from FAA and EPA, GAMA believes an
unleaded avgas can be developed by industry and independently assessed
and qualified by ASTM and FAA within 2-5 years that is potentially
viable from both a safety and cost per gallon perspective. The
identification of a viable unleaded avgas by May 2013 is a key decision
point in the FAA's draft alternative fuels for general aviation
research plan.
However, the total economic impact of an alternative fuel will
require an appropriate transition period commensurate to the level of
impact upon the existing fleet of aircraft (of up to 10-years) to
ensure that current owner/operators of aircraft that may not be able to
transition without some form of modification and re-certification can
plan accordingly. This type of a transition period is consistent with
the automotive industry shift from leaded to unleaded fuel.

Q3. What do you see as the biggest remaining impediments?

A3. The biggest impediments include lack of appropriate coordination
and support from government agencies particularly if EPA fails to
coordinate their policy and regulatory activities with FAA and
industry; lack of political support for the funding necessary to
support this transition; the current economic climate that impacts the
level of private sector resources and investments to address this
problem; and claims of a ``quick-fix'' solution that distracts and
diverts resources from FAA and industry efforts to take a deliberate,
well-thought out approach to addressing this issue.

Q4. Can you expand on your remarks regarding the need for NextGen
research to benefit all segments of the aviation system? Would
projected improvements for air carriers be similarly applicable to the
General Aviation community? If not, what else needs to be done?

A4. General aviation is the most diverse segment of civil aviation. It
is commonly accepted that the NextGen program was established to
address air carrier delays and congestion, while building overall
National Airspace System (NAS) capacity.
The foundational technologies that drive the NextGen evolution for
Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) are data link
communications (C), performance based navigation (N), and Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (S) each of which are in various
degrees of maturity, deployment, and benefit to different segments of
aviation.
In the case of general aviation, performance based navigation is
providing real benefits to operators today through the deployment of
the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) capability in the NAS which
enables enhanced navigation and approaches for general aviation. With
respect to ADS-B, general aviation is recognized as incurring
significant cost with limited benefits for ``Out'' [see quote in FAA
rule at Federal Register Volume 75 at 30187 ``General Aviation: High
Equipage Cost with Little Benefit''] and with respect to ``In'' only
five of the seventeen applications in the FAA's work plan are believed
to be relevant to light general aviation operators [see FAA
Applications Integrated Work Plan (AIWP) Version 2, June 2010].
Finally, in the case of data link communications, light general
aviation is likely to not deploy this technology, while high-end
general and business aviation struggle to achieve a positive cost-
benefit ratio for those airspace areas where data link will be deployed
in the near term such as in North Atlantic Oceanic operations. General
aviation in many cases will be equipping for the principal reason of
maintaining access to airspace and airports.
Since the program for NextGen is built around air carrier
operations, we similarly see the research prioritized toward air
carrier operations and uses. While this is the correct prioritization,
GAMA believes that all segments must be considered. Some targeted
general aviation research is funded and underway in the ADS-B program
to develop a more advanced collision avoidance system. GAMA, as well as
one of our member companies, is currently involved in this research
program and we applaud the FAA for guiding research funds toward the
development of this application.
However, more needs to be done. We would encourage the FAA to look
further into human factors issues surrounding the deployment of data
link for business aviation operators who often conduct single pilot
operations. Similarly, the agency needs to look further into how to
smartly enable the deployment all NextGen technologies into the NAS for
small operators in a streamlined fashion that does not bury the
operator (or the agency) under volumes of red tape with respect to
approvals. Additionally, the FAA must look at tailoring requirements
for equipage so that small aircraft (those certificated under Part 23)
can cost-effectively deploy the equipment in an efficient manner while
ensuring that safety is properly addressed. This does not mean that the
same equipment requirements for avionics such as ADS-B must be applied
to small airplanes, but we must through research look to innovative
ways in which the requirements can be scaled.